Tertullian and Irenaeus share substantial Gospel and Pauline material, including some significant readings and interpretive arguments. The strongest agreements go beyond quoting the same familiar verses: both defend positive yielding in Galatians 2:5, use the hortatory form of 1 Corinthians 15:49, and propose the same punctuation solution for “the god of this age” in 2 Corinthians 4:4.
The preceding tables compared Tertullian with himself, with Epiphanius, and with the announced method of Irenaeus’s anti-Marcionite project. Table 5 compares Tertullian’s actual Gospel and Pauline citations with the surviving Irenaean evidence. It asks separately whether their wording agrees, whether they defend a particular reading, and whether they build the same argument from it.
This is a targeted comparison of thirty cases: twelve Gospel and eighteen Pauline. It identifies agreements and controls them against visible differences. The examples were selected because they can illuminate the relationship; their proportions are not a frequency estimate for every biblical citation in either author.
What counts as agreement
Irenaeus wrote in Greek; much of Against Heresies survives principally in an ancient Latin translation. Tertullian wrote these works in Latin. A shared Latin phrase can therefore arise through the translation and transmission of Scripture as well as through literary borrowing. It does not automatically prove that Tertullian copied the ancient Latin version of Irenaeus. The date and role of that version are separate questions.
Each row has one primary classification. A identifies a stable displayed Latin core; B identifies close agreement with variation; C identifies a shared defended reading; D identifies a shared interpretation; E preserves a substantial difference in wording or quotation extent. The categories do not rank every kind of evidence on one scale: an unusual shared interpretation can be more informative than an exact but commonplace phrase.
AH means Irenaeus, Adversus haereses; AM means Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem. Every Latin excerpt has an English rendering. Ellipses mark omissions; supplied labels in square brackets distinguish a rejected quotation from Tertullian’s reply. Punctuation, capitalization, i/j, u/v, and typographical ligatures are not counted as independent differences. A quotation of a synoptic parallel is identified as such.
Most importantly, a citation inside Against Marcion is not automatically a reading attributed to Marcion’s own collection. Tertullian also quotes his own text, discusses what he says Marcion removed, and paraphrases. Similarly, a verse quoted while Irenaeus reports Valentinian or Marcosian exegesis does not become evidence for Marcion’s Gospel merely because its wording resembles Tertullian’s.
| Primary classification | Cases | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| A — Same displayed Latin core | 4 | Only the displayed clause matches; no claim is made for a complete verse or its independent transmission. |
| B — Close textual or semantic agreement | 14 | The cited material agrees in substance with lexical, syntactic, ordering, or synoptic variation. |
| C — Shared reading defended | 2 | The comparison concerns a specifically defended reading; the rejected wording must be kept separate. |
| D — Shared interpretation | 7 | The passage is read in a similar argumentative way; this does not imply identical Latin. |
| E — Material difference in wording or quotation extent | 3 | A significant difference remains visible, while its cause may be uncertain. |
Table 5A: Gospel citations
| Passage | Irenaeus’s citation or use | Tertullian’s citation or use | Agreement and its significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Luke 6:24 | Vae vobis divites, quoniam percipitis consolationem vestram. English: Woe to you rich people, because you receive your consolation. | Quoniam ... recepistis advocationem vestram. English: Because ... you have received your consolation. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement Both discuss the rich receiving their consolation. Percipitis differs from recepistis, and consolationem from advocationem. Tertullian’s Latin synonym does not by itself identify a different Greek Gospel. His surrounding text also explicitly identifies the saying as a woe against the rich. |
