Adversus Marcionem V.4 Programmatic Refutation of Marcion’s Antitheses through His Redacted Luke

Irenaeus structural phrase or clause	English translation	Tertullian Latin parallel (with exact citation: work, book, chapter, section)	English translation
Unde et Marcion et qui ab eo sunt ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas… hæc sola legitima esse dicant quæ ipsi minoraveruint	Marcion and his followers cut the Scriptures and claim as legitimate only what they have reduced	“Erubescat spongia Marcionis! Nisi quod ex abundanti retracto quae abstulit, cum validius sit illum ex his revinci quae servavit.” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V.4.2)	“Let Marcion’s sponge blush! I review from abundance what he removed, since he is more strongly refuted from those things which he has preserved.”
Nos autem etiam ex his quæ adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos	We will refute them from the things they still retain	“…cum validius sit illum ex his revinci quae servavit.” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V.4.2)	“…since he is more strongly refuted from those things which he has preserved.”
…decurtantes… scripturas	cutting/shortening the Scriptures	“retracto quae abstulit” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V.4.2)	“I review what he has removed.”

Irenaeus (parallel evidence)	Tertullian (Adv. Marc. V.4 primary text)
“Promissiones autem Abrahae et semini eius… quod est Christus.” (Adv. Haer. III.16.3) “The promises were made to Abraham and to his seed… which is Christ.”	“Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius: non dixit seminibus… sed semini, tanquam uni, quod Christus est.” (Adv. Marc. V.4.2) “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed: he did not say ‘seeds,’ as of many, but ‘seed,’ as of one, which is Christ.”
“Tempora et dispositiones Deus ipse ordinavit.” (cf. AH III.16.6 thematic; economy of times under one Creator) “God himself ordered the times and dispensations.”	“Cum autem evenit impleri tempus, misit deus filium suum… utique is qui etiam ipsorum temporum deus est…” (Adv. Marc. V.4.2) “But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son… namely he who is also the God of the times themselves.”
Prophetic promises fulfilled in Christ: “Prophetae praenuntiaverunt effusionem Spiritus.” (AH III.17.2; Joel prophecy cited) “The prophets foretold the outpouring of the Spirit.”	“…In novissimis diebus effundam de spiritu meo in omnem carnem, secundum Ioelem.” (Adv. Marc. V.4.2) “…‘In the last days I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,’ according to Joel.”
One Creator as sender of the Son: “Non alienus Deus misit Filium.” (cf. AH III.11; IV.6) “Not an alien god sent the Son.”	“Quis pater, nisi qui et factor?” (Adv. Marc. V.4.5) “Who is the Father, if not the Maker?”
Law transformed, not abolished by another deity: “Lex per Christum adimpletur.” (cf. AH IV.9; IV.13) “The law is fulfilled through Christ.”	“…ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret… ut vetera transirent et nova orirentur…” (Adv. Marc. V.4.3) “…to redeem those under the law… so that the old might pass away and the new arise…”
Prophetic criticism of ritual observance from same God: Irenaeus cites prophetic critiques within same divine economy (cf. AH IV.15–17).	“…Neomenias vestras et sabbata… non sustinebo… Odi, reieci cerimonias vestras… Avertam universas iocunditates eius…” (Adv. Marc. V.4.6; Isa 1:13; Amos 5:21; Hos 2:11) “…Your new moons and sabbaths I will not endure… I hate, I reject your ceremonies… I will turn away all her festivals…”
Unity of Old and New Testaments: “Duo testamenta ab uno Deo.” (cf. AH IV.9.1; IV.20)	“…haec sunt enim duo testamenta… eius dei esse utramque dispositionem…” (Adv. Marc. V.4.8) “…these are the two testaments… both dispensations belong to the same God.”
Christ liberates from Law of same Creator: “Libertas in Christo non ab alio Deo.” (cf. AH III.12; IV.13)	“Qua libertate Christus nos manumisit, nonne eum constituit manumissorem qui fuit dominus?” (Adv. Marc. V.4.9) “By the freedom with which Christ freed us — does this not establish as liberator the one who was Lord?”
Spiritual circumcision foretold by prophets: “Circumcisio cordis a prophetis praedicta.” (AH IV.16.1)	“…memor dictum per Hieremiam, Et circumcidimini praeputia cordis vestri… quia et Moyses, Circumcidetis duricordiam vestram…” (Adv. Marc. V.4.10) “…remember what was said through Jeremiah, ‘Circumcise the foreskins of your hearts’… and Moses: ‘Circumcise your hard-heartedness.’”
Law summarized in love commandment: “Diliges proximum tuum… summarium legis.” (AH IV.12.3)	“Tota enim, inquit, lex… Diliges proximum tuum tanquam te.” (Adv. Marc. V.4.12) “For the whole law, he says, is fulfilled: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
God as judge and retributor: “Deus iustus iudex et retributor.” (AH IV.40.1)	“Erratis, deus non deridetur… Quod enim seuerit homo, hoc et metet.” (Adv. Marc. V.4.14) “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked… what a man sows, that he will reap.”
Reality of Christ’s flesh against docetism: “Veram carnem habuit Christus.” (AH III.22.1)	“…stigmata Christi in corpore suo gestare se… iam non putativam, sed veram et solidam carnem professus est Christi…” (Adv. Marc. V.4.15) “…he bears the marks of Christ in his body… thus he professed Christ’s flesh not as imaginary but real and solid.”

This chapter shows clear evidence of the polemical framework often articulated in earlier anti-heretical sources, especially the accusation that heretics claim superior insight beyond the apostles and thereby introduce a second god. Although the language of “putaverunt semetipsos plus invenisse quam Apostoli” does not appear explicitly, the underlying logic governs Tertullian’s interpretation throughout. The narrative emphasis on Paul’s journey to Jerusalem to confer with Peter and the other apostles (“ascendisse Hierosolymam… ut conferret cum illis de evangelii sui regula, ne in vacuum… cucurrisset”) functions as a direct rebuttal to any claim that Paul possessed an independent revelation surpassing apostolic authority. Instead, Paul seeks confirmation within the established apostolic framework, demonstrating continuity rather than innovation. Tertullian repeatedly construes disputes over circumcision and the Law as internal questions of discipline within the Creator’s economy, not as evidence of a new deity, thereby countering the Marcionite claim that Paul proclaimed a god distinct from the Creator. The insistence that Paul acted in coordination with the apostles and within prophetic expectation — reinforced through appeals to Acts, prophetic texts, and apostolic agreement (“dextras ei darent… de officii distributione pepigerunt”) — implicitly characterizes opposing interpretations as attempts to elevate later insight above the apostolic tradition. In this way, the chapter reflects the classic anti-heretical charge that doctrinal novelty arises when interpreters assume themselves wiser than the apostles and thereby invent theological distinctions foreign to the original proclamation.