Irenaeus announces a precise way of defeating Marcion: argue from the scriptural material that Marcion’s own community still preserves. The later parallels are explicit. Tertullian applies this program to the Gospel and then to Paul; Epiphanius repeatedly describes the same undertaking; and the Adamantius Dialogue stages it as a debate with Marcionites.
The question for Table 4 is how closely these writers repeat Irenaeus’s method. The comparison does not require identical biblical quotations. It asks whose text supplies the evidence, which books are used, and why the surviving passages are thought to refute their possessors.
Irenaeus’s announcement: Adversus haereses III.12.12
Unde et Marcion, et qui ab eo sunt, ad intercidendas conversi sunt Scripturas, quasdam quidem in totum non cognoscentes, secundum Lucam autem Evangelium et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes, haec sola legitima esse dicunt, quae ipsi minoraverunt. Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos, donante Deo, in altera conscriptione.
English: Hence Marcion and his followers turned to cutting up the Scriptures, rejecting some altogether, but shortening the Gospel according to Luke and Paul’s letters; they say that only those which they themselves have reduced are legitimate. But we shall also refute them, God granting, from what is still preserved among them, in another treatise.
Latin text: Irenaeus, Adversus haereses III.12.12. Irenaeus wrote in Greek; the wording above is the ancient Latin translation. “Against Marcion” is used here as a convenient name for the projected refutation. The sentence itself promises “another treatise”; it does not supply a formal title or establish that the project was completed.
The preceding sentence is essential. Irenaeus names both the Gospel according to Luke and Paul’s letters. His proposal is therefore broader than an argument from a shortened Luke alone. The whole program is: these opponents accept a reduced collection; even the material they preserve is sufficient to refute them; the refutation will be undertaken with God’s help.
Table 4. Echoes and applications of the retained-text method
“Explicit program” means that the writer actually proposes using the opponent’s accepted or surviving material. “Application” means that he claims to carry out that program. The final row marks a boundary of the comparison. These are selected passages, not a count of every occurrence in the surviving literature.
| No. | Writer and passage | Original wording and English translation | Connection with Irenaeus’s method |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Irenaeus Adversus haereses III.11.7 Earlier statement of the method | ex his quae adhuc servantur penes eum English: from what is still preserved with him | Immediately before the announcement of another treatise, Irenaeus already says that Marcion can be exposed from what survives in his shortened Luke. This supplies the Gospel-specific formulation of the program. |
| 2 | Tertullian Adversus Marcionem IV.6.2 Explicit program: the retained Gospel | competentia autem sententiae suae reservavit. Haec conveniemus, haec amplectemur, si nobiscum magis fuerint, si Marcionis praesumptionem percusserint. English: He retained what suited his own position. We shall engage with these, embrace these, if they prove more on our side, if they strike down Marcion’s presumption. | The passages Marcion retained become the prosecution’s evidence. Tertullian does not merely accuse him of cutting Luke: he announces that the surviving material will defeat his position. |
| 3 | Tertullian Adversus Marcionem IV.34.3 Explicit rule: use what the opponent accepts | Sed quatenus ex his revincendus es quae recepisti English: But since you must be refuted from what you have accepted | This is a compact restatement of Irenaeus’s rule. The immediate application is the controversy over divorce: the accepted Gospel’s teaching is made to support continuity with the Creator. |
