For their reports of Marcion’s Gospel, I will assume that neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius consulted the text directly, but that both depended on Irenaeus’s lost anti-Marcionite work, here called Adversus Marcionem, announced in Adversus Haereses III.12.12. Epiphanius, unlike Tertullian, explicitly claims to have examined Marcionite copies (Panarion 42.11.16); this working hypothesis therefore sets that claim aside. It also means their agreements cannot automatically be counted as independent manuscript witnesses.
I also assume that Clement’s choice of Mark in Quis Dives Salvetur is significant, and that the Letter to Theodore preserves ancient Clementine testimony about an expanded, authoritative Gospel of Mark at Alexandria. “Alexandrian Mark” here means that work. The question is whether the Gospel attacked as Marcion’s belonged to the same tradition. The following comparisons include textual readings, interpretations, and evidence about transmission. Repeated witnesses are grouped together, and significant differences are retained.
The anonymous rich man: τις. Clement’s explicitly Markan quotation introduces προσελθών τις, “a certain person approaching,” where canonical Mark 10:17 has προσδραμὼν εἷς. Tertullian has ab illo quodam; Epiphanius supplies the actual Greek τις in his Marcionite scholion. This is a shared anonymous designation. Neither witness explains it as a concealed personal name, and Luke already has τις. (Quis dives 4.4–5.1; Adv. Marc. IV.36.4; Panarion 42.11.17, Gospel scholion 50.)
The whole rich-man quotation, not one pronoun. Clement retains ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν, “he loved him,” but adds εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι, “if you wish to be perfect.” His commandments begin with adultery and omit Mark’s “do not defraud.” Tertullian gives the lacking–selling–giving–following sequence, but does not quote the love or perfection clauses here. The cluster makes Clement’s named Mark worth examining as a textual form. (Quis dives 4.5–6; Adv. Marc. IV.36.4–5.)
“No one is good except the Father.” Clement’s Paedagogus has ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, “my Father in the heavens.” Epiphanius expressly says Marcion added ὁ πατήρ. Related Father-language appears among Irenaeus’s Marcosians and in Ptolemy’s letter. This is a substantial cross-group contact, although Clement’s Mark quotation in Quis dives instead has εἷς ὁ θεός; Epiphanius does not attest Clement’s complete Father formula. (Paedagogus 1.8.72.2; Quis dives 4.5; Panarion 42.11.17, scholion 50; Panarion 33.7.5; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. I.20.2; Adv. Marc. IV.36.3.)
The law and the gift still lacking. Clement makes the rich man’s obedience to the law insufficient without the Savior’s further gift. Tertullian defends the Creator’s commandments as life-giving while arguing that Christ augments them. The question is the same; their emphases differ. Clement elsewhere combines the rich-man question with τοῦτο ποίει … καὶ σωθήσῃ, “do this … and you will be saved.” The lawyer and rich-man scenes must nevertheless remain distinct: Tertullian alleges an omission of “eternal” in the former, not the latter. (Quis dives 8.2; 10.3; Paedagogus 3.12.88.2; Adv. Marc. IV.25.14; 36.4–6; Panarion 42.11.17, scholia 23 and 50.)
“From faith to faith.” Clement applies ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν to the rich man’s movement from the law to the Savior. Tertullian interprets Romans 1:17 through the same law-to-Gospel progression, insisting that both belong to one God. The contact lies in their interpretation of Paul within the same problem of salvation beyond legal obedience. (Quis dives 8.5; Adv. Marc. V.13.2.)
The rich man and the capacity to receive. In De monogamia, Tertullian joins “whoever can receive it, let him receive it” to the rich man’s inability to accept the command to distribute his property, emphasizing free choice. Clement likewise distinguishes an inward release from passions from simply becoming poor. This is a further rich-man interpretation, not an additional sentence demonstrably present in either Gospel. (Quis dives 11.2–12.1; De monogamia 14.8–9.)