| 2 Luke 6:27–28; Matthew 5:44 | Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro eis qui vos oderunt. English: Love your enemies, and pray for those who hate you. | Diligite inimicos vestros, et benedicite eos qui vos oderunt, et orate pro eis qui vos calumniantur. English: Love your enemies, bless those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement The love command agrees, but the expanded forms distribute hating, blessing, and praying differently. Irenaeus links prayer to those who hate; Tertullian links blessing to them and prayer to those who mistreat. This is shared teaching with a real difference in its citation form, not an identical full verse. |
| 3 Luke 6:29; Matthew 5:40 | Tollenti enim tibi tunicam ... remitte ei et pallium. English: To the person taking your tunic ... give up your cloak as well. | Super tunicam pallio quoque cedi ... supplementa consentanea disciplinae creatoris. English: To give up the cloak as well as the tunic ... additions consistent with the Creator’s teaching. | D — Shared interpretation Tertullian paraphrases rather than quotes a complete saying. Both writers make the same argumentative move: the greater demand develops the Creator’s moral instruction. Irenaeus explicitly opposes Marcion’s claim of contradiction in the preceding section, IV.13.1. This agreement concerns a textual example together with its anti-Marcionite use. |
| 4 Luke 6:31; Matthew 7:12 | Quemadmodum vultis ut faciant vobis homines, facite eis. English: As you wish people to act toward you, act toward them. | Et sicut vobis fieri vultis ab hominibus, ita et vos facite illis. English: And as you wish people to act toward you, so act toward them yourselves. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement The positive Golden Rule is clear in both. The Latin syntax changes from an active construction to a passive one, and the connective words differ. Tertullian then supplies the negative counterpart as an implication of the saying; it should not be silently included in his Gospel quotation. |
| 5 Matthew 5:45 | Solem suum oriri facit super bonos et malos, et pluit super justos et injustos. English: He makes his sun rise over good and bad people, and sends rain on the just and unjust. | Pluit super iustos et iniustos, et solem suum oriri facit super bonos et malos. English: He sends rain on the just and unjust, and makes his sun rise over good and bad people. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement The two clauses closely agree, but their order is reversed. Tertullian uses the saying to explain the Creator’s goodness. This is a Matthean parallel introduced within his own argument about Luke’s rich ruler; its appearance in Against Marcion does not establish that Marcion possessed Matthew. |
| 6 Luke 10:21; Matthew 11:25 | Confiteor tibi Pater, Domine caeli et terrae. English: I acknowledge you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth. | Gratias ... ago, et confiteor, domine caeli. English: I give thanks ... and acknowledge you, Lord of heaven. | D — Shared interpretation Both use the lordship of heaven to identify the Father with the Creator. Tertullian’s displayed excerpt is shorter and employs an expanded thanksgiving formula. The common referent and argument are stronger than the verbal match; this pair alone cannot decide why Father and earth are absent from his excerpt. |
| 7 Luke 10:22; Matthew 11:27 | Nemo cognoscit Filium nisi Pater, neque Patrem quis cognoscit nisi Filius ... English: No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son ... | Nemo scit qui sit pater, nisi filius, et qui sit filius, nisi pater, et cuicunque filius revelaverit. English: No one knows who the Father is except the Son, and who the Son is except the Father, and anyone to whom the Son has revealed him. | D — Shared interpretation Both oppose using reciprocal knowledge as proof of an otherwise unknown God. The quotation forms differ: cognoscit/scit, Son-first/Father-first, and the wording of revelation. Irenaeus also reports an opponent’s past-tense cognovit, knew. Tertullian’s present scit must not be equated with that reported alteration merely because the order agrees. |
| 8 Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4–5 | Nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus, animam autem non possunt occidere ... qui habet potestatem et corpus et animam mittere in gehennam. English: Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul ... [fear the one] who has power to cast both body and soul into Gehenna. | Nolite terreri ab eis qui vos solummodo occidere possunt ... Timete eum qui postquam occiderit, potestatem habet mittendi in gehennam. English: Do not be frightened by those who can only kill you ... Fear the one who, after killing, has power to cast into Gehenna. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement The warning agrees in substance; Irenaeus uses the body/soul formulation associated with Matthew, Tertullian the after-killing formulation associated with Luke. This is agreement between synoptic parallels, not identity of Gospel wording. Both attach the warning to disciples’ willingness to face persecution. |
