I am aware of the evidence and it is slight. Tertullian for one:
It is well also that the disciples' unbelief persisted, so that right to the end our claim should stand that to the disciples Christ Jesus had declared himself no other than the Christ of the prophets. For when two of them were on a journey, and the Lord had joined himself with them, while it did not appear that it was he himself, and he even pretended not to be aware of the things that had happened, they said, But we were thinking that he himself was the Redeemer of Israel, evidently Israel's, and the Creator's, Christ. To that extent had he never declared himself any other. Otherwise they would not have supposed him the Creator's: and when he was supposed to be the Creator's, he would not have tolerated this supposition about himself if he had not been who he was supposed to be. Otherwise he must be thought of as the author of error and a renegade from the truth: and this will not suit your description of him as a god supremely good. But not even after his resurrection did he show them that he was any different from him they said they thought him to be. It is true that he severely rebuked them: O fools, and slow of heart in not believing all the things which he spoke to you. In saying this he proves he belongs not to another god but to the same God. For the angels had said the same to the women: Remember the things he spoke to you in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must needs be delivered up, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And why 'must needs', except it was so written by God the Creator ? That is why he rebuked them, for being offended at his passion, and nothing more, and for being doubtful in the faith of the resurrection reported to them by the women, and for these reasons ceasing to believe that he was who they had trusted he had been. And so, since it was his wish to be believed to be that which they had trusted he was, he affirmed that he was who they had trusted he was, the Creator's Christ, the Redeemer of Israel. Now concerning the verity of his body, what could be clearer? When they were in doubt whether he were not a phantasm, or even supposed that he was a phantasm, he said to them Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself: for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me having. Now here Marcion, on purpose I believe, has abstained from crossing out of his gospel certain matters opposed to him, hoping that in view of these which he might have crossed out and has not, he may be thought not to have crossed out those which he has crossed out, or even to have crossed them out with good reason. But he is only sparing to statements which he proceeds to overturn by strange interpretation no less than by deletion. He will have it then that <the words> A spirit hath not bones as ye see me having, were so spoken as to be referred to the spirit, 'as ye see me having', meaning, not having bones, even as a spirit has not. And what sense would there be in such a round-about way of putting it, when he might have said quite plainly, For a spirit hath not bones, as ye see that I have not'? Why again did he offer his hands and feet for them to examine—and these members consist of bones—if he had no bones? Why does he add, And know that it is I myself, though of course they knew beforehand that he had a body? Or else, if he was in every respect a phantasm, why did he upbraid them for thinking him a phantasm? And yet, while they still believed not, he asked them for food, so as to show that he even had teeth.
Scholion 77. He falsified what Christ said to Cleopas and the other disciples when he met them, 'O fools, and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not he to have suffered these things?' And instead of 'what the prophets have spoken,' he put, 'what I have said unto you.' But he is exposed, since 'When he broke the bread their eyes were opened and they knew him.'
(a) Elenchus 77. Tell me, Marcion, how was the breaking of the bread done? In appearance, or with a solid body actually at work? For when he arose from the dead he truly arose in his sacred body itself; therefore he truly broke the bread.
(b) But you have replaced, 'Is not this what the prophets have spoken?' Marcion, with, 'Is this not what I said unto you?'
(c) If he had told them,
'I said unto you,' they would surely have recognized him from the phrase,
'I said.' Why, then, is it at the breaking of the bread that scripture says,
'Their eyes were opened and they knew him and he vanished?'
(d) For it was fitting for him, since he was God and was transforming his body into a spiritual one, to show that it was a true body but that it vanished when he chose, since all things are possible to him.
(e) Even Elisha, in fact, who was a prophet and had received the grace from God, prayed God that his pursuers be smitten with blindness, and they were smitten and could not see him as he was.
(f) Moreover, in Sodom the angels concealed Lot’s door, and the Sodomites could not see it. Was Lot's door an apparition too, Marcion? But you are left with no reply. For he plainly broke the bread and distributed it to his disciples.
Scholion 78. 'Why are ye troubled? Behold my hands and my feet, for a spirit hath not bones as ye see me have.'
(a) Elenchus 78. Who can fail to laugh at the driveller who has foolishly dragged himself and the souls of others down to hell? If he had not acknowledged these words his imposture would be plausible, and his dupes would be pardonable.
(b) But now, since he acknowledged these texts and did not take them out, and his followers read them too, his sin and theirs remains and the fire is inescapable for him and them, since they have no excuse. For the Saviour has clearly taught that even after his resurrection he has bones and flesh, as he testified himself with the words, 'as ye see me have.'
Let's first note that the passages are strangely identical. How can it be coincidence that only two passages in all that material are cited by both Tertullian and Epiphanius. Clearly again their accounts derive from a (lost) common source.
“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