| 4 | Tertullian Adversus Marcionem IV.43.7, 9 Application and completion of the Gospel program | Nec parcit nisi eis quae non minus aliter interpretando quam delendo subvertit. English: He spares only things that he undermines just as thoroughly by interpreting them differently as by deleting them. Conclusion, IV.43.9: Christus enim Iesus in evangelio tuo meus est. English: For Christ Jesus in your Gospel is mine. | In discussing the risen Jesus and Luke 24:39, Tertullian distinguishes deletion from reinterpretation of surviving words. He closes Book IV by claiming that Marcion’s own Gospel yields the church’s Christ. |
| 5 | Tertullian Adversus Marcionem V.1.9 The same program extended to Paul | nos proinde probaturos nullum alium deum ab apostolo circumlatum, sicut probavimus nec a Christo, ex ipsius utique epistulis Pauli English: that we shall likewise prove that no other god was proclaimed by the apostle, as we proved that none was proclaimed by Christ either—from Paul’s own letters, of course | The surrounding sentence identifies these letters as mutilated. Books IV and V thus enact the two parts named together by Irenaeus: the Gospel according to Luke and Paul’s letters. |
| 6 | Tertullian Adversus Marcionem V.4.2 The closest Latin formulation | Nisi quod ex abundanti retracto quae abstulit, cum validius sit illum ex his revinci quae servavit. English: Except that I discuss what he removed only by way of surplus, since it is stronger to refute him from what he preserved. | Compare Irenaeus’s ex his … arguemus eos with ex his revinci, and quae … custodiuntur with quae servavit. Tertullian explicitly ranks refutation from retained material above discussion of deletions. |
| 7 | Tertullian Adversus Marcionem V.13.4 The surviving passages are enough | Mihi sufficit, quae proinde eradenda non vidit, quasi neglegentias et caecitates eius accipere. English: For me it is enough to take what he likewise failed to see should be erased as instances of his carelessness and blindness. | While discussing Romans, Tertullian again treats passages left in place as sufficient evidence. He explains their survival as Marcion’s failure to recognize their adverse implications. |
| 8 | Epiphanius Panarion 42.9.5 Explicit program: retained text, refutation, divine help | ἐξ οὗπερ χαρακτῆρος τοῦ παρ᾿ αὐτῷ σῳζομένου, τοῦ τε εὐαγγελίου καὶ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν τοῦ ἀποστόλου, δεῖξαι αὐτὸν σὺν θεῷ ἔχομεν ἀπατεῶνα καὶ πεπλανημένον καὶ ἀκρότατα διελέγξαι. English: From the very form of the text preserved with him—both the Gospel and the apostle’s letters—we can, with God’s help, show him to be a deceiver and deluded, and refute him most thoroughly. | This is the fullest Greek counterpart to III.12.12: material preserved among the opponents; Gospel plus Paul; refutation from that material; and God’s assistance. The resemblance concerns the whole undertaking. |
| 9 | Epiphanius Panarion 42.9.6 The opponent’s admissions and surviving remnants | ἐξ αὐτῶν γὰρ ἀναμφιβόλως τῶν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ ὁμολογουμένων ἀνατραπήσεται. English: For he will undoubtedly be overthrown from the very things he admits. | Epiphanius immediately specifies the remnants of the Gospel and letters still found with Marcion. Their intended result is to show that Christ and the prophets belong together, contrary to Marcion’s separation. |
| 10 | Epiphanius Panarion 42.10.1–3, especially 10.2 A separate collection of usable evidence | ἀναλεξάμενος καθ᾿ εἱρμὸν ἀπὸ τῶν προειρημένων δύο βιβλίων τὰ ἐλέγξαι αὐτὸν δυνάμενα English: selecting in sequence from the two books mentioned above the things capable of refuting him | Epiphanius introduces an earlier dossier and says he selected usable evidence from the Gospel and Apostolikon. In 10.3 Marcion foolishly preserves words against himself. In 10.2 Epiphanius also expressly claims to have taken the books in hand; the shared method does not erase that claim. |
| 11 | Epiphanius Panarion 42.11.13–16, especially 11.15 The shared portion of the two texts | τὸ συναγαγεῖν ὅσα παρ᾿ αὐτῷ τε καὶ παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ηὕρηται συνᾴδοντα English: to gather whatever has been found to agree in both his text and ours | Epiphanius distinguishes alterations and omissions from material both sides retain. He uses this common material to argue for the incarnation, agreement of the Testaments, and the Creator as Christ’s Father. This explains how the retained-text method is supposed to work. |