| 9 Luke 16:13; Matthew 6:24 | Non potestis Deo servire, et Mammone. English: You cannot serve God and Mammon. | Non potestis deo servire et mammonae. English: You cannot serve God and Mammon. | D — Shared interpretation The injunction closely agrees despite the form of Mammon’s name. More significantly, both deny that the two masters identify two gods: Mammon means wealth, not a second deity. Tertullian explicitly rejects taking Mammon as the Creator and God as a higher rival. The shared interpretive problem is more informative than the short saying alone. |
| 10 Luke 18:19; Mark 10:18; Matthew 19:17 parallels | Quid me dicis bonum? unus est bonus, Pater in caelis. English: Why do you call me good? One is good, the Father in heaven. | Sed quis optimus, nisi unus ... deus? English: But who is supremely good except the one God? | E — Material difference in wording or quotation extent Both discuss the restriction of goodness to one, but the formulations materially differ: Father in heaven versus God, and bonus versus optimus. Irenaeus is reporting the use made of the saying by opponents described in Book I, not transcribing Marcion’s Gospel. Their evidence must not be collapsed into a single Marcionite reading. |
| 11 Matthew 19:17–21; Luke 18:20–22 | Custodi praecepta ... vende omnia quae habes, et divide pauperibus, et veni, sequere me. English: Keep the commandments ... sell everything you have, distribute it to the poor, and come, follow me. | Unum ... tibi deest: omnia, quaecunque habes, vende et da pauperibus ... et veni, sequere me. English: One thing ... you lack: sell everything you have and give to the poor ... and come, follow me. | D — Shared interpretation Both keep the sequence of commandments, disposal of possessions, and following Jesus; both use it to connect Christ’s instruction with the Creator’s law. The Gospel forms and some wording differ. Irenaeus’s paragraph also rejects announcing another Father to those who follow Christ. This is a significant shared anti-heretical argument, without an exact verbal copy. |
| 12 Luke 24:39 | Spiritus enim neque ossa, neque carnes habet. English: For a spirit has neither bones nor flesh. | Spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. English: A spirit does not have bones, as you see me having. | E — Material difference in wording or quotation extent Both support bodily reality with the risen Christ’s comparison with a spirit. Irenaeus mentions bones and flesh; the Tertullianic citation here mentions bones. That difference must remain visible. Tertullian explicitly argues that Marcion retained this inconvenient material and reinterpreted it, but these two excerpts alone do not establish who first omitted flesh or why. |
Table 5B: Pauline citations
| Passage | Irenaeus’s citation or use | Tertullian’s citation or use | Agreement and its significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 Galatians 1:1 | Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus, neque per hominem, sed per Jesum Christum et Deum Patrem. English: Paul [is] an apostle not from human beings, nor through a human being, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father. | Non ab hominibus nec per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum. English: Not from human beings nor through a human being, but through Jesus Christ. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement The defining denial of human authorization agrees closely. Irenaeus continues with God the Father; Tertullian stops earlier in this excerpt and proceeds to question how Paul’s credentials are established. This demonstrates a shared Pauline clause, not by itself a shared complete opening of Galatians. |
| 14 Galatians 2:5 | Ad horam cessimus subjectioni, uti veritas Evangelii perseveret apud vos. English: For a time we yielded in submission, so that the truth of the Gospel might continue among you. | [Quoted wording:] nec ad horam cessimus subiectioni. [Tertullian’s reply:] Ergo cesserunt ... Necessario igitur cessit ad tempus. English: [Quoted wording:] We did not yield in submission even for a time. [His reply:] Therefore they did yield ... He therefore necessarily yielded for a time. | C — Shared reading defended A particularly important agreement: Irenaeus’s received Latin is positive, we yielded. Tertullian quotes the negative wording, attacks it as a corruption, and argues for positive yielding. The agreement lies in the reading Tertullian defends, not in the negative line he quotes for refutation. Both connect Paul with Acts and apostolic cooperation. This shared textual position has more diagnostic value than a routine biblical phrase. |
