What Did “Antitheses” Mean? From Marcion to the Acts of Archelaus

Marcion’s Antitheses is usually described as a work contrasting the Old Testament with the gospel. That description captures its central purpose, but it does not exhaust the ancient evidence. The controversy also concerns contradictions within the Creator’s commands, inconsistencies attributed to a divine character, and conflicting statements within an author’s writings. The same comparisons could establish different gods, expose an opponent’s inconsistency, or demonstrate the unity of revelation. We need to distinguish the name of a work from the individual arguments it contained and from a method other writers could adopt.

(a) Tertullian and the plurality of “antitheses”

Tertullian defines Marcion’s antitheses as contrariae oppositiones, “opposing statements” (Against Marcion I.19.4). His explanation moves from differences between scriptural statements to an alleged difference between their divine sources. The comparisons supply the evidence; the separation of the gods is the conclusion.^[1]

The plural deserves attention. A count of the word forms in the Latin text of all five books gives the following result:

Book	Plural antitheses	Singular forms	Total
I	1	0	1
II	6	1	7
III	0	0	0
IV	14	4	18
V	0	0	0
Total	21	5	26

These are counts of occurrences, not counts of separate arguments or books. The singular forms are two instances of antithesis and three of antithesim. The totals agree in the Evans transcription and Oehler’s text.^[2] Book V’s arguments about Paul show why word frequency and the presence of an argumentative procedure must be assessed separately. Four uses emerge:

1. A named work. At IV.1.1, Tertullian describes an opus, a work, “called Antitheses.” The singular opus accommodates a plural title. This syntax is the strongest evidence for a particular written composition.
2. An individual comparison. At IV.23.5, the contrast between Christ’s reception of children and the bears that attack Elisha’s mockers is called satis impudens antithesis, “a thoroughly shameless antithesis.” Here the singular identifies one argument. The accusative singular occurs again at IV.36.12–13.
3. Counterarguments produced by Tertullian. At II.28.1 he announces antitheses aemulas faciam, “I shall construct rival antitheses.” At IV.24.4, his own comparisons associate Christ with the Creator. The procedure can serve the opposite theological conclusion.
4. Oppositions within one creation. At II.29.4 and IV.1.10–11, Tertullian invokes the world’s opposed elements. Light and darkness do not require separate creators. Opposition can belong within an ordered whole.

Accordingly, the plural alone cannot identify a reference to Marcion’s book. Modern capitalization does not settle the question: context must distinguish the composition, its constituent comparisons, and the general argumentative procedure.^[3]

“Contradiction” also translates several Latin expressions. At II.21.1, contrarietates praeceptorum means contradictions between commands: Sabbath work is prohibited, yet the ark is carried around Jericho on the Sabbath. II.22 compares the prohibition of images with the commanded bronze serpent. These objections concern the Creator’s own legislation. At IV.1.10, Tertullian describes the charge that the Creator forbids what he commands and commands what he forbids. His response repeatedly distinguishes circumstances, purposes, and stages of divine government.^[4]

(b) Other contemporary writers, with the earlier Greek background

Clement supplies an essential lexical control. In Stromateis II.11.52, he quotes 1 Timothy 6:20–21, including ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, “oppositions of knowledge falsely so called.” He then says that the heretics reject the letters to Timothy because this utterance condemns them. This is an explicit occurrence of antitheseis in Clement, embedded in scriptural quotation and anti-heretical argument.^[5]

Book III uses a different noun. At III.3.21.2, Clement promises to examine:

τὰς ἐναντιότητας ταύτας ἃς οἵ τε φιλόσοφοι αἰνίσσονται οἵ τε περὶ Μαρκίωνα δογματίζουσιν

“These oppositions which the philosophers express enigmatically and Marcion’s followers assert as doctrine.”

The construction gives philosophers and Marcionites as the two subjects speaking about these oppositions. It does not describe a disagreement between those groups. The context concerns first principles, birth, death, embodiment, and creation. An allusion to Marcion’s book is possible, but Clement does not identify a title here.^[6]

The rest of Clement clarifies the noun’s range. At IV.6.40, the knowledgeable believer understands the world’s enantiotētes, its oppositions, as a beautiful harmony of creation. At V.13.114, the word describes light and darkness. Thus “oppositions” need not mean defects in an argument or evidence for incompatible creators. Clement can affirm their place within one harmonious world—much as Tertullian does.^[7]

Other passages supply the theological answer. Paedagogus I.8 argues that divine justice and goodness belong together, and that correction can express care. Stromateis III.12.83.4 says that if the same one is lawgiver and gospel-giver, οὐ μάχεταί ποτε ἑαυτῷ, “he never fights against himself.” The immediate discussion concerns Tatian and marriage. At VI.15.125.3, Clement defines the church’s interpretive rule through the concord and harmony of law and prophets with the covenant delivered at Christ’s coming. These passages address how apparently discordant teaching can proceed from one divine source.^[8]

Clement also uses opposition language for conduct. Marcionites resist their Maker through abstinence from marriage (III.3.12); the Antitactae oppose commandments through contrary actions (III.4.34–37). These groups should not be collapsed into one. Clement’s vocabulary covers doctrinal opposition, practical resistance, and inconsistency, according to context.^[9]

Irenaeus places self-contradiction near the center of his account. In Against Heresies I.27.2, he reports Marcion’s characterization of the Creator as warlike, unstable in purpose, and contrary to himself. I.27.4 promises a separate refutation from Marcion’s writings without naming a work called Antitheses.^[10]

At IV.28.1, Irenaeus describes opponents setting the Creator’s punishments against Christ’s saving mercy. The surviving Latin calls this e contrario opponentes, “setting against in opposition.” His answer is that they suppress Christ’s judgments: both mercy and judgment belong to the same God. At IV.32.1, he reverses the accusation, arguing that abandoning the Creator produces inconsistencies in the opponents’ own account. The verbal resemblance to Tertullian is significant, but reconstructing the lost Greek wording of IV.28.1 as a reference to a book title would require an additional argument.^[11]

Justin and Ptolemy demonstrate the wider problem. In Dialogue with Trypho 65, Justin refuses to conclude that one scriptural passage contradicts another; apparent conflict instead exposes a deficiency in his understanding. Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora, preserved by Epiphanius, approaches the problem differently: Mosaic permission for divorce conflicts with the original divine joining of husband and wife, so he distinguishes legislation by God, Moses, and the elders. Both writers confront scriptural discord, while assigning it different explanations.^[12]

Celsus makes the challenge explicit. As quoted by Origen in Against Celsus VII.18, he contrasts Mosaic commands about wealth, dominion, and warfare with Jesus’ teaching about possessions and non-retaliation. Jesus ἀντινομοθετεῖ, “legislates in opposition.” Celsus asks which is lying, Moses or Jesus, and whether the Father forgot his commands or changed his mind. At VII.25, Origen suspects that Celsus acquired this argument from people who separated the deity of the gospel from that of the law. This supports the circulation of such polemic, without establishing Celsus’s direct access to Marcion’s book.^[13]

