The two parallels to Luke 4.30-31 that you mention are from the Syriac Diatessaron (with all due diligence intended as to how we treat that title) and from the Evangelion of Marcion, according to Tertullian, correct?
Here are the texts that I think you have in mind. First, the Diatessaron as reconstructed by Tjitze Baarda:
Second, Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.8.2b-3a (Latin text and English translation by Ernest Evans):
Et tamen apud Nazareth. quoque nihil novi notatur praedicasse, dum alio, merito unius proverbii, eiectus refertur. Hic primum manus ei iniectas animadvertens necesse habeo iam de substantia eius corporali praefinire, quod non possit phantasma credi qui contactum et quidem violentia plenum detentus et captus et ad praecipitium usque protractus admiserit. Nam etsi per medios evasit, sed ante iam vim expertus, et postea dimissus; scilicet soluto, uti assolet, tumultu, vel etiam irrupto, non tamen per caliginem eluso, quae nulli omnino tactui succidisset, si fuisset.
Even at Nazareth there is no indication that his preaching was of anything new, though for all that, by reason of one single proverb, we are told that he was cast out. Here, as I for the first time observe that hands were laid upon him, I am called upon to say something definite about his corporal substance; that he who admitted of contact, contact even full of violence, in being seized and captured and dragged even to the brow of the hill, cannot be thought of as a phantasm. It is true that he slipped away through the midst of them, but this was when he had experienced their violence, and had afterwards been let go: for, as often happens, the crowd gave way, or was even broken up: there is no question of its being deceived by invisibility, for this, if it had been such, would never have submitted to contact at all.
Even at Nazareth there is no indication that his preaching was of anything new, though for all that, by reason of one single proverb, we are told that he was cast out. Here, as I for the first time observe that hands were laid upon him, I am called upon to say something definite about his corporal substance; that he who admitted of contact, contact even full of violence, in being seized and captured and dragged even to the brow of the hill, cannot be thought of as a phantasm. It is true that he slipped away through the midst of them, but this was when he had experienced their violence, and had afterwards been let go: for, as often happens, the crowd gave way, or was even broken up: there is no question of its being deceived by invisibility, for this, if it had been such, would never have submitted to contact at all.
Are there any more texts immediately relevant to this discussion that you know of?
Ben.