Well let me try it again and to get back to the state of the Marcionite Galatians opening. When Tertullian cites Galatians 1:8 as something the Marcionites would latch upon to support their interpretation of the material we should note that the translations ignore clear signs of a Marcionite excision here. We read at the end of chapter one that we are to expect Marcion excision:
Quod idcirco praestruximus, ut iam hinc profiteamur nos proinde probaturos nullum alium deum ab apostolo circumlatum, sicut probavimus nec a Christo, ex ipsius1 utique epistulis Pauli, quas proinde mutilatas etiam de numero forma iam haeretici evangelii praeiudicasse debebit.
From now on I claim I shall prove that no other god was the subject of the apostle's profession, on the same terms as I have proved this of Christ: and my evidence will be Paul's epistles. That these have suffered mutilation even in number, the precedent of that gospel, which is now the heretic's, must have prepared us to expect. (Evans)
We have laid down this as our first principle, because we wish at once to profess that we shall pursue the same method here in the apostle's case as we adopted before in Christ's case, to prove that he proclaimed no new god;42 that is, we shall draw our evidence from the epistles of St. Paul himself. Now, the garbled form in which we have found the heretic's Gospel will have already prepared us to expect to find the epistles also mutilated by him with like perverseness----and that even as respects their number (Holmes)
So this marks the end of chapter one. In chapter two he delves into the opening words of Galatians and his first example of Galatians excision is Galatians 1:8 I would argue. He cites Galatians 1:6 - Miror vos tam cito transferri ab eo qui vos vocavit in gratiam ad aliud evangelium - with its reference to the 'gospel' then argues from Isaiah that the Creator predicted the coming of a 'gospel' and then goes on to cite Galatians 1:8 as the point of Marcionite excision if you look closely at the Latin terminology:
est autem evangelium etiam dei novi, quod vis tunc ab apostolo defensum; iam ergo duo sunt evangelia apud duos deos, et mentitus erit apostolus dicens quod aliud omnino non est, cum sit et aliud, cum sic suum evangelium defendere potuisset, ut potius demonstraret, non ut unum determinaret. Sed fortasse, ut fugias hinc, Et ideo, dices, subtexuit, Licet angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit, anathema sit, quia et creatorem sciebat evangelizaturum.  Rursus ergo te implicas. Hoc est enim quo adstringeris. Duo enim evangelia confirmare non est eius qui aliud iam negarit. Tamen lucet sensus eius qui suam praemisit personam: Sed et si nos aut angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit. Verbi enim gratia dictum est. Ceterum si nec ipse aliter evangelizaturus, utique nec angelus. Ita angelum ad hoc nominavit, quo multo magis hominibus non esset credendum, quando nec angelo nec apostolo, non angelum4 ad evangelium referret creatoris.
So that if there is also a gospel of this new god, and you will have it that this is what the apostle was then upholding, in that case there are two gospels, belonging to two gods, and the apostle told a lie when he said there was no possible other gospel, though there is another, and he could just as well have upheld his own gospel by proving it the better one, not by laying it down that it is the only one. But perhaps, to escape from this,
you will say, And that is why he subjoined, Though an angel from heaven preach the gospel otherwise, let him be anathema, because he
knew the Creator also was going to preach the gospel. So again you are tying yourself in knots: for this is what you are entangled with. It is not possible for one to affirm there are two gospels, who has just denied that there is more than one. Yet his meaning is clear, as he has put himself down first: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach the gospel otherwise. He said it for the sake of emphasis. And yet, if he himself is not going to preach the gospel otherwise, certainly an angel is not. So the reason why he referred to the angel was that as they were not to believe an angel, or an apostle, even less must they believe men: he had no intention of connecting the angel with the Creator's gospel. (Evans)
However, you will have it that it is the gospel of a new god which was then set forth by the apostle. So that there are two gospels for two gods; and the apostle made a great mistake when he said that "there is not another" gospel, since there is (on the hypothesis) another; and so he might have made a better defence of his gospel, by rather demonstrating this, than by insisting on its being but one. But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed," because he was aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! But you thus entangle yourself still more. For this is now the mesh in which you are caught. To affirm that there are two gospels, is not the part of a man who has already denied that there is another. His meaning, however, is clear, for he has mentioned himself first (in the anathema): "But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel."68 It is by way of an example that he has expressed himself. If even he himself might not preach any other gospel, then neither might an angel. He said "angel" in this way, that he might show how much more men ought not to be believed, when neither an angel nor an apostle ought to be; not that he meant to apply an angel to the gospel of the Creator. (Holmes)
The key sentences are " Rursus ergo te implicas. Hoc est enim quo adstringeris." Both Holmes and Evans render implicas with the idea of being 'entangled' in a net which makes sense given the second line. But clearly it also has the derived meaning - perfectly plain to an English speaker - that something they are doing 'implicates' them in have perpetrated something here. He is clearly addressing a fictional Marcionite. When he says "Rursus ergo te implicas. Hoc est enim quo adstringeris" the difficulty with translating rursus as 'again' in the numerical sense is that Marcion hasn't been caught doing anything yet. There is no 'again' here that makes any sense. Rursus should be translated 'return' or 'turn back' and what Marcion and the Marcionite are being implicated in is what we are told is his/their crime at the end of the first chapter - excising large chunks of material from Galatians.