Rhodon’s report of Apelles supplies another internal critique. Preserved in Eusebius, Church History V.13.6, it says that Apelles considered the prophecies inconsistent and self-contradictory. The disputed material can therefore be the prophetic writings themselves. This late-second-century testimony survives through a fourth-century historian.^[14]

(c) Later writers

Origen distinguishes apparent contradiction from its resolution. In Against Celsus VII.20, he compares Ezekiel’s statements about good and non-good statutes with Paul’s contrasting descriptions of the law: a ministry of death in 2 Corinthians 3, yet spiritual, holy, just, and good in Romans 7. His term ἐναντιώματα encompasses the apparent oppositions. His solution distinguishes literal from spiritual meaning. The problem occurs within Ezekiel and within Paul, as well as between scriptural collections.^[15]

In Commentary on John X.2–4, Origen also acknowledges chronological difficulties among the Gospels and defends their spiritual coherence. In Against Celsus VI.53, however, he warns that Celsus has mixed different controversies: some accusations he reproduces are arguments against Marcion. Identifying the speaker and the target is indispensable when collecting “contradictions.”^[16]

The second part of the Acts of Archelaus provides the closest extended comparison. Diodorus’s report to Archelaus occupies chapters 44–45 in Beeson’s edition, corresponding to the letter in chapter 40 of the older English translation. It presents Mani as denying the compatibility of Moses’ law with Christ’s teaching. The Latin describes them as contrariam et inimicam, “contrary and hostile,” and calls the cited passages quae sibi viderentur esse contraria, “things which seemed to him to be contrary.” This passage does not name a book by Mani entitled Antitheses.^[17]

Issue	Comparison attributed to Mani	Relevant earlier discussion
Wealth	God makes rich and poor; Jesus blesses the poor and requires renunciation.	Celsus’s contrast of Mosaic prosperity and Jesus’ teaching, Against Celsus VII.18.
Egyptian valuables	Moses takes Egyptian silver and gold; Jesus forbids coveting a neighbor’s possessions.	Tertullian IV.24.1–2 compares Israel’s laden departure with the disciples’ unencumbered mission. The motif overlaps; the precise comparison differs.
Retaliation	An eye for an eye versus offering the other cheek.	Celsus and Origen, Against Celsus VII.25.
Sabbath	The wood-gatherer is executed; Jesus permits carrying a healed man’s bed and the disciples’ gathering grain.	Tertullian II.21 and IV.12 examine alleged conflicts in Sabbath commands and practice.
Death and life	The law of Moses ministers death; the new covenant ministers life, using 2 Corinthians 3.	Tertullian V.10; Origen, Against Celsus VII.20.

The report continues with Paul on flesh and blood, rebuilding what he destroyed, circumcision, and knowledge of sin through the law. The method gathers statements and actions, interprets them as incompatible, and assigns them to opposed religious authorities. Archelaus responds by demonstrating continuity between the scriptural economies.^[18]

This connection has received substantial scholarly attention. Jason BeDuhn’s 2007 study identifies eleven comparisons shared by the Acts and the material associated with Adda/Adimantus; seven occur in Diodorus’s report. He considers both transmission through Manichaean teaching and the author’s use of Marcionite or anti-Marcionite material. In a later discussion, BeDuhn argues more firmly for a Marcionite source behind Diodorus’s report, pointing to its concentration on Luke and Paul. This is a specific argument for inherited material, beyond a general resemblance between dualistic systems.^[19]

The Acts is a fourth-century polemical narrative, whose complete text survives in Latin translation. Its attribution of arguments to Mani and the earlier origin of those arguments are separate historical questions. BeDuhn’s proposed source relationship deserves attention; the surviving narrative should not simply be treated as Mani’s verbatim speech or Marcion’s autograph.^[20]

Other later witnesses show both directions of argument. In the Greek Dialogue of Adamantius, Moses’ outstretched hands bring victory and death, while Christ’s bring salvation; Joshua prolongs daylight for battle, while Paul forbids anger continuing until sunset. Ephrem’s Syriac Against Marcion III reverses the accusation: Christ’s abolition of earlier laws and restoration of injured bodies, he argues, undermine the claim that Christ is wholly alien to the Creator. In Latin, Jerome complains that Rufinus has manufactured Marcion’s antitheses from Jerome’s own writings (Against Rufinus I.5). The comparison there concerns inconsistency within one author.^[21]

(d) Conclusions

First, Tertullian gives evidence for a named written work. IV.1.1 supplies that evidence through its description of a work called Antitheses. The grammatical plural alone cannot establish a bibliographical reference in every occurrence.

Second, “antitheses” also names a procedure. Tertullian constructs his own antitheses and applies opposition language to elements within one creation. Clement likewise understands cosmic oppositions as constituents of harmony. The theological conclusion depends on how the comparisons are interpreted.

Third, the controversy has several objects. It can concern conflicting commands within the Creator’s legislation, differences between Moses and Jesus, apparently inconsistent statements within Paul, or inconsistencies alleged against the opponents themselves. A collection of evidence must record which of these is involved.

Fourth, the Acts of Archelaus belongs within this history. Its second part preserves a closely comparable collection of arguments, and BeDuhn supplies an explicit case for Marcionite material behind the report attributed to Mani. Such overlap can illuminate the transmission and reuse of polemic. It does not by itself recover the exact wording or arrangement of Marcion’s lost work.

“Oppositions” is the broadest accurate translation; “contradictions” identifies the force assigned to them when they are alleged to be irreconcilable. The historical question is how particular writers moved from difference to incompatibility—or answered that move through context, interpretation, and the unity of divine action.