| 12 | Epiphanius Panarion 42.12.3, closing notice; compare 42.13.1–3 The completed refutation from surviving material | ἀφ᾿ ἧς ἀναλεξάμενοι τὰ κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ σῳζομένων τοὺς ἐλέγχους παρεθέμεθα. English: From it, selecting the things against him from what he preserves, we have set out the refutations. | The closing notice names the surviving remnants of Luke and the Apostle. The retrospective account in 13.1–3 again identifies the selected evidence as scripture still preserved by Marcion. This completes the program announced at 9.5–6. |
| 13 | Adamantius Dialogue De recta in Deum fide I.5; Bakhuyzen, p. 10 Bring the opponent’s Pauline collection | Προένεγκε τὸ ἀποστολικόν σου, εἰ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα περικεκομμένον ἐστί English: Bring forward your Apostolikon, even though it is thoroughly cut down | Megethius rejects Adamantius’s Pauline text; Adamantius demands his opponent’s collection instead, then reads Colossians to establish Mark’s and Luke’s association with Paul. The dramatic procedure implements the same rule. This is an anonymous dialogue, not an authenticated work by Origen. |
| 14 | Adamantius Dialogue De recta in Deum fide II; Bakhuyzen, p. 96 Gleaning the passages left against their own position | ὅσα οὖν μὴ νοήσαντες κατέλειψαν ἑαυτοῖς ἐναντιούμενα, ταῦτα ὥσπερ ἐπιφυλλίδας ἀναλεξάμενος English: Thus, gathering like gleanings the things they left without understanding that these opposed their own position | The preceding sentences say Marcion did not erase everything and that his followers continue removing what conflicts with their view. Adamantius gathers the leftovers and adduces Paul’s appeals to the Law. This closely parallels Tertullian’s “blindness” and Epiphanius’s selection of surviving adverse testimony. |
| 15 | Adamantius Dialogue De recta in Deum fide I.17; Bakhuyzen, p. 36 Boundary case: the disputed text matters | Οὐ γέγραπται ἐν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ εὐαγγελίῳ. English: It is not written in our Gospel. | Megethius objects when Adamantius cites Jesus’s question about Lazarus in John 11:34. Adamantius invokes an earlier agreement to use his own Gospel, then turns to Jesus asking the demon’s name, a Lukan episode. This shows why every Gospel quotation in a debate cannot automatically be assigned to Marcion’s text. |
The closest correspondences
Tertullian supplies the closest Latin restatement. Irenaeus’s ex his … arguemus eos (“from these things … we shall refute them”) reappears in the form ex his revinci (“to be refuted from these things”). What Irenaeus describes as quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur (“what is still preserved among them”), Tertullian calls quae servavit (“what he preserved”). The point is an evidential preference: the case is stronger when it succeeds on the opponent’s accepted text.
Epiphanius repeats the fullest combination of features. At 42.9.5–6 he joins surviving material, Gospel and apostolic letters, refutation, and divine assistance. His σὺν θεῷ (“with God’s help”) corresponds in function to Irenaeus’s donante Deo (“God granting”). His repeated references to material “still” surviving with Marcion reproduce the premise of Irenaeus’s adhuc (“still”). No one of these expressions is distinctive by itself; their combination makes the methodological resemblance substantial.
The Adamantius Dialogue shows the same method in action. The demand for Megethius’s own Apostolikon is particularly clear. Its account of gathering overlooked “gleanings” also resembles Tertullian’s explanation that Marcion failed to recognize the adverse implications of passages he left intact. The shared claim is that the adversary’s editorial work has failed on its own terms.
Other comparisons: where the evidence is weaker
Origen, De principiis II.4.1–2: Origen likewise argues that the Gospel and Paul identify Christ’s Father with the God of the Law and prophets. But this discussion ranges through Matthew, John, Acts, and a citation from 2 Timothy, as well as Romans. It does not announce a restriction to passages retained in Marcion’s collection. It is a parallel in doctrinal purpose, and should not be counted as an equally explicit statement of Irenaeus’s retained-text method. Read the passage.