The good God, sunlight, and rain. Clement and Tertullian connect the only-good-God saying with the Father’s sunlight and rain, identifying goodness and justice in the same Creator. Epiphanius repeats the combined proof against Ptolemy. The sequence is more specific than merely quoting a common verse, but its wider distribution also makes it evidence for a shared controversy rather than a uniquely Marcionite manuscript. (Paedagogus 1.8.72.2–3; Adv. Marc. IV.36.3; Panarion 33.10.5.)
Irenaeus attributes the Father–Son revelation saying to Mark. Clement quotes the saying that no one knows the Father except the Son. Irenaeus expressly says Matthew, Luke, and Mark give it, while John omits it. Canonical Mark contains no such saying. Tertullian discusses it against Marcion. Irenaeus’s explicit Mark attribution is therefore a central anomaly, whether explained by a different Gospel form, conflation, or an attribution error. (Stromata 1.28.178.2; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. IV.6.1; Adv. Marc. IV.25.10.)
“Knew,” “knows,” and the revelation of the Father. Clement uses ἔγνω, “knew.” Tertullian’s Against Marcion has scit, “knows,” with a different clause order. Elsewhere he uses novit, perfect in form but normally present in meaning. These forms belong in the comparison, but Latin novit cannot establish Clement’s Greek tense or prove an identical reading. (Stromata 1.28.178.2; 5.13.85.1; Adv. Marc. IV.25.10; Praescriptione 21.2; Adversus Praxean 8.3.)
“Seek FIRST the kingdom.” Tertullian explicitly says the opponents’ Gospel has Quaerite primum regnum dei. Clement also has πρῶτον, “first,” present in Matthew 6:33 but absent from the Luke 12:31 comparison text. Epiphanius’s scholion omits “first.” This is a useful Clement–Tertullian agreement, with both Matthew and differing citation practices available as explanations. (Paedagogus 2.12.120.2; Stromata 4.6.34.6; Adv. Marc. III.24.8; Panarion 42.11.17, scholion 33.)
The unqualified poor. Clement says Matthew added τῷ πνεύματι, “in spirit,” to the poor beatitude. Tertullian’s Marcionite discussion concerns the unqualified poor. Clement thus distinguishes Gospel formulations instead of assuming one uniform text. The unqualified form is also canonical Luke’s, and Clement does not call its source Mark here. (Quis dives 17.5; Adv. Marc. IV.14.1; 14.13.)
“After three days.” Epiphanius’s Marcionite scholion has μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐγερθῆναι. The Letter to Theodore quotes μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστήσεται immediately before the Bethany insertion. The temporal phrase is Mark-like, although the verbs and passion-prediction settings differ. The letter’s wording is already canonical Mark 10:34, and Epiphanius separately reports omission of the Jerusalem prediction corresponding to Luke 18:31–33. (Panarion 42.11.17, scholia 16 and 52; To Theodore II.20–22.)
Mark and Tiberius’s fifteenth year. Epiphanius says Mark begins ἀπὸ πεντεκαιδεκάτου ἔτους Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, “from Tiberius Caesar’s fifteenth year.” Tertullian places Marcion’s descent to Capernaum in that year. The date is absent from canonical Mark’s opening. This is another Mark-attribution anomaly, although Epiphanius may be harmonizing chronology; Clement expressly labels his own fifteenth-year quotation Luke. (Panarion 51.19.2; 51.6.4; Adv. Marc. IV.7.1; Stromata 1.21.145.2.)
Mark’s movement from Rome to Egypt. Epiphanius places Mark with Peter at Rome, has him write his Gospel, and then sends him to Egypt. The Letter to Theodore likewise moves Mark from Rome to Alexandria, where he expands the work. The shared geographical framework matters, while the chronology differs: Epiphanius has Peter send Mark; the letter places the move after Peter’s martyrdom. Epiphanius does not attest the expansion here. (Panarion 51.6.10; To Theodore I.15–22.)
An anonymous Gospel and the denial of Mark’s authorship. Tertullian says Marcion nullum adscribit auctorem, “assigns no author,” before arguing that he appears to have chosen Luke. Mark 1:1 names Jesus Christ, not its human author: a copy beginning there without a separate heading would be author-anonymous. The letter tells Theodore to deny Mark’s authorship when confronted with the Carpocratian falsification. These features make anonymous Markan circulation conceivable. The unheaded copy remains a proposed situation, not an identified manuscript, and the letter’s denial has a specific polemical context. (Adv. Marc. IV.2.3–4; 3.4; Panarion 42.11.9–16; To Theodore II.10–13.)