---

References and textual notes

1. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem I.19.4. Translations of short Latin and Greek phrases are my own unless otherwise indicated.
2. Count: case-insensitive occurrences of the complete word forms antitheses, antithesis, and antithesim in the running Latin text, excluding editorial material. Sources: Ernest Evans’s text, transcribed by Roger Pearse, I, II, III, IV, V; checked against Franz Oehler, Tertulliani quae supersunt omnia, vol. 2 (1854), Perseus transcription. The five singular tokens occur at II.29.4; IV.23.5; IV.36.12 (twice), 13. Word frequency is not a count of distinct arguments.
3. Tertullian, II.28.1; II.29.1–4; IV.1.1–2, 10–11; IV.23.4–5; IV.24.4; IV.36.12–13. Section references follow Evans’s transcription. See also Eric W. Scherbenske, “Marcion’s Antitheses and the Isagogic Genre,” Vigiliae Christianae 64 (2010): 255–279, especially 256–258.
4. Tertullian, II.21–22; IV.1.10; IV.24.1–2. His recurrent vocabulary includes oppositio, contrarietas, discordia, and diversitas; these should not be treated as one undifferentiated Latin term.
5. Clement, Stromateis II.11.52; 1 Timothy 6:20–21. Greek checked against the Perseus Greek transcription. This observation does not require a conclusion about the date or original polemical target of 1 Timothy.
6. Clement, III.3.21.2: Greek text; compare the Oulton–Chadwick English translation. For differing assessments of a possible allusion to Marcion’s work, see Sebastian Moll, At the Left Hand of Christ: The Arch-Heretic Marcion (PhD thesis, Edinburgh, 2009), 158–159 n. 508; Judith M. Lieu, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic (Cambridge, 2015), 130–131.
7. Clement, IV.6.40; V.13.114. In both cases the Greek uses the enantiotēs word family. The cosmological examples help control its interpretation in III.3.21.
8. Clement, Paedagogus I.8, especially 62–64; Stromateis III.12.82–83; VI.15.125.3, Greek and English. Compare VI.11’s musical analogy and VII.16’s discussion of establishing scriptural claims through other scriptures.
9. Clement, Stromateis III.3.12.2–3; III.4.34.3–37.5. The Antitactae’s alleged opposition to commands differs from the Marcionite rejection of procreation.
10. Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.27.2, 4. “Contrary to himself” belongs to Irenaeus’s report of Marcion’s characterization of the Creator.
11. Irenaeus, IV.28.1; IV.32.1. For the Latin e contrario opponentes, see Harvey’s Latin text in digital transcription. Only the Latin text is used here, not that site’s machine-generated English translation.
12. Justin, Dialogue 65. Ptolemy, Letter to Flora, preserved in Epiphanius, Panarion 33.3–7, especially 33.4 and 33.5: Cambridge translation. These passages establish comparable interpretive problems, not direct quotations from Marcion’s work.
13. Origen, Against Celsus VII.18, 25; Koetschau’s Greek text in digital transcription. Greek wording is distinguished from the modern site’s English translation.
14. Rhodon, quoted in Eusebius, Church History V.13.5–9. A further early-third-century witness is the Refutation of All Heresies attributed to Hippolytus, VII.37 (older translation, chapter 25). Its editorial note warns that Antitheseis is Cruice’s emendation of transmitted antiparatheseis. It should not be cited as an entirely unproblematic independent attestation of the exact title.
15. Origen, Against Celsus VII.20: Ezekiel 20:11, 25; 2 Corinthians 3:6–8; Romans 7:12, 14. See the Greek and English sources in note 13.
16. Origen, Commentary on John X.2–4; Against Celsus VI.53.
17. Hegemonius, Acta Archelai 44–45, ed. C. H. Beeson, GCS 16 (Leipzig, 1906): Latin transcription. Compare Acts of the Disputation with Manes, ANF chapter 40. The older English numbering differs from Beeson’s. The Latin, rather than the modern machine translation accompanying it, grounds the quotations above.
18. Diodorus’s letter, Acta Archelai 44–45; Archelaus’s reply follows in 46–51. The comparison table distinguishes similar motifs from identical verse pairings. In particular, the reported command about coveting and Tertullian’s missionary instructions are not the same saying.
19. Jason BeDuhn, “Biblical Antitheses, Adda, and the Acts of Archelaus,” in Jason BeDuhn and Paul Mirecki, eds., Frontiers of Faith (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 131–147, especially 137–142; searchable reproduction. For his later formulation and its Luke-and-Paul argument, see “Augustine, Faustus, and the Jews,” 309–310 n. 35. Adda/Adimantus’s comparisons are also discussed in J. A. van den Berg, Biblical Argument in Manichaean Missionary Practice: The Case of Adimantus and Augustine (Leiden: Brill, 2010).
20. Michel Tardieu, “Archelaus,” Encyclopaedia Iranica. A purported third-century setting must be distinguished from the composition and transmission of the surviving work.
21. Dialogue of Adamantius, 812b, 813a–b (GCS 4, 24, 28); Greek passages and comparison in Scherbenske, 268–270. Ephrem, Against Marcion III, Syriac text p. 125, lines 40–47; English translation p. lviii in Mitchell–Bevan–Burkitt, Prose Refutations, vol. 2 (1921). The discussion of Ephrem relies on that published translation; no claim is made here about the precise Syriac noun corresponding to English “contradiction.” Jerome, Against Rufinus I.5, Latin.

"Marcion is Bullshit" Table 2: Two "Eyewitnesses" to Marcion's Canon

Tertullian and Epiphanius agree more often than they directly contradict each other about the material they both attest. That agreement is clearest when they discuss retained Gospel passages, Pauline arguments, and some distinctive formulations. It does not amount to consistent agreement over every word of Marcion’s text.

Table 2 audits Epiphanius’s 78 numbered Gospel entries and 40 numbered Pauline entries against Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem. The result is 51 positive, compatible comparisons, 3 direct conflicts, 23 qualified or unresolved cases, and 41 entries without a secure comparison. The general claims about the collection are considered separately; they include a further direct conflict over Philemon.

These are counts of the numbered entries being audited. They are not percentages of Marcion’s original words, a random sample of his canon, or 51 independent demonstrations that the two writers reproduced identical Greek. Their common material is much easier to establish than the precise wording or extent of every passage.

How Table 2 is counted

Agreement means that both writers provide compatible positive evidence for the passage or feature under comparison. It can be agreement about retained content, rather than an exact verbal match. Direct conflict is reserved for incompatible positive reports, such as one writer including something that the other explicitly says Marcion removed. Qualified or unresolved covers partial overlap, uncertain wording, probable tensions, and cases where a citation may be Tertullian’s own adaptation. No secure comparison means that no matching claim has been established, or that an entry repeats evidence already counted.

Silence is not scored as agreement with an omission. A shorter citation is not scored as a denial of words found in a longer one. Nor is a passage supplied by Tertullian from his own scriptures automatically treated as something he found in Marcion’s Gospel. These rules follow directly from the variation in his citation practice documented in Table 1.

Table 2 summary — Audit of the numbered textual entries

Corpus	Entries	Agreement	Direct conflict	Qualified or unresolved	No secure comparison
Gospel	78	33	3	16	26
Paul	40	18	0	7	15
Textual total	118	51	3	23	41

The canon and the order of the letters

The broad outlines overlap. Both writers associate the Gospel with Luke, give Galatians priority in their accounts, attest the ten letter core, and exclude the Pastoral Epistles. But Epiphanius’s treatment of Ephesians and Laodiceans is internally awkward: his ten letter sequence is accompanied by separate naming and a supplementary Laodicean extract. Tertullian, by contrast, expressly identifies Laodiceans as the title Marcion attached to the letter the church calls Ephesians.