| 15 Galatians 3:16 | Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, et semini ejus ... non dicit, et seminibus, quasi de multis ... quod est Christus. English: The promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed ... he does not say, and to seeds, as of many ... which is Christ. | Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius: non dixit seminibus, quasi pluribus, sed semini, tanquam uni, quod Christus est. English: The promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed: he did not say seeds, as of several, but seed, as of one, which is Christ. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement Both preserve the singular-seed argument and identify the seed as Christ. The grammatical details vary. Crucially, Tertullian immediately invokes Marcion’s eraser and says he is discussing what Marcion removed. Agreement between Irenaeus and Tertullian therefore does not mean that this row attests Marcion’s retention of the verse. |
| 16 Galatians 4:4–5 | Cum autem venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum, factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret ... English: When the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, made from a woman, made under law, to redeem those who were under law ... | Cum autem evenit impleri tempus, misit deus filium suum ... Ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret. English: When the time came to be fulfilled, God sent his Son ... To redeem those who were under law. | E — Material difference in wording or quotation extent Time, sending, sonship, and redemption agree. Made from a woman and made under law appear in Irenaeus’s quotation but not in Tertullian’s displayed sequence. The difference in quotation extent is certain; this comparison alone cannot distinguish abbreviation from a different exemplar or establish a deletion by Marcion. |
| 17 Romans 8:11 | Irenaeus, AH V.7.1; also III.16.9; V.10.2 Qui suscitavit Christum a mortuis, vivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra. English: He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies. | Qui suscitavit Christum a mortuis, vivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra. English: He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies. | A — Same displayed Latin core The displayed ten-word clause agrees exactly after orthographic normalization. Both use mortal bodies as evidence for bodily resurrection. Irenaeus repeats the clause elsewhere, so it is not an isolated translator’s formulation. Nevertheless, a standard Pauline clause can be shared without direct copying. |
| 18 1 Corinthians 6:13 | Non fornicationi, sed Domino: et Dominus corpori. English: Not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. | Non fornicationi sed domino, et dominus corpori. English: Not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. | A — Same displayed Latin core The displayed seven-word core is stable. In both writers the body’s belonging to the Lord supports its salvation and resurrection. Its argumentative connection with the next two verses is more informative than this familiar clause considered alone. |
| 19 1 Corinthians 6:14 | Deus autem et Dominum suscitavit, et nos suscitabit per virtutem suam. English: God both raised the Lord and will raise us through his power. | Qui dominum suscitavit, et nos suscitabit. English: He who raised the Lord will also raise us. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement Both link the resurrection of believers to the Lord’s resurrection, but Tertullian abbreviates the clause and changes its opening construction. In each the verse forms part of a bodily-resurrection dossier rather than an unrelated citation. |
| 20 1 Corinthians 6:15 | Nescitis quoniam corpora vestra membra Christi sunt? English: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? | Nescitis corpora vestra membra esse Christi? English: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? | B — Close textual or semantic agreement Both cite the same question and infer that Christ’s members cannot simply be abandoned to destruction. A quoniam-clause becomes an accusative-and-infinitive construction. Irenaeus places this verse before 6:13–14; Tertullian places it after them. Shared exegesis need not preserve the earlier writer’s order. |