To this end, Rursus ergo te implicas. Hoc est enim quo adstringeris is best understood as 'Come back" or "return! you (Marcion) thus implicate yourself. For this is what you are fast bound' or 'caught.' Again what is it that Tertullian or Irenaeus thinks he is implicated in or caught doing? Clearly it is the original charge at the end of the first chapter - that "no other god was the subject of the apostle's profession ... [in] Paul's epistles" any evidence they bring forward to this effect is owing to the fact "that these (epistles) have suffered mutilation" or excision. In other words, Marcion's text of Galatians only supports the idea of 'two gods' being associated with 'two different gospels' - one according to 'the apostle' (= Paul) and his 'new god' the other according to Peter and his Creator. This is the very accusation at the heart of another document associated with Tertullian (but originally from the orbit of Irenaeus) the Prescription Against the Heresies.
I've cited the material from Prescription and it clearly says that (a) Paul had a secret gospel (b) he introduced it after a gospel was associated with Peter and (c) the chief difference between the two gospels is that Paul revealed a better god, a superior god as compared with Peter's Creator god. So there is a precedent for what I am suggesting. The question is in my mind (i) do people want to admit the possibility that massive interpolation took place in the Catholic Galatians text and (ii) do they want to take seriously what Tertullian actually says in Against Marcion. For look carefully at what Tertullian says against Marcion here again:
Rursus ergo te implicas. Hoc est enim quo adstringeris. Duo enim evangelia confirmare non est eius qui aliud iam negarit. Tamen lucet sensus eius qui suam praemisit personam: Sed et si nos aut angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit. Verbi enim gratia dictum est. Ceterum si nec ipse aliter evangelizaturus, utique nec angelus. Ita angelum ad hoc nominavit, quo multo magis hominibus non esset credendum, quando nec angelo nec apostolo, non angelum4 ad evangelium referret creatoris
Turn back, you thus implicate yourself (in your excision) For this is what you are fast bound. It is not possible for one to affirm there are two gospels, who has just denied that there is more than one. Yet his meaning is clear, as he has put himself down first: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach the gospel otherwise. He said it (i.e. the 'we') for the sake of emphasis. And yet, if he himself is not going to preach the gospel otherwise, certainly an angel is not. So the reason why he referred to the angel was that as they were not to believe an angel, or an apostle, even less must they believe men: he had no intention of connecting the angel with the Creator's gospel.
The thing that we can't lose sight of is that Tertullian previously cited a variant of Galatians 1:8 as if it was his own reading and now a few lines later - after also citing that Paul denied the existence of 'another' gospel viz. Gal 1:6 - he cites a completely different version of Galatians 1:8! How is this to be explained? Of course some scholars will pretend that the first citation is Marcion's text and the second is his own. Yet the best scholars do not do this because - as Schmid notes - there are serious signs that the reading is a unique and consistent one associated with Tertullian. So how is the sudden appearance of 'we' to be explained only a few lines later? I have consistently argued that Against Marcion influenced the final redaction of the orthodox canon and so the 'we' creeps in as a result of combating Marcion's text and interpretation linking 'the angel' of Galatians 1:8 with Peter in 2:11 as we read in Prescription Against the Heresies.
