Adversus Marcionem V.21 Programmatic Refutation of Marcion’s Antitheses through His (Allegedly) Redacted Luke

Irenaeus structural phrase or clause	English translation	Tertullian Latin parallel (with exact citation: work, book, chapter, section)	English translation
Marcion… ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas	Marcion mutilates scriptures	“Soli huic epistulae brevitas sua profuit ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet.” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V.21.1)	“Only this epistle was spared by its brevity from the falsifying hands of Marcion.”
hæc sola legitima esse dicant quae ipsi minoraverint	Marcion legitimizes altered textual corpus	“Miror tamen… quod ad Timotheum duas et unam ad Titum… recusaverit. Affectavit, opinor, etiam numerum epistularum interpolare.” (Adv. Marc. V.21.1)	“Yet I wonder that he rejected the two to Timothy and the one to Titus… he seems even to have wished to manipulate the number of epistles.”
Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos	Refuting opponents from texts they still retain	“quod ea quae praetractata sunt retro de apostolo quoque probaverimus…” (Adv. Marc. V.21.2)	“that we have already proven earlier concerning the apostle…”

TERTULLIAN	IRENAEUS PARALLEL (English quotations from Adversus Haereses)
“Soli huic epistulae brevitas sua profuit ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet.” “The brevity of this epistle alone has benefited it, so that it escaped the falsifying hands of Marcion.” (Adv. Marc. V.21.1)	Irenaeus similarly accuses Marcion of textual mutilation: “Marcion… mutilates the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the epistles of Paul.” (Adv. Haer. III.12; cf. III.14)
“Miror tamen, cum ad unum hominem litteras factas receperit, quod ad Timotheum duas et unam ad Titum de ecclesiastico statu compositas recusaverit.” “Yet I wonder that, although he received letters written to a single person, he rejected the two to Timothy and the one to Titus composed concerning ecclesiastical order.” (Adv. Marc. V.21.1)	Irenaeus defends apostolic succession and ecclesial order against heretics who reject authoritative writings: “It is within the power of all… to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world.” (Adv. Haer. III.3.1)
“Affectavit, opinor, etiam numerum epistularum interpolare.” “He seems to have attempted even to manipulate the number of the epistles.” (Adv. Marc. V.21.1)	Irenaeus accuses heretics of rearranging or altering apostolic writings: “They adapt the oracles of God to their own opinions… transferring passages and changing them.” (Adv. Haer. I.8.1; III.12)
“Memento, inspector, quod ea quae praetractata sunt retro de apostolo quoque probaverimus…” “Remember, reader, that what has already been discussed earlier we have also demonstrated concerning the apostle.” (Adv. Marc. V.21.2)	Irenaeus repeatedly appeals back to previously established apostolic authority as cumulative argument: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us.” (Adv. Haer. III.1.1)
“…ne aut hic supervacuam existimes iterationem… aut illic suspectam habeas dilationem…” “…so that you do not consider repetition here superfluous nor suspect the earlier delay.” (Adv. Marc. V.21.2)	Irenaeus similarly defends repetition as necessary against heretical distortions: “Since they employ many arguments, we must often return to the same points.” (Adv. Haer. II.1; methodological remarks throughout III–IV)

In this brief section the same anti-heretical logic is still discernible insofar as Tertullian frames Marcion not merely as an interpreter but as an innovator who alters the inherited apostolic corpus and implicitly claims greater discernment than the apostles themselves. The remark that the Epistle to Philemon escaped Marcion’s “falsarias manus” presents heresy as the result of deliberate textual manipulation rather than faithful transmission, echoing the accusation that certain teachers depart from the true God and construct alternative doctrines through self-confident reinterpretation. The criticism that Marcion rejected other Pauline letters, possibly to reshape the canonical number, reinforces the idea that heretics privilege their own judgment over apostolic authority and thus reconfigure tradition according to preconceived theological schemes. Even the meta-comment about reviewing earlier arguments underscores continuity with a prior rule of faith, contrasting the stability of apostolic teaching with the novelty introduced by later figures who imagine themselves more perceptive than the original witnesses.