| 21 1 Corinthians 15:21 | Irenaeus, AH V.13.4; also III.18.3 Per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio. English: Through a human being came death, and through a human being resurrection. | Per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio. English: Through a human being came death, and through a human being resurrection. | A — Same displayed Latin core The displayed seven-word core agrees. Irenaeus continues with of the dead; the common core is deliberately bounded before that continuation. Both connect Christ’s real humanity with the recovery of embodied humanity. It is not a demonstrated match of every word of the whole verse. |
| 22 1 Corinthians 15:49 | Portemus et imaginem ejus qui de caelo est. English: Let us also bear the image of the one who is from heaven. | Portemus et imaginem caelestis ... Portemus ... non portabimus, praeceptive, non promissive. English: Let us also bear the image of the heavenly one ... Let us bear, not we shall bear: as a command, not a promise. | C — Shared reading defended Both employ the hortatory portemus, let us bear. Tertullian expressly contrasts it with the future portabimus. Both interpret bearing the image in relation to present conduct rather than the abolition of bodily substance. The shared form and its shared use together are substantially more informative than a generic resurrection reference. |
| 23 1 Corinthians 15:50 with Romans 8:8 | Caro et sanguis Regnum Dei possidere non possunt. Et, qui in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt; non substantiam rejiciens carnis ... English: Flesh and blood cannot possess God’s kingdom. And those in the flesh cannot please God—not rejecting the substance of flesh ... | Caro et sanguis regnum dei non possidebunt, opera scilicet carnis et sanguinis ... eos qui in carne sunt deo placere non posse. English: Flesh and blood will not possess God’s kingdom, meaning the works of flesh and blood ... those in the flesh cannot please God. | D — Shared interpretation The cannot/will not wording differs. The stronger agreement is the same cross-reference and the same defence: flesh can designate sinful conduct rather than bodily substance. Read alongside the preceding image-bearing verse and Irenaeus V.11.2, this is a cluster of shared argument, not just one matching proof text. |
| 24 1 Corinthians 15:53 | Irenaeus, AH V.13.3; compare V.10.2 Oportet enim corruptibile hoc induere incorruptelam, et mortale hoc induere immortalitatem. English: This corruptible thing must put on incorruption, and this mortal thing must put on immortality. | Oportet enim corruptivum hoc ... induere incorruptelam, et mortale hoc immortalitatem. English: This corruptible thing must ... put on incorruption, and this mortal thing immortality. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement The transformation argument agrees; corruptibile differs from corruptivum, and Tertullian does not repeat put on in the second member. Both identify the mortal/corruptible referent with the flesh that must be transformed. Irenaeus V.10.2 reverses the order of the two members, a useful internal control on citation flexibility. |
| 25 2 Corinthians 4:4 | In quibus Deus, deinde subdistinguens ... saeculi hujus excaecavit mentes infidelium. English: In whom God—then making a pause—... has blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this age. | In quibus deus, dehinc: aevi huius excaecavit mentes infidelium. English: In whom God; then: has blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this age. | D — Shared interpretation The most conspicuous shared syntactic solution: both move the break after God and attach of this age to the unbelievers, defeating the claim that the verse names a lower god. Saeculum becomes aevum. Tertullian subsequently also entertains identifying the god of this age with the devil in V.11.11. Agreement in this initial solution is not identity of his entire discussion. |
| 26 2 Corinthians 5:4–5 | Ut absorbeatur mortale a vita. English: So that the mortal may be swallowed up by life. | Uti devoretur mortale hoc a vita. English: So that this mortal thing may be swallowed up by life. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement The mortal thing overcome by life agrees, but the verb changes from absorbeatur to devoretur and hoc is explicit only in the Tertullianic excerpt. Both use the saying to defend transformation and preservation of embodied life. These Latin synonyms need not reflect different Greek verbs. |
| 27 Philippians 3:20–21 | Nostra autem conversatio in caelis est ... qui transfigurabit corpus humilitatis nostrae conforme corpori gloriae suae. English: Our commonwealth is in heaven ... [the Lord] who will transform our body of humiliation to conform to his body of glory. | Noster ... municipatus in caelis ... transfigurabit corpus humilitatis nostrae conformale corpori gloriae suae. English: Our citizenship is in heaven ... he will transform our body of humiliation to conform to his body of glory. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement The celestial citizenship and transformed body agree. Conversatio/municipatus and conforme/conformale differ. Both explain the humiliated body as the flesh subjected to suffering and death, and infer its future transformation. That explanatory convergence is stronger than the vocabulary match alone. |