Paul’s deposit and a “hidden gospel.” Tertullian connects depositum custodi, “guard the deposit,” and transmission to faithful teachers with an argument for occulti alicuius evangelii, “some hidden gospel.” Clement quotes both the deposit injunction and the same 2 Timothy 2:2 transmission passage, then describes apostolic understanding and practice as a παραθήκη. Tertullian rejects the esoteric argument; Clement preserves guarded transmission. This is a precise controversy about apostolic teaching, although “gospel” need not designate a separate physical book. (Praescriptione 25.2–9; Stromata 1.1.3; 1.1.11.3; 2.11.52.5; 6.15.124.4.)
What is heard in the ear and proclaimed from rooftops. Clement interprets εἰς τὸ οὖς, “in the ear,” as concealed, mysterious instruction, and rooftop proclamation as elevated exposition. Tertullian uses the same command to argue against a secret doctrine contradicting public teaching. The opposing interpretations place both writers within a specific debate about secrecy and disclosure. (Stromata 6.15.124.5; 1.12.55.1; Praescriptione 26.)
Mystical instruction follows Clement’s named Mark quotation. After identifying his rich-man text as Mark, Clement demands investigation of its concealed meaning and mystical instruction. Tertullian also recognizes scriptural figures and mysteries while disputing their interpretation. Clement’s own sequence joins Mark with advanced exegesis; it does not, by itself, establish that the quoted book was physically longer. (Quis dives 5.1–2; Adv. Marc. IV.19.2; Adv. Marc. V.6.2.)
“Confess IN me,” but “deny ME.” Heracleon, quoted by Clement, develops an interpretation from ἐν ἐμοί versus ἐμέ: those who live in Christ confess “in him,” while deniers are outside him. Tertullian examines precisely the distinction between qui in me confessus fuerit and qui me negaverit. This is the kind of grammatical and exegetical contact sought alongside τις. The wording is canonical, and the quoted interpreter is Heracleon, not simply Clement speaking in his own voice. (Stromata 4.9.71–73; Scorpiace 9.8–11.)
Lazarus’s bodily members prove the soul has a body. The Clementine Excerpta argues διὰ τῶν σωματικῶν μελῶν, “through the bodily members,” that the soul is a body. Tertullian similarly reasons from the rich man’s tongue and Lazarus’s finger to corporalitas animae. This is a close shared argument. Epiphanius uses related bodily imagery to defend fleshly resurrection, a different conclusion. The Excerpta remains a collection of mixed Clementine and Theodotan material. (Excerpta 14.4; De anima 7; Panarion 42.11.17, elenchus 56.)
Philip rises from the tomb. Clement names the disciple told to leave the dead and follow Jesus as Philip, explaining that he ἐξανέστη τοῦ μνήματος, “rose from the tomb,” when his passions were put to death. Tertullian discusses the burial saying without Philip’s name, and elsewhere reports opponents interpreting resurrection as escape from ignorance and the old person’s tomb. The shared setting is spiritual resurrection; neither passage establishes Philip as Secret Mark’s physically raised youth. (Stromata 3.4.25.3–4; Adv. Marc. IV.23.10–11; De resurrectione 19.)
“Awake … and arise from the dead.” Clement quotes ἔγειρε … καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, calling Christ the sun of resurrection. Epiphanius transcribes the Ephesians 5:14 saying in his Marcionite Apostle dossier. This gives a shared Pauline awakening text relevant to spiritual resurrection. Clement’s additional κύριος, “Lord,” is not attested in that scholion. (Protrepticus 9.84.2; Panarion 42.12.3, Ephesians scholion 2, global 37.)
