Tertullian repeatedly presents himself as refuting Marcion from Marcion’s own Gospel and Pauline letters. At the same time, he repeatedly further emphasizes that the Marcionite gospel is Luke. No one doubts that Tertullian had a personal copy of the Gospel of Luke. The question is: does Tertullian mean "I will refute Marcion out of my personal copy of Luke" or "I will refute Marcion out of a copy of the Marcionite "falsified" Luke.
I have not located an autobiographical statement describing how he obtained a Marcionite manuscript or personally collated it. These are different kinds of claim. Modern scholars commonly infer access to Marcionite scriptural texts, while also recognizing inherited arguments and unreliable comparisons.
The best-supported working explanation is a combination of textual access and earlier polemical material. Exclusive dependence on a pre-existing comparison remains a hypothesis requiring additional evidence. “Canon” below means the Gospel and Pauline collection attributed to Marcion; it does not identify a particular surviving manuscript, its physical format, or an authenticated copy of Marcion’s original edition.
1. What would count as direct access?
| Question | Evidence needed | What should be kept separate |
|---|---|---|
| Did he claim to argue from Marcion’s Scriptures? | An explicit statement of method. | This claim need not describe the source from which he obtained the quotations. |
| Did he consult complete scriptural books? | Evidence of continuous textual knowledge beyond excerpts and reported variants. | An ordered dossier can preserve much of the same information. |
| Did he use Greek or Latin? | Features identifying the language of his source. | A Latin translation of the scriptural books still differs from an earlier author’s refutation or anthology. |
| Did he inherit the comparison and its arguments? | Shared distinctive interpretations, sequences, or errors, preferably with verbal correspondences. | Borrowing arguments does not exclude consulting a manuscript as well. |
No single occurrence of evangelium eius, “his Gospel,” resolves all four questions. Nor does a modern editor’s phrase “he had before him” become a first-person declaration by Tertullian.
2. Tertullian’s own language
References are to Adversus Marcionem (AM). The Latin can be checked in Book I, Book III, Book IV, and Book V. English renderings below are supplied for this discussion.
| Passage | Latin and meaning | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|
| I.1.1–2 His own earlier versions | Novam rem aggredimur ex vetere. Primum opusculum quasi properatum pleniore postea compositione rescideram. “We undertake something new from the old. I had replaced the first, rather hurried little work with a fuller composition.” | The surrounding narrative describes revisions of Tertullian’s own treatise, including an unauthorized circulation. It establishes a compositional history. It is not an admission that the “old” work was Irenaeus’s. The exemplaria mentioned here concern copies of Tertullian’s work. |
| I.29.9 Examination promised | … sicut et ipsarum scripturarum examinationem quibus Marcion utitur. “… as also the examination of the very Scriptures which Marcion uses.” | A promised stage of the argument. Together with I.15.1 and I.16.2, it helps distinguish the general discussion from the later scriptural examination. It does not date the acquisition of a manuscript. |
| IV.1.1 Appeal to his Gospel | … ad ipsum iam evangelium eius provocamus quod interpolando suum fecit. “… we now appeal to his very Gospel, which he made his own by adulterating it.” | An explicit claim to base the refutation on Marcion’s Gospel. The claim of “adulteration” also embeds Tertullian’s conclusion about textual history; it is not a neutral description of a difference. |
| IV.2.3–4 Title and identification | Marcion evangelio, scilicet suo, nullum adscribit auctorem. “Marcion assigns no author to his Gospel.” Ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet. “Of the Gospel writers we have, Marcion appears to have chosen Luke to cut up.” | Positive information about the absence of an author’s name, followed by an identification through comparison. Quos habemus refers to the church’s Gospel writers; it does not say “we have a Marcionite codex.” Notice the inferential videtur, “appears.” |
| IV.4.1 Competing textual claims | Ego meum dico verum, Marcion suum. Ego Marcionis affirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. “I say mine is true; Marcion says his is. I affirm that Marcion’s is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is.” | A staged dispute between competing authorities. It shows awareness of reciprocal accusations; it supplies no account of acquisition or collation. |
| IV.5.7 Contemporary alteration alleged | Nam et cotidie reformant illud, prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur. “For they reshape it daily, as they are daily refuted by us.” | An allegation about continuing Marcionite revisions. Taken literally, this makes the identity and date of “Marcion’s text” more complicated. The sentence does not document a comparison of dated copies. |