The ordering of Philemon and Philippians also differs between their presentations. Epiphanius explicitly numbers Philemon ninth and Philippians tenth. Tertullian treats Philippians before Philemon. This establishes different sequences in their accounts; Tertullian’s chapter order by itself does not prove that he was describing the arrangement of a physical Marcionite codex.

Table 2A — Canon and collection background

Item	Primary references	Comparison	Assessment
C01 Gospel identification	Panarion 42.9.1–2; 42.11.9 IV.2.3–5; IV.6.2	Both describe the Gospel as related to Luke.	Agreement Agreement about their identification; this does not establish the direction of literary dependence between Luke and Marcion.
C02 The opening and infancy material	Panarion 42.9.1–2; Gospel scholion 1 preface IV.7.1–4; III.11	Both describe a Gospel without the ordinary infancy narrative and with an adult appearance of Jesus.	Agreement Broad agreement about the opening framework, rather than exact agreement on every missing introductory verse.
C03 Galatians first	Panarion 42.12.3 opening and Philemon heading V.2.1	Both put Galatians first in the Marcionite Pauline sequence.	Agreement Does not show that their remaining sequences or physical exemplars were identical.
C04 The ten letter core	Panarion 42.11.7–10; 42.12.3 headings V.2–21	Both attest Galatians, two Corinthians, Romans, two Thessalonians, Ephesians or Laodiceans material, Colossians, Philippians and Philemon.	Agreement The additional naming of Laodiceans by Epiphanius is treated separately in C06.
C05 The Pastoral Epistles	Panarion 42.11.11 V.21.1	Both say the two letters to Timothy and Titus were not accepted.	Agreement Hebrews is not added to this agreement merely because Tertullian does not discuss it here.
C06 Ephesians and Laodiceans	Panarion 42.11.10; 42.12.3 conclusion V.17.1	Tertullian treats Laodiceans as the title attached to Ephesians; Epiphanius names them separately and appends a Laodicean extract.	Qualified or unresolved A real inconsistency in the reports of the collection; Epiphanius’s ten letter framework and extra name prevent an unqualified claim that he saw eleven distinct letters.
C07 Philemon and Philippians in sequence	Panarion 42.12.3 headings V.20–21	Epiphanius expressly puts Philemon ninth and Philippians tenth; Tertullian discusses Philippians before Philemon.	Qualified or unresolved Different sequences of presentation are certain. Tertullian’s chapter order alone does not establish a contradictory statement about the order of a physical codex.
C08 Whether Philemon was altered	Panarion 42.12.3 Philemon heading V.21.1	Tertullian says Philemon escaped Marcion’s falsifying hands; Epiphanius says it stands in an entirely distorted form.	Direct conflict A direct conflict over the textual condition of the same letter, distinct from their agreement that it was included.

Three direct conflicts in the Gospel entries

Moses speaking at the transfiguration

At Adversus Marcionem IV.22.16, Tertullian says that Marcion did not show Moses conversing with the Lord, but standing. His compressed wording is:

noluit eum colloquentem domino ... sed stantem

English: [Marcion] did not wish him [to be shown] speaking with the Lord ... but standing.

Epiphanius’s Gospel scholion 17, on the other hand, has Moses and Elijah speaking with Jesus in glory:

συνελάλουν αὐτῷ

English: They were speaking with him.

The disagreement concerns speaking, not the mere presence of Moses and Elijah. Both writers can therefore attest the transfiguration while giving incompatible accounts of this particular detail.

The rich ruler and the commandments

Tertullian explicitly quotes Jesus’ address to the inquirer in IV.36.7:

Praecepta ... scis

English: You know the commandments.

Epiphanius’s scholion 50 expressly attributes the following replacement to Marcion:

τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα

English: I know the commandments.

This is a change of grammatical person, not a choice between equivalent Latin and Greek synonyms. The accompanying addition of the Father to the designation of God is also reported by Epiphanius, but Tertullian’s shorter designation alone is insufficient to establish a second independent contradiction.

The division of the garments

At IV.42.4, Tertullian expressly says Marcion removed the division of Christ’s clothing and the casting of lots:

Vestitum ... Marcion abstulit

English: Marcion removed ... the clothing.

Epiphanius’s scholion 71 explicitly retains the division in its account of the crucifixion:

διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ

English: They divided his garments.

This is a direct presence versus removal conflict. The point at issue is the garments; it should not be confused with the separate forgiveness saying in the same modern verse, Luke 23:34.

A further conflict over Philemon

The Philemon disagreement falls outside the forty numbered Pauline extracts because Epiphanius gives no extract from that letter. It belongs to his statements about the collection and is therefore recorded separately in Table 2A.

Tertullian says that the letter’s brevity enabled it to escape alteration:

falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet

English: It might escape Marcion’s falsifying hands.

Epiphanius explains his lack of excerpts by saying that the letter stands wholly in a distorted form:

ὁλοσχερῶς ... ἐνδιαστρόφως ... κεῖσθαι

English: To stand wholly in a distorted form.

The reports agree that Philemon was included, but conflict over the condition of its text. The disagreement cannot be reduced to one author merely failing to mention a particular verse.

Agreements that matter

Several agreements go beyond the presence of familiar stories. At Luke 5:14, both attest a testimony to you. At Luke 11:42, both support calling rather than judgment. At Luke 13:28, Tertullian’s righteous people entering the kingdom while others are kept outside agrees with Epiphanius’s report of the replacement of the patriarchal list and the altered exclusion wording.

The Emmaus comparison is particularly useful. Tertullian’s rebuke at IV.43.4 refers to what Jesus spoke to the disciples, rather than simply quoting the canonical reference to what the prophets spoke. That is compatible with the replacement Epiphanius reports in scholion 77. At Luke 24:39 both writers quote the bones formulation without flesh in that clause. In Galatians 5:14, both have the whole Law fulfilled in or by you through love of neighbour.

Such agreements can help identify a related textual tradition. They do not, by themselves, demonstrate independent inspection of the same manuscript, exclude inherited anti-Marcionite source material, or settle which witness has preserved the earlier form.

Why some apparent contradictions remain undecided

Jonah. Tertullian’s IV.27.1 says that Jesus gives no sign to those asking for one. It does not quote the Jonah, Nineveh, queen and Solomon material that Epiphanius says was absent. A direct Jonah contradiction cannot be established from this passage.

The grass saying. Tertullian’s IV.29.1 refers to lilies and grass being clothed by God, whereas Epiphanius says the God clothing the grass clause was absent. This is a probable tension. But Tertullian is expounding the surviving providence material, not clearly identifying every word of a Gospel citation. It is kept in the qualified category rather than treated as equal to the explicit garments conflict.