The ignorant “rulers of this age.” Clement treats the rulers of 1 Corinthians 2:6–8 through the Lord’s human opponents. Tertullian argues against identifying them with the Creator’s cosmic powers, naming Herod and Pilate. Epiphanius instead presses their plurality and abolition against Marcion’s eternal principles. These are related interpretive disputes, with different human identifications and different arguments. (Stromata 5.4.25.2; Adv. Marc. V.6.5–8; Panarion 42.12.3, 1 Corinthians scholion 3, global 11.)
“LET US bear” the heavenly image. The Excerpta reads φορέσωμεν, “let us bear,” in 1 Corinthians 15:49 and connects it with progress toward perfection. Tertullian defends portemus against portabimus, interpreting the verse as a present exhortation. His De resurrectione explicitly calls the form praeceptivo modo. This is a textual and exegetical contact, but Tertullian is defending his own reading; Epiphanius’s resurrection scholion does not quote this verse. (Excerpta 15.1; Adv. Marc. V.10.10–11; De resurrectione 49; Panarion 42.12.3, global scholion 24.)
“Flesh and blood” as sinful conduct. Clement interprets the corruption excluded from the kingdom through sin rather than treating bodily substance as evil. Tertullian similarly explains caro et sanguis through the deeds of the flesh. Epiphanius also gives an ethical interpretation in his refutation. These are shared anti-dualist arguments; Epiphanius’s explanation is not another quotation from Marcion’s manuscript. (Stromata 3.17.104.5; 2.20.125.6; Adv. Marc. V.10.11–12; 14.4; Panarion 42.12.3, Pauline elenchus on the works of the flesh.)
“Holy, just, and good.” Clement and Tertullian use Romans 7:12, especially δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή, “just and good,” against distributing justice and goodness between opposing gods. Clement also says the law exposes sin rather than producing it. Epiphanius includes the verse among his Marcionite Pauline excerpts. The retained wording and the anti-Marcionite interpretation should be distinguished. (Paedagogus 1.8.73.3; Stromata 3.12.84.1; Adv. Marc. V.13.14–15; Panarion 42.12.3, Romans scholion 5, global 32.)
The mystery hidden IN God or FROM God. Clement links Pauline revelation and graded understanding with mysteries concealed before their disclosure. Tertullian disputes whether Ephesians 3:9 means hidden in deo or hidden from God, accusing Marcion of removing in. Clement’s located passages do not quote that disputed preposition. The common subject is significant, but the precise Marcionite reading remains unpaired. (Stromata 1.28.179.1; 5.10.60.3; Adv. Marc. V.6.2; 18.1–3.)
Ephesians and Laodiceans. Clement explicitly introduces material ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἐφεσίους, “in the letter to the Ephesians.” Tertullian says Marcion titled it Laodiceans. Epiphanius’s dossier is more awkward: it supplies Ephesians scholia and a separately labeled Laodiceans item quoting Ephesians 4:5–6. This cautions against treating inherited titles and collection descriptions as transparent evidence for a single fixed edition. (Stromata 4.8.64.1; Adv. Marc. V.17.1; Panarion 42.12.3, Ephesians and Laodiceans scholia.)
Marriage now and marriage in the resurrection. Clement and Tertullian use Paul’s marriage instructions, including marriage “only in the Lord,” against a universal prohibition. Both also insist that Jesus’s resurrection answer concerns the age to come rather than banning present marriage. Tertullian disputes a reading of “of that age” used to create another deity; Clement challenges divisions into different classes or ages. The controversies overlap without supplying an identical punctuation argument. (Stromata 3.18.108.1; 3.12.80.1; 3.12.87.1–3; Adv. Marc. V.7.7–8; Adv. Marc. IV.38.5–8.)
“Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Tertullian’s question resembles Matthew and Mark more closely than canonical Luke. In De carne Christi he explicitly connects his answer to Marcion and Apelles. The Clementine Eclogae likewise defines kinship with the Savior through doing the Father’s will. This is a shared interpretation of spiritual kinship; the Eclogae does not independently attest every word of Tertullian’s question. (Eclogae 20.3; Adv. Marc. IV.19.6; 19.11; De carne Christi 7.)