| IV.6.2 Use the retained material | Competentia autem sententiae suae reservavit. Haec conveniemus, haec amplectemur, si nobiscum magis fuerint… “He retained what suited his position. These we shall confront, these embrace, if they are rather on our side…” | The operative method is refutation from material conceded to be present. That method can accompany manuscript consultation, an inherited selection of passages, or both. |
| IV.7.1 onward Sequential discussion | Anno quinto-decimo principatus Tiberii proponit eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum… “In the fifteenth year of Tiberius’s rule he presents him as descending to Capernaum, a city of Galilee…” | The ensuing discussion broadly follows the Gospel narrative. This is substantial positive evidence for a sequential textual source. A previously ordered commentary or comparison could, however, transmit a sequence too. |
| V.1.4 An adopted persona | Adhuc ego in persona discipuli et inquisitoris conversor… “I am still acting in the character of a disciple and inquirer…” | Tertullian himself identifies a rhetorical role. Direct address, questions put to Marcion, and “you say” cannot independently prove an actual encounter with Marcionites or a document. |
| V.4.8 A rendering encountered | Haec sunt enim duo testamenta, sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum… “For these are two testaments, or two presentations, as we have found it rendered…” | This is a real reference to an encountered rendering of Galatians 4. It does not identify the source: scriptural translation, quotation, gloss, or earlier discussion. It deserves more weight than a generic apostrophe, but cannot by itself identify a lost refutation. |
| V.14.6 A large textual gap | Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum intercisae scripturae… “Here too I leap over a very large chasm in the cut-up Scripture…” | A positive allegation of a substantial gap in Romans. This is stronger evidence than merely failing to quote a passage. Nevertheless, a report of a gap could also be inherited. |
| V.17.1 Ephesians/Laodiceans | Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistulam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos… “According to the church’s truth we hold that this letter was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans…” | A definite claim about a competing title. The same paragraph explains a Greek word in Ephesians 1:10; that proves access to Greek Pauline language, but does not identify which party’s manuscript supplied it. |
| V.18.1 A preposition | Rapuit haereticus In praepositionem, et ita legi facit: Occulti ab aevis deo qui omnia condidit. “The heretic snatched away the preposition in, and makes it read thus: ‘hidden for ages from God, who created all things.’” | A specific alleged variant in Ephesians 3:9. The rendering follows Tertullian’s construal of deo, discussed below. Reporting a difference and attributing its deliberate creation to Marcion are separate acts. |
| V.21.1 Collection boundaries | … quod ad Timotheum duas et unam ad Titum … recusaverit. “… that he rejected two [letters] to Timothy and one to Titus…” | Tertullian contrasts the retained Philemon with the rejected Pastorals. He claims knowledge of collection boundaries, not merely isolated readings. Such boundaries could nevertheless be known through reports. |
The positive evidence must be allowed its force. Tertullian claims more than knowledge of Marcion’s general theology. He offers a sustained sequence, titles, collection boundaries, and specific textual differences. Any theory of entirely indirect access must explain how these reached him. Conversely, such information is transmissible: its presence alone does not establish that every report arose from his personal inspection.
3. A comparison that goes wrong: Luke’s “division” and Matthew’s “sword”
AM IV.29.13 quotes Jesus as bringing separationem, “division,” and then objects:
Machaeram quidem scriptum est. Sed Marcion emendat.
“‘Sword,’ indeed, is what is written. But Marcion corrects it.”
Yet Luke 12:51 has διαμερισμόν, “division,” while Matthew 10:34 has μάχαιραν, “sword.” Tertullian’s accusation treats the Matthean parallel as the standard against which Marcion’s Lukan wording is judged. The ordinary Lukan reading is turned into an alleged alteration.
This is a concrete reason to distrust some purported comparisons. Possible explanations include memory of Matthew, a harmonized textual background, or an inherited accusation. The error does not choose between those explanations. Nor does it prove the absence of a Marcionite manuscript: the defective element could be the comparison text or the polemical judgment. Roth discusses this case while affirming direct access (2015, p. 87).
A useful further test would locate the same erroneous accusation in an earlier witness, accompanied by distinctive surrounding argument. A shared mistake of that kind would be considerably more informative about a pre-existing comparison than the mere appearance of a familiar biblical verse in two authors.
4. The Latin may reveal the form of mediation
AM V.18.1 alleges that Marcion removed in from Ephesians 3:9. In Latin, in deo means “in God”; without in, deo can be understood as an ablative, allowing “hidden from God.” In Greek, removing ἐν from ἐν τῷ θεῷ leaves a dative, τῷ θεῷ, rather than the ordinary construction with ἀπό and a genitive for “from God.”
Lang treats this as evidence complicating a uniform Greek-source explanation, allowing multiple versions. The Greek construction is unusual rather than impossible. His conclusion concerns source language, not proof of an earlier anti-Marcionite dossier. See Lang 2017, conclusion; the accepted manuscript has its own pagination.
5. BeDuhn explicitly allows the indirect alternative
BeDuhn initially presents the conventional assessment of direct access, but then qualifies it:
“Although few have questioned that Tertullian had direct access to the Evangelion and Apostolikon, we cannot be absolutely sure.”
He tentatively considers scriptural quotations mediated entirely through the Antitheses, suggested by accompanying interpretations and a possible connected Marcionite argument. Missing quotations could then be mistaken for missing scriptural passages. He does not establish this alternative (The First New Testament, 2013, pp. 34–36).
It is also a different hypothesis from exclusive reliance on Irenaeus. An argument for one intermediary does not identify another.
6. What can actually be traced to a pre-existing refutation?
First, the method predates Tertullian. Irenaeus announces that he will refute the Marcionites from their retained Scriptures: Against Heresies (AH) I.27.4 and III.12.12. The latter specifically identifies their shortened Luke and Pauline letters before promising an additional refutation from the material they retain. Tertullian’s AM IV.6.2 and V.1.9 adopt that same general strategy.
This establishes an earlier framework available for reuse. It does not establish that Tertullian received a completed verse-by-verse comparison from Irenaeus. A projected work is not a surviving source whose contents can be checked. Neither a common method nor Tertullian’s capacity to rewrite another author establishes the exclusive source of AM IV–V.
Second, a distinctive exegetical argument is already present in Irenaeus. AH III.7.1 and AM V.11.9 answer the dualist reading of 2 Corinthians 4:4 through a pause after “God.” This moves “of this age” away from “God” and attaches it to the unbelievers. Tertullian writes:
Nos contra sic distinguendum dicimus: In quibus deus, dehinc: aevi huius excaecavit mentes infidelium.
“We, on the contrary, say it should be punctuated thus: ‘In whom God,’ then: ‘has blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this age.’”
The shared feature is the unusual solution to the interpretive problem. Ordinary textual agreement alone would not explain it. This supports inheritance of an argument, whether directly from Irenaeus or through a shared tradition or intermediary. Tertullian’s more specifically Marcionite application need not have originated in a fresh reading of a Marcionite codex. But even a borrowed interpretation could be applied to a text that he independently consulted.
Third, Tertullian’s own editorial history requires caution. His opening account identifies successive versions. A later book can therefore combine an older argumentative framework with newly accessible materials. The editorial history does not identify every layer’s source, and “new material” need not mean “new manuscript acquisition.”
Judith Lieu’s analysis (pp. 53–54 and 235) combines late direct access with earlier polemical sources. She also warns that direct address follows rhetorical convention. Her account supports a layered composition, rather than an inference that all five books arose from one uninterrupted collation.
The specific Irenaean hypothesis should therefore be stated in stages: an earlier method is attested; an earlier distinctive argument is attested; a completed Irenaean comparison underlying all of AM IV–V is unproven. Showing that one item was inherited would reduce the independence of that item, without automatically invalidating every other textual report.
7. Scholarly positions
The table distinguishes works examined for this inquiry from older positions verified through later scholarly discussion. It is a map of relevant positions, not an exhaustive census of the literature.
| Scholar and location | Position relevant to access | What the position does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Harnack, 1921/1924; Blackman, 1948; Higgins, 1951 Positions verified through Lang 2017, opening discussion and notes 1–6. | Harnack argued for a prepared Latin version. Blackman endorsed that conclusion (p. 132); Higgins defended a Latin Gospel source. | These scholars are not witnesses for an exclusively secondhand anti-Marcionite dossier. Their question is the language of the scriptural source. |
| John Knox, 1942 Marcion and the New Testament, p. 44. | Assumes a Marcionite document lay before Tertullian and infers the Pauline collection’s order from the order of discussion. | Knox acknowledges that Tertullian does not explicitly state that order. An inferred sequence is not a transcription of a contents list. |
| Ernest Evans, 1972 Introduction, §II.v, pp. xx–xxi. | States: “He had before him Marcion’s Antitheses and the Greek text of his gospel and apostolicon.” Also recognizes extensive borrowing from predecessors. | The statement is Evans’s conclusion, not a quotation from Tertullian. Evans qualifies precise assignments of material to particular predecessors. |
| Dieter T. Roth, 2009/2015 2009 article, pp. 429–467; The Text of Marcion’s Gospel, pp. 84–90. | Defends use of a Greek Gospel copy translated into Latin as needed. Also examines citation habits and imperfect comparisons. | Access does not make each Latin quotation an exact transcript, or each alleged alteration a reliable account of Marcion’s editing. |
| Jason BeDuhn, 2013 The First New Testament, pp. 34–36. | Recognizes the prevailing direct-access assessment but explicitly leaves an Antitheses-only possibility open. | He neither establishes this possibility nor identifies Irenaeus as the sole intermediary. |
| Judith M. Lieu, 2015 Marcion and the Making of a Heretic, pp. 53–54; 235 and n. 3. | Places direct scriptural access at the stage of Books IV–V while recognizing earlier sources and reused polemic. III.5.4’s order and use of “Ephesians” help motivate her distinction. | She does not deny access in IV–V. The earlier order and title cannot alone date acquisition. |
| T. J. Lang, 2017 “Did Tertullian Read Marcion in Latin?”, ZAC 21:63–72. | Ephesians 3:9 complicates a uniform Greek-source explanation; multiple versions remain possible. | His argument concerns language and interpretive mediation, not proof that Tertullian never consulted Marcionite Scriptures. |
Schmid’s Marcion und sein Apostolos (1995), pp. 40–59 and 62–105, is a central further reference for the Pauline source language and citation habits; its relevant position was checked through Lang and Roth, not by an independent reading of the whole monograph. The Gospel and Pauline collection must remain separately testable.
8. The conclusion the evidence supports
“Tertullian demonstrably had an authenticated Marcionite canon open before him throughout the composition” overstates what his own declarations establish. He claims to argue from Marcion’s scriptural texts, but does not supply a manuscript’s provenance or describe a controlled collation. His comparisons include errors, and some arguments demonstrably have predecessors.
“Tertullian never consulted Marcionite scriptural books” also exceeds the evidence. It has to explain the sustained narrative sequence and positive information about titles, collection boundaries, gaps, and individual variants. An intermediary could convey these, but that possibility must be demonstrated rather than assumed.
The strongest working account combines consultation of Marcionite textual material with inherited arguments, flexible quotation, and comparison against Tertullian’s own scriptural knowledge. The narrower research question is answerable item by item: which alleged Marcionite readings require independent inspection, and which can be accounted for by earlier quotations or comparisons? BeDuhn supplies an explicit scholarly opening for the latter possibility. The Irenaean parallels supply concrete material with which to investigate it.
Sources and verification
- Primary Latin: Tertullian, AM I, III, IV, V. Section references permit checking against critical editions.
- Irenaeus: AH I.27.4, III.7.1, III.12.12. The links provide the public-domain English translation.
- Evans: Ernest Evans, ed. and trans., Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), introduction, especially §II.v, pp. xx–xxi.
- Roth: Dieter T. Roth, “Did Tertullian Possess a Greek Copy or Latin Translation of Marcion’s Gospel?”, Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009):429–467; The Text of Marcion’s Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 84–90. Publisher’s opening preview of chapter 4; full volume consulted.
- BeDuhn: Jason David BeDuhn, The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon (Salem, OR: Polebridge, 2013), pp. 34–36. Searchable copy.
- Lieu: Judith M. Lieu, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 53–54, 235 and n. 3. Publisher’s chapter page; full volume consulted.
- Lang: T. J. Lang, “Did Tertullian Read Marcion in Latin? Grammatical Evidence from the Greek of Ephesians 3:9 in Marcion’s Apostolikon as Presented in the Latin of Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem”, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 21 (2017):63–72, DOI. Open accepted manuscript; manuscript pages 1–15 do not correspond one-for-one to journal pages.
- Knox: John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), p. 44. The full volume was examined at the relevant discussion.
Research checked 7 November 2026. Modern scholarly proposals have been distinguished from Tertullian’s self-description and from the inferences offered in this discussion.