| 28 2 Thessalonians 2:12 | Ut judicentur omnes qui non crediderunt veritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati. English: So that all who did not believe the truth but consented to unrighteousness may be judged. | Ut iudicentur omnes qui non crediderunt veritati sed consenserunt iniquitati. English: So that all who did not believe the truth but consented to unrighteousness may be judged. | A — Same displayed Latin core The displayed ten-word clause agrees after normalizing i/j and punctuation. Both connect the judicial deception with rejection of truth; Tertullian makes its relevance to the just Creator explicit. The surrounding wording of 2:10–11 differs and should not be included in the exact-match claim. |
| 29 Colossians 1:21–22 | Nunc autem reconciliati in corpore carnis ejus, per mortem ejus ... English: But now reconciled in the body of his flesh, through his death ... | Reconciliari nos ait in corpore eius per mortem. English: He says that we are reconciled in his body through death. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement The argument from reconciliation through Christ’s body and death agrees. Irenaeus quotes body of his flesh; Tertullian here paraphrases his body and then explicitly explains death through flesh. It would be unsound to reconstruct the omission of flesh from a Pauline exemplar solely from this paraphrase. |
| 30 Ephesians 5:32 | Hoc enim mysterium magnum est; dico autem in Christo et Ecclesia. English: For this is a great mystery; I speak with reference to Christ and the Church. | Sacramentum hoc magnum est ... ego autem dico ... in Christum et ecclesiam. English: This is a great mystery ... but I speak ... with reference to Christ and the Church. | B — Close textual or semantic agreement Both give the great mystery and its reference to Christ and Church; mysterium becomes sacramentum and the Latin construction varies. Irenaeus is reporting Valentinian use of the verse to support conjunctions, whereas Tertullian uses marriage typology against Marcion. Shared citation is not shared endorsement of an interpretation. |
The agreements that matter most
1. Galatians 2:5: agreement in the positive reading, not in the rejected quotation. Irenaeus’s received Latin says that Paul and his companions yielded for a time. Tertullian quotes the negative line and argues that it is corrupt: his conclusion is that they did yield. Both connect Paul’s conduct with Acts and apostolic cooperation. This is a shared textual position in an anti-heretical argument. It is stronger evidence of a connection or shared textual tradition than the mere occurrence of Galatians in both writers. It still does not identify one unique channel of transmission.
2. First Corinthians 15:49–50 and Romans 8:8: a shared exegetical cluster. Irenaeus and Tertullian both have portemus, “let us bear,” and both connect the heavenly image with present conduct. They then defend the flesh against an exclusionary reading of “flesh and blood,” using Paul’s statement that those in the flesh cannot please God. The common verse order partly comes from Paul himself; what needs explanation is the combination of the preferred verbal form, the ethical interpretation, and the appeal to the second Pauline passage. Tertullian’s wording is not a mechanical transcript of Irenaeus’s Latin.
The Latin needs to be checked directly here. The linked Ante-Nicene Fathers English renders the Irenaean image-bearing clause as the future “we shall also bear,” whereas Harvey’s Latin prints portemus in both V.9.3 and V.11.2. The table translates the displayed Latin rather than substituting that English rendering. As with positive yielding in Galatians 2:5, the agreement is established for the transmitted Irenaean Latin; its precise relation to Irenaeus’s original Greek is a further question.
3. Second Corinthians 4:4: the same unusual punctuation defence. Both propose reading “in whom God,” pausing there, and attaching “of this age” to the unbelievers. This is a specific grammatical repair used to prevent the text from naming a lower deity. The shared repair has greater source-critical value than an ordinary shared quotation. Tertullian expands the discussion and offers another possibility, the devil, so his finished argument has not simply reproduced all of Irenaeus’s conclusions.