The adversary, the prison, and the last farthing. Clement identifies the adversary as the devil rather than the body. Epiphanius reports a Carpocratian devil who delivers souls to judgment and return to bodies. Tertullian reports the transmigration interpretation, then prefers an ordinary human adversary and civil judgment. The same saying supports competing accounts of the soul’s imprisonment and release; Clement does not endorse the reported Carpocratian system. (Stromata 4.14.95.2; Quis dives 40.6; Panarion 27.5.3–5; De anima 35.)
Binding the strong man. The Excerpta interprets the strong man through the flesh opposing the heavenly soul, combining the saying with Romans 7:23 and the adversary on the way. Tertullian reports Marcion identifying the strong man with the Creator. The shared interpretive complex matters, but its central identification differs; the excerpt is Valentinian/Theodotan material rather than an uncomplicated statement of Clement’s doctrine. (Excerpta 52.1; Adv. Marc. IV.26.12; Adv. Marc. V.6.7.)
Changing meaning as well as removing words. Clement criticizes opponents who select what suits them instead of following the whole scriptural argument, subsequently naming Marcion and Prodicus. Tertullian says Marcion subverts retained passages aliter interpretando, “by interpreting differently,” as well as by deletion. The dispute concerns interpretation and selection together. Clement’s complaint here should not be converted into a specific allegation of physical excision. (Stromata 7.16.103.4–6; Adv. Marc. IV.43.7.)
“Be approved money-changers”: Clement and Apelles. Clement quotes γίνεσθε … δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται, “be approved money-changers,” alongside language from 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Epiphanius reports Apelles invoking the same saying explicitly “in the Gospel” to justify selecting useful scriptural material. Tertullian places Apelles in Alexandria after his departure from Marcion. This supplies a noncanonical saying within an Alexandrian, Marcionite-derived setting, although neither passage titles its source Mark. (Stromata 1.28.177.2–3; Panarion 44.2.6; Praescriptione 30.5–6.)
Zacchaeus—or Matthias. Clement calls the chief tax collector Zacchaeus, adding οἳ δὲ Ματθίαν φασίν, “some say Matthias.” His ensuing saying combines the Son of Man, “today,” and finding what was lost. This is another concrete Clementine anomaly. Tertullian’s Zacchaeus discussion does not reproduce the alternative name, so it remains an unpaired reading. The Greek is Matthias, despite the older English translation’s “Matthew.” (Stromata 4.6.35.2–3; Adv. Marc. IV.37.)
Differences the identification must explain. Epiphanius reports οἶδα, “I know,” where Clement has οἶδας, “you know the commandments” (scholion 50). Clement retains “and earth,” which Epiphanius says Marcion lacked (22), and “the angels of God,” where the reported Marcionite form has “God” (30). Clement’s Father “is merciful” differs from Tertullian’s misertus est vestri, “has shown mercy to you.” A later fragment attributed to Clement retains the stroke “of the law,” unlike Tertullian’s reference to the Lord’s words. These are differences, not additional agreements. (Quis dives 4.5; Paedagogus 1.6.32.2; 1.8.72.2; Stromata 4.9.70.1; Clement, Fragmenta 58; Panarion 42.11.17, scholia 22, 30, 50; Adv. Marc. IV.17.8; 25.1; 28.4; 33.9.)
Other Tertullian anomalies still await Clementine matches. The remaining questions include et non audiatis, “and do not hear”; the sword/division dispute; salvos facietis vosmetipsos, “you will save yourselves,” through endurance; the appeal to Jesus’s previously spoken words in the resurrection discussion; and “a spirit does not have bones,” without “flesh.” They remain part of the investigation, but the present comparison has not established Clementine counterparts. (Adv. Marc. IV.19.3; 29.13; 39.8; 43.5–6.)
The distinctive longer-Mark episodes remain the decisive test. Clement’s Markan rich man and the longer Gospel’s rich youth share wealth and love motifs, while the letter adds resurrection and private instruction. The Bethany raising, nocturnal instruction, and Jericho insertion have not been independently located in the Marcionite material examined. Epiphanius’s use of Lazarus’s raising in a refutation is his own counterexample, not a Marcionite quotation; it must also be distinguished from the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. (Quis dives 4.6; To Theodore II.20–III.17; Panarion 42.11.17, elenchus 13.)