The rejected stone. In IV.35.14–15 Tertullian supplies the psalm as his own explanation of Christ’s rejection. That does not establish that the vineyard narrative Epiphanius says was excised stood in the Gospel Tertullian was discussing.

Human beings and the wise. At 1 Corinthians 3:20, Epiphanius’s extract has the thoughts of human beings, while Tertullian’s V.6.12 has:

cogitationes sapientium

English: The thoughts of the wise.

Epiphanius’s corresponding designation is:

τῶν ἀνθρώπων

English: Of human beings.

This is a genuine wording difference. But neither writer presents this particular difference as an explicit contrast between his own and Marcion’s text. Quotation from memory, paraphrase or assimilation to the underlying psalm remains possible. It is therefore removed from the agreement count and retained as an unresolved wording difference.

The accusations before Pilate. Epiphanius reports additions about destroying the Law and prophets and turning away wives and children. Tertullian’s shorter summary does not expressly deny those additions. His silence supplies no secure contradiction.

Table 2 in full

The following audit preserves every numbered entry so that agreements and problems can be checked against the same comparison base. Scholion numbers follow the consecutive numbering in Frank Williams’s translation. The preliminary lists and the later refutations are not counted twice. G11 and G57 repeat Gospel material, and P16 refers back to a prior discussion; these are flagged rather than converted into extra independent confirmations.

Table 2B — The 78 Gospel entries

Item and passage	Epiphanius’s claim	Tertullian and comparison	Result
G01 Luke 5:14	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 1 The leper must follow Moses; the testimony is to you rather than to them.	IV.9.9–10 Quotes Moses’ command and the distinctive plural to you.	Agreement
G02 Luke 5:24	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 2 The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.	IV.10.6–16 Treats the Son of Man’s authority to forgive as retained material.	Agreement
G03 Luke 6:5	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 3 The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.	IV.12.1,10–11 Uses the lord of the Sabbath saying.	Agreement
G04 Luke 6:16–17	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 4 Judas is the betrayer; Jesus comes down among them rather than with them.	IV.13.3–7; IV.41.1 Knows Judas and the chosen apostles, but does not decide the with or among wording.	Qualified or unresolved
G05 Luke 6:19–20	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 5 The crowd seeks to touch Jesus, who lifts his eyes before teaching.	IV.13.6–7; IV.14.1 Knows the crowd and sermon; these do not establish the precise touch and eye movements.	Qualified or unresolved
G06 Luke 6:23,26	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 6 The ancestors treated the prophets in the same way.	IV.15.1–2,14–15 Uses the ancestors’ treatment of the prophets in the blessing and woe argument.	Agreement
G07 Luke 7:9	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 7 Jesus has not found such faith even in Israel.	IV.18.1–2 Uses the centurion’s faith in comparison with Israel.	Agreement
G08 Luke 7:23	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 8 The saying about not being offended is altered in its relation to John.	IV.18.6–8 Discusses John’s stumbling, but the exact alteration claimed by Epiphanius remains unclear.	Qualified or unresolved
G09 Luke 7:27	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 9 The Baptist is identified by the written prophecy about the messenger.	IV.18.7 Explicitly quotes the messenger prophecy in the Baptist discussion.	Agreement
G10 Luke 7:36–38	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 10 The sinful woman washes, wipes and kisses Jesus’ feet.	IV.18.9 Describes the tears, hair, kisses and anointing.	Agreement
G11 Luke 7:44–46	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 11 Jesus repeats the statement about the woman washing, wiping and kissing his feet.	IV.18.9 Repeats the comparison already counted at G10; no additional independent comparison is counted.	No secure comparison
G12 Luke 8:19–21	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 12 The introductory mother and brothers clause is absent; the reported announcement remains.	IV.19.6–13 Confirms the announcement and reply; does not establish whether the introductory narration was absent.	Qualified or unresolved
G13 Luke 8:23–25	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 13 Jesus sleeps during the voyage and rebukes the wind and sea.	IV.20.1–3 Argues from Jesus’ command over the storm and sea.	Agreement
G14 Luke 8:42–48	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 14 The woman touches Jesus, is healed, and causes him to ask who touched him.	IV.20.7–13 Uses the woman’s touch, the power leaving Jesus and the healing.	Agreement
G15 Luke 9:16	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 15 Jesus looks up to heaven and blesses the food.	IV.21.2–5 Confirms the feeding, but does not securely quote the glance to heaven or Jesus’ blessing.	Qualified or unresolved
G16 Luke 9:22	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 16 The Son of Man must suffer, be killed and rise after three days.	IV.21.7–8 Uses suffering and resurrection after the third day, compatible with Epiphanius’s after three days formulation.	Agreement
G17 Luke 9:30–31	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 17 Moses and Elijah speak with Jesus in glory.	IV.22.16 Says Marcion did not show Moses conversing with the Lord, only standing; Epiphanius explicitly has conversation.	Direct conflict
G18 Luke 9:35	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 18 The heavenly voice identifies Jesus as the beloved Son.	IV.22.1,8–12 Quotes the beloved Son declaration and the command to hear him.	Agreement
G19 Luke 9:40–41	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 19 The disciples fail at the exorcism and Jesus rebukes the unbelieving generation.	IV.23.1–3 Uses the failed exorcism and the unbelieving generation rebuke.	Agreement
G20 Luke 9:44	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 20 The Son of Man will be delivered into human hands.	IV.23 The related discussion does not securely attest this particular delivery saying.	No secure comparison
G21 Luke 6:3–4	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 21 Jesus appeals to David entering the house of God.	IV.12.5–8 Uses David, the showbread and the house of God in the Sabbath argument.	Agreement
G22 Luke 10:21	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 22 The thanksgiving has Lord of heaven, without and earth or the first Father.	IV.25.1–3 Quotes Lord of heaven without the disputed words; his shorter citation is compatible, but is not an explicit omission report.	Qualified or unresolved
G23 Luke 10:25–28	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 23 Jesus asks what is written in the Law and approves the lawyer’s answer.	IV.25.14–18 Uses the lawyer’s question, the love commands and the approval of doing them.	Agreement
G24 Luke 11:5–13	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 24 The midnight friend, asking and receiving, and the Father’s gifts remain.	IV.26.5–10 Uses the midnight request, asking and receiving, and the fish, serpent and scorpion comparisons.	Agreement
G25 Luke 11:29–32	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 25 The refusal of a sign remains, but Jonah, Nineveh, the southern queen and Solomon are absent.	IV.27.1 Says Jesus gives no sign; does not quote the supposedly conflicting Jonah complex. The omission is unconfirmed, not contradicted.	Qualified or unresolved
G26 Luke 11:42	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 26 Calling of God replaces judgment of God.	IV.27.4,6 Explicitly has calling and love of God, agreeing with the distinctive calling reading.	Agreement
G27 Luke 11:47–48	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 27 The descendants build the tombs of prophets killed by their ancestors.	IV.27.8 Discusses the tombs of prophets killed by the ancestors.	Agreement
G28 Luke 11:49–51	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 28 The Wisdom saying and the blood of Abel and Zechariah are absent.	IV.27.8–9 The adjacent prophet material does not establish the specific Wisdom, Abel and Zechariah clauses.	No secure comparison
G29 Luke 12:4–7	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 29 The warning about Gehenna remains; the five sparrows saying is absent.	IV.28.3 Clearly confirms the Gehenna warning; does not supply the alleged sparrows conflict.	Qualified or unresolved
G30 Luke 12:8–9	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 30 Confession is before God rather than before the angels of God.	IV.28.4–5 Uses confession and denial before God, without the angels in these formulations.	Agreement
G31 Luke 12:28	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 31 God clothing the grass is absent.	IV.29.1–3 Says lilies and grass are clothed by God. This is a probable tension, but the allusive exposition is not a demonstrable verbatim reading of the omitted clause.	Qualified or unresolved
G32 Luke 12:30	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 32 The Father knows the disciples’ material needs.	IV.29.3–4 Uses the Father’s knowledge of the disciples’ needs.	Agreement
G33 Luke 12:31	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 33 Seeking God’s kingdom and the addition of necessities remain.	IV.29.5 Quotes the kingdom command and the addition of necessities.	Agreement
G34 Luke 12:32	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 34 Father replaces your Father.	IV.29 No separate Father versus your Father reading is secured for this saying.	No secure comparison
G35 Luke 12:38	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 35 The evening watch replaces the second or third watch.	IV.29.6–8 Uses the watchfulness setting, but does not establish the evening watch wording.	Qualified or unresolved
G36 Luke 12:46	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 36 The returning master cuts the servant apart and assigns him a portion with unbelievers.	IV.29.9–11 Uses separation and the portion with unbelievers. The wording and interpretation of cutting apart are not independently settled.	Qualified or unresolved
G37 Luke 12:58	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 37 The adversary brings the debtor before a judge and officer.	IV.29.15–16 Discusses the judicial saying, imprisonment and payment; not every intermediary word is quoted.	Agreement
G38 Luke 13:1–9	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 38 The Galileans, Siloam and fig tree complex has been altered; the exact replacement is not supplied.	IV.29–30 No secure comparison for the Galileans, tower and fig tree complex.	No secure comparison
G39 Luke 13:16	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 39 The healed woman is called a daughter of Abraham.	IV.30.1 Discusses the Sabbath healing, but does not independently secure the daughter of Abraham clause.	Qualified or unresolved
G40 Luke 13:28	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 40 All the righteous replaces the patriarchal list, and being kept outside replaces being cast out.	IV.30.4–6 Has righteous people entering the kingdom and opponents kept outside, matching both distinctive features.	Agreement
G41 Luke 13:29–35	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 41 The east and west, Herod and Jerusalem complex has been altered.	IV.30.4–6 Related exclusion language does not establish the unspecified alterations throughout this longer complex.	No secure comparison
G42 Luke 15:11–32	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 42 The parable of the two sons has been altered.	IV.32 Silence about the two sons does not verify Epiphanius’s claim of alteration.	No secure comparison
G43 Luke 16:16	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 43 The Law and prophets extend until John.	IV.33.7–8 Quotes the Law and prophets until John.	Agreement
G44 Luke 16:19–22	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 44 The rich man and Lazarus story includes Abraham’s bosom.	IV.34.10–17 Uses the rich man, the poor man and Abraham’s bosom.	Agreement
G45 Luke 16:25	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 45 Lazarus is now comforted.	IV.34.10–17 Contrasts the rich man’s suffering with the poor man’s comfort in Abraham’s bosom.	Agreement
G46 Luke 16:29–31	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 46 Moses and the prophets can be heard; resurrection will not persuade those who refuse them.	IV.34.17 Uses Moses and the prophets and the refusal to believe even resurrection.	Agreement
G47 Luke 17:10	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 47 The unprofitable servants saying has been altered.	IV.35 No secure comparison for the alleged alteration to the unprofitable servants saying.	No secure comparison
G48 Luke 17:12–14	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 48 The ten lepers go to the priests; the Naaman saying is introduced in this setting.	IV.35.6–8 Places Naaman in the ten lepers discussion and quotes the command to show themselves to priests; the full extent of cutting and relocation remains unproved.	Qualified or unresolved
G49 Luke 17:22	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 49 The disciples will desire one of the Son of Man’s days.	IV.35.14–16 Discussion of the Son of Man’s coming does not secure this particular desire saying.	No secure comparison
G50 Luke 18:18–20	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 50 God the Father is added, and I know the commandments replaces you know the commandments.	IV.36.3–7 Explicitly quotes You know the commandments. Epiphanius explicitly attributes I know the commandments to Marcion.	Direct conflict
G51 Luke 18:35–43	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 51 The blind man calls Jesus Son of David and is healed through faith.	IV.36.9–14; IV.37.1 Uses Son of David, the appeal for mercy, healing and faith.	Agreement
G52 Luke 18:31–33	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 52 The Jerusalem prediction of suffering and fulfilment of prophecy is altered.	IV.36 No secure comparison for the complete Jerusalem and prophecy prediction as described by Epiphanius.	No secure comparison
G53 Luke 19:29–46	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 53 The entry and temple complex has been altered.	IV.37–38 No matching statement establishes the specific entry and temple alteration.	No secure comparison
G54 Luke 20:19	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 54 The opponents seek to arrest Jesus but fear the people.	IV.38 No secure comparison of the fear of arresting Jesus in this precise clause.	No secure comparison
G55 Luke 20:9–17	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 55 The vineyard and rejected stone material is excised.	IV.35.14–15 Supplies the rejected stone from the psalm as his own prophetic explanation; this does not establish that the excised vineyard narrative was present.	No secure comparison
G56 Luke 20:37–38	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 56 The Moses and burning bush proof of resurrection is excised.	IV.38 Does not securely quote the disputed Moses and burning bush proof here.	No secure comparison
G57 Luke 20:37–38	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 57 The Moses and burning bush omission is repeated.	IV.38 Repeats G56 in Epiphanius; does not create a second independent comparison.	No secure comparison
G58 Luke 21:18	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 58 The saying that no hair will perish is altered.	IV.39 No secure matching citation of the individual hair saying.	No secure comparison
G59 Luke 21:21–22	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 59 Flight from Judaea and fulfilment of written things have been altered.	IV.39.9 Confirms Jerusalem’s siege and the apocalyptic setting, but not the precise flight or written fulfilment clauses.	Qualified or unresolved
G60 Luke 22:4	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 60 Judas arranges betrayal with the captains.	IV.40.2 Confirms Judas’s betrayal; the specific negotiation with captains is not secured.	Qualified or unresolved
G61 Luke 22:8	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 61 Peter and the others are told to prepare Passover.	IV.40.1–3 The Passover meal does not independently establish the wording of the preparation order.	No secure comparison
G62 Luke 22:14–15	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 62 Jesus desires to eat Passover with the apostles before suffering.	IV.40.1,3 Explicitly quotes the desire to eat Passover before suffering.	Agreement
G63 Luke 22:16	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 63 The promise not to eat again until fulfilment in the kingdom is altered.	IV.40 No secure comparison of the until fulfilment saying.	No secure comparison
G64 Luke 22:35–37	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 64 The sending and sword complex, including being numbered with transgressors, is altered.	IV.40–42 His own application of the transgressors prophecy does not establish the disputed pre-arrest saying.	No secure comparison
G65 Luke 22:41	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 65 Jesus withdraws about a stone’s throw, kneels and prays.	IV.40–41 No matching account of the kneeling and stone’s throw is secured.	No secure comparison
G66 Luke 22:47–48	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 66 Judas approaches to kiss Jesus.	IV.41.2 Explicitly refers to betrayal by a kiss.	Agreement
G67 Luke 22:50–51	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 67 Peter’s action against the high priest’s servant is altered.	IV.41 No secure comparison of the servant’s ear incident.	No secure comparison
G68 Luke 22:63–64	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 68 Jesus is struck and challenged to identify his assailant.	IV.41–42 General passion interpretation does not secure this particular mocking challenge.	No secure comparison
G69 Luke 23:2	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 69 Destroying the Law and prophets is added to the accusation before Pilate.	IV.42.1–2 A shorter account of the accusation does not deny the added Law and prophets wording.	No secure comparison
G70 Luke 23:2	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 70 Turning away wives and children is added to the accusation before Pilate.	IV.42.1–2 Does not quote the disputed wives and children addition; silence is not contradiction.	No secure comparison
G71 Luke 23:33–34,45	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 71 Crucifixion, division of the garments and the darkened sun remain.	IV.42.4–5 Explicitly says Marcion removed the division of garments and casting of lots; Epiphanius explicitly includes the division.	Direct conflict
G72 Luke 23:43	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 72 The promise of paradise is removed.	IV.42 No explicit counterclaim about the paradise saying is secured.	No secure comparison
G73 Luke 23:46	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 73 Jesus cries loudly and expires; no complete final saying is supplied.	IV.42.6 Refers to a cry to the Father and Psalm 31; Epiphanius’s short extract does not explicitly deny a fuller final saying.	Qualified or unresolved
G74 Luke 23:50–53	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 74 Joseph takes down, wraps and entombs the body.	IV.42.7–8 Uses Joseph, the body, linen wrapping and burial.	Agreement
G75 Luke 23:56	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 75 The women rest on the Sabbath according to the Law.	IV.43.1–2 The women’s visit to the tomb does not independently attest the preceding Sabbath rest clause.	No secure comparison
G76 Luke 24:5–7	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 76 The empty tomb announcement recalls Jesus’ prediction of suffering.	IV.43.2,5 Has the angels and the recollection of Jesus’ prediction of suffering and resurrection.	Agreement
G77 Luke 24:25–31	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 77 The Emmaus rebuke substitutes Jesus’ own words for what the prophets spoke; breaking bread remains.	IV.43.4–5 Quotes what he spoke to you in the Emmaus rebuke, agreeing with the replacement of the prophets by Jesus’ own words.	Agreement
G78 Luke 24:38–39	Pan. 42.11.17, scholion 78 The risen Jesus shows hands and feet and says a spirit has no bones.	IV.43.6–8 Quotes hands, feet and a spirit having no bones; flesh is also absent from this quoted clause.	Agreement