Ephraim’s anti-Marcionite discourses: these also use Gospel material against Marcionite theology. However, F. C. Burkitt’s introduction to the Prose Refutations, pp. cxvii–cxix, distinguishes their procedure from the textual controversy in Tertullian and Epiphanius. He questions whether Ephraim knew the distinctive contents of Marcion’s Gospel and identifies allusions drawn from elsewhere in the Gospel tradition. That is Burkitt’s assessment, rather than a declaration by Ephraim. It gives a reason to avoid classifying every anti-Marcionite Gospel argument as an echo of the specific program in III.12.12. Read Burkitt’s discussion.
What follows for the lost-work hypothesis?
The later refutations repeatedly carry out the program Irenaeus announced. The parallel is strongest when several features occur together: a reduced Luke and Pauline collection, a decision to argue from its surviving contents, and a claim that those contents establish continuity with the Creator and the older scriptures. Tertullian’s Books IV–V and Epiphanius’s Gospel-and-Apostle dossier are substantial realizations of that program.
This makes an inherited Irenaean framework a serious possibility. Tertullian’s documented reworking of Irenaeus in Adversus Valentinianos supplies a relevant model of how earlier heresiological material could be adapted for another author’s polemic. It provides an analogy for the proposed reuse of an Irenaean anti-Marcionite work; it does not supply that lost work’s text. See Riley’s introduction and source analysis.
The present table establishes the shared method more securely than a particular line of literary descent. Arguing from an opponent’s admissions is also a general polemical technique, and Irenaeus’s surviving announcement itself could have circulated the program. Moreover, the Latin of Irenaeus is a translation, so its verbal resemblance to Tertullian’s Latin cannot by itself demonstrate direct borrowing. Shared passage order, unusual arguments, or distinctive shared mistakes would be needed to strengthen the case for a specific lost source.
Nor does the method alone settle who inspected a Marcionite manuscript. A writer could inherit an argument and consult a text as well. Epiphanius expressly claims such consultation at 42.10.2. That claim must be assessed alongside his actual readings; the parallels in his method neither authenticate every reading nor disprove his report of consultation.
Irenaeus’s promise supplies a documented antecedent for the later strategy. Before treating Tertullian’s and Epiphanius’s methodological declarations as independent evidence of fresh textual investigation, we should test whether their arguments preserve an inherited anti-Marcionite dossier. Table 4 identifies the passages where that test can begin.
Texts and references
- Irenaeus: Adversus haereses III.11.7 and III.12.12, ancient Latin version; Harvey text as transcribed at Bibleox, checked against the parallel transcription of III.12.12. Section references follow the usual modern numbering; Harvey’s chapter divisions can differ.
- Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem IV and V, with chapter and subsection numbers as cited in the table.
- Epiphanius: Panarion 42.9–13; Karl Holl’s Greek text, digitized by the Open Greek and Latin / First1KGreek project. The text of heresy 42 belongs to Holl’s second volume, GCS 31 (1922). The closing notice quoted in the table falls within the long subsection 42.12.3.
- Adamantius Dialogue: W. H. van de Sande Bakhuyzen, ed., Der Dialog des Adamantius, GCS 4 (1901), printed pp. 10, 36, and 96. The linked PDF reproduces the Greek pages. Page 96 is cited by edition page rather than an unverified chapter subdivision.
- Further comparisons: Origen, De principiis II.4.1–2, preserved in Rufinus’s Latin translation; F. C. Burkitt, introduction to C. W. Mitchell’s S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations, II (1921), pp. cxvii–cxix; Mark T. Riley, Q. S. Fl. Tertulliani Adversus Valentinianos: Text, Translation, and Commentary (1971), introduction, especially the discussion of sources.