4. The embodied-resurrection dossiers. First Corinthians 6:13–15, Romans 8:11, 1 Corinthians 15:53, 2 Corinthians 5:4–5, Philippians 3:20–21, and Colossians 1:21–22 repeatedly supply both writers with the same kinds of inference: the body belongs to Christ, is raised by God, is transformed rather than discarded, and is reconciled through Christ’s actual body and death. Within 1 Corinthians 6, Irenaeus’s order differs from Tertullian’s. The convergence supports investigating literary mediation or a common polemical tradition; it does not require a single fixed sequence of excerpts.
5. Gospel continuity with the Creator. The cloak, the lordship of heaven, the knowledge of Father and Son, the two masters, and the rich ruler all become arguments against separating Jesus from the Creator. Some similarities are common Christian reasoning. Their diagnostic force grows when the same textual example appears with the same particular objection and reply. Ordinary agreement in the instruction to love enemies is less probative than agreement in an unusual syntactic solution.
What the differences prevent us from claiming
The comparison does not produce a uniform Latin text. Consolatio and advocatio, conversatio and municipatus, mysterium and sacramentum, and absorberi and devorari show the range of Latin expression. Clause order and quotation length also vary. In the goodness saying the formulations differ materially; in Luke 24:39 one excerpt includes flesh and bones and the other bones; in Galatians 4:4–5 Irenaeus includes two clauses that Tertullian’s displayed argument passes over.
These differences must be described before they are explained. A Latin synonym need not imply a different Greek reading. A paraphrase need not reproduce every word in the writer’s exemplar. Conversely, a shared interpretation is not a complete verbal match. Nothing is gained by translating both writers into smooth, identical English and then declaring their original wording identical.
Conclusions
There is a substantial shared scriptural and argumentative core. Four displayed Latin cores are stable in this selection; two cases concern a shared specifically defended reading; seven are classified primarily by their shared interpretation. Fourteen others agree closely while differing in expression. Three preserve material differences of wording or quotation extent. Those are classifications of these selected comparisons, not a measure of the whole corpus.
The result strengthens the case for investigating Irenaean mediation in Against Marcion. The most promising evidence is the repeated conjunction of passage, reading, and particular argumentative use. The documented rewriting in Against the Valentinians shows that Tertullian could retain such a core while changing its vocabulary, order, and rhetorical presentation.
What Table 5 can directly establish concerns surviving Irenaean material. It cannot identify the contents of Irenaeus’s unavailable anti-Marcionite work or prove that it was Tertullian’s only source. Shared Scripture, common textual traditions, and inherited anti-heretical arguments remain possible explanations for individual parallels. Nor does agreement decide whether Tertullian also consulted Marcionite copies. Each specific claim of retention or deletion must be distinguished from Tertullian’s own quotation and exposition.
Primary texts and checking the references
Tertullian’s Latin is The Latin Library’s text credited to Ernest Evans (1972), transcribed by Roger Pearse (2002): Book IV and Book V. Individual links use that text’s chapter-and-paragraph anchors. The excerpts are the ancient text; their English renderings are supplied here.
The Irenaean Latin is the ancient version printed in W. W. Harvey, Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis libros quinque adversus haereses (Cambridge, 1857): volume I and volume II, consulted through digital transcriptions and the digitized edition. The complete Latin transcription is useful for locating clauses; obvious OCR debris and ligature errors have not been treated as textual variants. The linked chapter references and the Roberts–Rambaut translation provide a separate check on the passage and argument. Paragraph numbering is normalized to the familiar AH divisions, not Harvey’s differently numbered internal chapters.
English reference texts for Irenaeus: Book I, Book II, Book III, Book IV, and Book V. Especially important controls are III.13.3, III.7.1–2, V.9.3, and V.10.2.