Table 2C — The 40 Pauline entries

Item and passage	Epiphanius’s claim	Tertullian and comparison	Result
P01 Galatians 3:10–12	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 1 The righteous live by faith; law and curse sayings remain.	V.3.8–10 Uses faith, curse and the Law in this Pauline context; exact composite wording is not claimed.	Agreement
P02 Galatians 3:13;4:23	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 2 The curse on hanging on a tree and the promise through the free woman remain.	V.3.9–10; V.4.8 Uses the tree curse and the free woman and promise material.	Agreement
P03 Galatians 5:3	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 3 The circumcised person must do the whole Law.	V.4 No secure matching citation of this particular whole Law obligation.	No secure comparison
P04 Galatians 5:9	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 4 Corrupts replaces leavens in the little leaven saying.	V.4 No independent statement confirming or contradicting corrupts versus leavens is secured.	No secure comparison
P05 Galatians 5:14	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 5 The whole Law is fulfilled in or by you through love of neighbour.	V.4.12–13 Explicitly has the whole Law fulfilled in you and the neighbour command, supporting the distinctive formulation.	Agreement
P06 Galatians 5:19–21	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 6 Those who practise the listed works of flesh do not inherit God’s kingdom.	V.10.11 Expressly recalls Galatians excluding those with fleshly conduct from God’s kingdom.	Agreement
P07 Galatians 5:24	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 7 Christ’s people have crucified the flesh with its passions.	V.4.15 Crucifixion to the world in Galatians 6:14 is a different saying; it does not decide Galatians 5:24.	No secure comparison
P08 Galatians 6:13	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 8 The circumcised do not themselves keep the Law.	V.4 No matching claim about the circumcised failing to keep the Law is secured.	No secure comparison
P09 1 Corinthians 1:19	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 9 The written prophecy about destroying the wise remains.	V.5.5 Quotes the prophecy introduced as written.	Agreement
P10 1 Corinthians 1:31	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 10 The written command to boast in the Lord remains.	V.5.10 Quotes the written command to boast in the Lord.	Agreement
P11 1 Corinthians 2:6	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 11 The rulers of this age are brought to nothing.	V.6.6–9 Discusses the rulers of this age and their relation to Christ’s crucifixion; interpretation need not be identical.	Agreement
P12 1 Corinthians 3:19–20	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 12 The written sayings about the wise and vain thoughts remain.	V.6.12 The first written saying agrees. In the second Epiphanius has human beings, while Tertullian has the wise. This is a real wording difference, but neither frames it as an explicit contrast with the opponent’s reading; paraphrase or Psalm harmonization remains possible.	Qualified or unresolved
P13 1 Corinthians 5:7	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 13 Christ is our sacrificed Passover.	V.7.3 Explicitly identifies Christ as the sacrificed Passover.	Agreement
P14 1 Corinthians 6:16	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 14 The person joined to a prostitute becomes one body; two become one flesh.	V.7.4–6 Nearby material about Christ’s members and marriage does not secure this particular prostitute quotation.	No secure comparison
P15 1 Corinthians 9:8–9	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 15 Law of Moses is alleged to replace Law in the unmuzzled ox citation.	V.7.10–11 Quotes the unmuzzled ox and calls it the Creator’s Law, but does not independently decide the alleged addition of Moses.	Qualified or unresolved
P16 1 Corinthians 9:9–10	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 16 Epiphanius refers back to the preceding discussion rather than supplying a new quotation.	V.7.10–11 A cross-reference or duplicate entry in Epiphanius; no additional independent comparison is counted.	No secure comparison
P17 1 Corinthians 10:1–11	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 17 The wilderness fathers, sea, spiritual food and rock identified as Christ remain.	V.5.9; V.7.11,13–14 Expressly says Marcion retains the rock identified as Christ and discusses the wilderness examples.	Agreement
P18 1 Corinthians 10:19–20	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 18 Sacred meat is added in the idol sacrifice discussion.	V.7.9,14 Discusses idol food and food permission; the specific sacred meat addition remains unverified.	Qualified or unresolved
P19 1 Corinthians 11:7,14	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 19 The man and image of God statement is given with long hair language.	V.8.1 Has head covering and God’s image. Epiphanius combines image and long hair language; this is a possible conflation, not a secure single verse contradiction.	Qualified or unresolved
P20 1 Corinthians 12:24	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 20 God has combined or tempered the body.	V.8.9 Uses the body and many members analogy; does not reproduce the precise combined body clause.	Qualified or unresolved
P21 1 Corinthians 14:19	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 21 On the Law’s account is added to the five intelligible words saying.	V.8 No secure independent evidence about the Law’s account addition.	No secure comparison
P22 1 Corinthians 14:21	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 22 The other tongues and lips prophecy is introduced as written in the Law.	V.8.10 Explicitly identifies the other tongues prophecy as written in the Law.	Agreement
P23 1 Corinthians 14:34	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 23 Women are silent and subject, as the Law says.	V.8.11 Expressly connects women’s silence and subjection with the Law.	Agreement
P24 1 Corinthians 15:1,3–4,54	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 24 The resurrection dossier joins the Gospel, Christ’s death and rising, and the victory saying.	V.9.2; V.10.14–16 Confirms the resurrection argument, but not every clause in Epiphanius’s combined extract. Adjacent victory sayings are not interchangeable verse transcripts.	Qualified or unresolved
P25 2 Corinthians 1:20	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 25 God’s promises have their Yes in Christ and Amen through him.	V.11 No matching citation of the promises, Yes and Amen saying is secured.	No secure comparison
P26 2 Corinthians 4:5–6	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 26 The God who commands light out of darkness is named.	V.11.11–12 Quotes God commanding light out of darkness.	Agreement
P27 2 Corinthians 4:13	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 27 According as it is written is removed from the Spirit of faith saying.	V.11–12 No independent report about omission of according as it is written is secured.	No secure comparison
P28 Romans 2:12–13	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 28 Judgment with or without Law and the doers of the Law remain.	V.13.4–5 Uses judgment of those with and without Law and obedience to the Law.	Agreement
P29 Romans 2:25	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 29 Circumcision profits the person who keeps the Law.	V.13.7 Discusses circumcision of the heart in another clause; this does not decide the stated circumcision profits condition.	No secure comparison
P30 Romans 2:20	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 30 Knowledge and truth have their form in the Law.	V.13 No matching citation of the form of knowledge and truth is secured.	No secure comparison
P31 Romans 5:6	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 31 Christ dies for the ungodly while people are weak.	V.13 No matching citation of this weak and ungodly saying is secured.	No secure comparison
P32 Romans 7:12	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 32 The Law is holy and its commandment just and good.	V.13.14 Explicitly calls the Law holy and the commandment just and good.	Agreement
P33 Romans 8:4	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 33 The Law’s righteous requirement is fulfilled in us.	V.14 No matching citation of this precise righteous requirement clause is secured.	No secure comparison
P34 Romans 10:4	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 34 Christ is the fulfilment or end of the Law for believers.	V.14.6–8 Has Christ as the end of the Law. End and fulfilment can represent the same underlying expression; translation is not counted as contradiction.	Agreement
P35 Romans 13:8	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 35 Loving the neighbour fulfils the Law.	V.14.13 Uses love of neighbour as the Law’s fulfilment.	Agreement
P36 Ephesians 2:11–14	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 36 Gentile alienation from Israel and reconciliation in Christ remain.	V.17.12–14 Quotes alienation, covenants, hope and reconciliation. Epiphanius’s excerpt does not independently quote every following Ephesian clause.	Agreement
P37 Ephesians 5:14	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 37 The awakening and rising from the dead saying remains.	V.18 No matching quotation of Awake is secured.	No secure comparison
P38 Ephesians 5:31	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 38 To the wife is removed from the two becoming one flesh saying.	V.18.9–10 His shorter quotation also lacks the wife phrase, but he does not explicitly confirm its absence from Marcion’s copy.	Qualified or unresolved
P39 Colossians 2:16–17	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 39 Food, festivals and sabbaths are shadows of coming things.	V.19.9 Explicitly quotes food, festivals, new moon and sabbath as shadow, and Christ as body.	Agreement
P40 Ephesians 4:5–6	Pan. 42.12.3, scholion 40 One Lord, faith, baptism, God and Father appears under Laodiceans.	V.10.2; V.17–18 A general one baptism allusion does not confirm this full passage in a distinct Laodicean letter.	No secure comparison

What the comparison establishes

Agreement predominates in the positively comparable content. The strict Gospel count is 33 compatible comparisons against 3 direct conflicts, with 16 qualified and 26 unpaired entries. For the numbered Pauline extracts, the count is 18 compatible comparisons, 7 qualified cases and 15 without a secure comparison. No direct conflict is established in those forty numbered extracts under the stricter rule used here. The Philemon conflict is additional evidence from the account of the collection.

This result supports a substantial shared Gospel and Pauline core. It also establishes that Tertullian and Epiphanius cannot be treated as interchangeable transcripts of one recoverable text. Their agreements provide evidence; their contradictions require explanation; their silences do not resolve what neither writer actually tells us.

Primary texts and references

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, especially Books IV and V. Latin text reproduced by The Latin Library, credited to Ernest Evans (1972), transcribed by Roger Pearse (2002): Book III, Book IV, Book V.

Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17, Gospel scholia and refutations; 42.12.3, Pauline scholia and collection headings; 42.13.2, the statement of the 78 and 40 totals. Greek checked against Karl Holl’s edition as digitized by Open Greek and Latin First1KGreek, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. English translations of the short original-language excerpts in this post are supplied here.

The numbering and the claims were also checked against Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book I, second revised edition (Brill, 2009), section 42: English translation. Entries marked no secure comparison describe the limits of this audit, not a claim that a passage was absent from Marcion’s books.