In other words, in the original text of Book 5 the author knows what Marcion is saying and reading - namely that the apostle (Paul) has one gospel and one 'new' god and Peter another gospel from another god, the Creator. The 'we' suddenly appears in the second citation of Galatians 1:8 as a way of cutting off Marcion's interpretation. 'We' the apostles - i.e. both Peter (and later by implication the 'Jerusalem Church') and I (i.e. Paul) 'we' all understand the same god and the same god. So it is that very next lines in Against Marcion 'confirm' or introduce all the 'historical details' that appear in our text of Galatians. We read in what immediately follows our last citation:
Exinde decurrens ordinem conversionis suae de persecutore in apostolum scripturam Apostolicorum confirmat, apud quam ipsa etiam epistulae istius materia recognoscitur, intercessisse quosdam qui dicerent circumcidi oportere et observandam esse Moysi legem, tunc apostolos de ista quaestione consultos ex auctoritate spiritus renuntiasse non esse imponenda onera hominibus quae patres ipsi non potuissent sustinere. Quodsi et ex hoc congruunt Paulo Apostolorum Acta, cur ea respuatis iam apparet, ut deum scilicet non alium praedicantia quam creatorem, nec Christum alterius quam creatoris, quando nec promissio spiritus sancti aliunde probetur exhibita quam de instrumento Actorum. Quae utique verisimile non est ex parte quidem apostolo convenire, cum ordinem eius secundum ipsius testimonium ostendunt, ex parte vero dissidere, cum divinitatem in Christo creatoris annuntiant, ut praedicationem quidem apostolorum non sit secutus Paulus, qui formam ab eis de- docendae legis accepit.
After that, as he briefly describes the course of his conversion from persecutor to apostle he confirms what is written in the Acts of the Apostles,f in which the substance of this epistle is reviewed; namely, that certain persons intervened who said the men ought to be circumcised, and that Moses' law must be kept, and that then the apostles, when asked for advice on this question, reported on the authority of the Spirit that they ought not to lay burdens upon men which not even their fathers had been able to bear. Now if even to this degree the Acts of the Apostles are in agreement with Paul, it becomes evident why you reject them: for they preach no other god than the Creator, nor the Christ of any god but the Creator, since neither is the promise of the Holy Spirit proved to have been fulfilled on any other testimony than the documentary evidence of the Acts. And it is by no means reasonable that that writing should in part agree with the apostle, when it relates his history in accordance with the evidence he supplies, and in part disagree, when it proclaims in Christ the godhead of the Creator, with intent to make out that Paul did not follow the preaching of the apostles, though in fact he did receive from them the pattern of teaching how the law need not be kept. (Evans)
He then cursorily touches on his own conversion from a persecutor to an apostle----confirming thereby the Acts of the Apostles,70 in which book may be found the very subject of this epistle, how that certain persons interposed, and said that men ought to be circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be observed; and how the apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that "a yoke should not be put upon men's necks which their fathers even had not been able to bear."72 Now, since the Acts of the Apostles thus agree with Paul, it becomes apparent why you reject them. It is because they declare no other God than the Creator, and prove Christ to belong to no other God than the Creator; whilst the promise of the Holy Ghost is shown to have been fulfilled in no other document than the Acts of the Apostles. Now, it is not very likely that these73 should be found in agreement with the apostle, on the one hand, when they described his career in accordance with his own statement; but should, on the other hand, be at variance with him when they announce the (attribute of) divinity in the Creator's Christ----as if Paul did not follow74 the preaching of the apostles when he received from them the prescription75 of not teaching the Law. (Holmes)
I will have to stop here for the moment (because I have to clean up things around me as I am expecting an important visitor) but let me note that we all agree that Tertullian is describing the contents of our Galatians at this point. We all know the verses. But is he describing Marcion's text? When he writes that Paul confirms the Acts of the Apostles and no wonder Marcion rejects the Acts of the Apostles - how can anyone seriously consider that Marcion had this list of details in his text which has a completely different understanding of Galatians 1:8?
If indeed Marcion wants to claim that Galatians 1:8 is two different gospels - one in his hands and associated with his 'new god' the supreme Father, and the 'other' in the hands of his enemies and clearly associated with Peter in Galatians 2:11 and the Creator - it is simply untenable that all the material between Galatians 1:8 - 2:11 could have been part of Marcion's Galatians. I am not saying this because I want the material to disappear. I am saying this as someone groping in the dark trying to make sense of what Marcion's text would look like based on what we know of his original argument, his original understanding from Against Marcion. It's that simple. If people want to believe that the Catholic text with its 'faith versus works' paradigm and two communities and the meeting at Antioch being framed by Acts that's cool. You have that right. I can't disprove the veracity of the existing Galatians - based on a lost text. But clearly the Marcionite text simply went from Galatians 1:8 to 2:11. Tertullian says that Marcion is guilty of excising material from his letters and then says he has 'caught' or 'bound' him in the act immediately after Galatians 1:8. There can be no doubt of what the shape of the text looked like. It didn't have all the details about James and the Jerusalem Church.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote