Matthew 5.17.
From Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.7.4: [3] Indignum denique ut Romulus quidem ascensus sui in caelum habuerit Proculum affirmatorem, Christus vero dei descensus de caelo sui non invenerit annuntiatorem, quasi non sic et ille ascenderit iisdem mendacii scalis, sicut et iste descendit. Quid autem illi cum Galilaea, si non erat creatoris, cui ista regio destinabatur ingressuro praedicationem? dicente Esaia, Hoc primum bibito, cito facito, regio Zabulon et terra Nephthalim, et ceteri qui maritimam et Iordanis, Galilaea nationum, populus qui sedetis in tenebris, videte lumen magnum: qui habitatis terram, sedentes in umbra mortis, lumen ortum est super vos. [4] Bene autem quod et deus Marcionis illuminator vindicatur nationum, quo magis debuerit vel de caelo descendere, et, si utique, in Pontum potius descendere quam in Galilaeam. Ceterum et loco et illuminationis opere secundum praedicationem occurrentibus Christo iam eum prophetatum incipimus agnoscere, ostendentem in primo ingressu venisse se non ut legem et prophetas dissolveret, sed ut potius adimpleret. Hoc enim Marcion ut additum erasit. / [3] It is, in short, too bad that Romulus should have had in Proculus an avoucher of his ascent to heaven, when the Christ of (this) god could not find any one to announce his descent from heaven; just as if the ascent of the one and the descent of the other were not effected on one and the same ladder of falsehood! Then, what had he to do with Galilee, if he did not belong to the Creator by whom that region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry? As Isaiah says: "Drink in this first, and be prompt, O region of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, and ye others who (inhabit) the sea-coast, and that of Jordan, Galilee of the nations, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light; upon you, who inhabit (that) land, sitting in the shadow of death, the light hath arisen." [4] It is, however, well that Marcion's god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations, that so he might have the better reason for coming down from heaven; only, if it must needs be, he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent than Galilee. But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them; for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation.
There is no parallel in Luke to Matthew 5.17.
Matthew 5.45.
From Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.17.4, 6: Et eritis filii dei. .... Ille me nunc rursus filium nuncupat, iam non in animam sed in spiritum pariens. Quia ipse, inquit, suavis est adversus ingratos et malos. Euge, Marcion, satis ingeniose detraxisti illi pluvias et soles, ne creator videretur. / "And ye shall be the children of God." .... Now again He names me His son, not begetting me into natural life, but into spiritual life. "Because," says He, "He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil." Well done, Marcion! how cleverly have you withdrawn from Him the showers and the sunshine, that He might not seem to be a Creator!
From Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 96.3: οὗτος γὰρ ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν εὔχεσθαι, εἰπών· Γίνεσθε χρηστοὶ καὶ οἰκτίρμονες, ὡς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος. καὶ γὰρ τὸν παντοκράτορα θεὸν χρηστὸν καὶ οἰκτίρμονα ὁρῶμεν, τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλοντα ἐπὶ ἀχαρίστους καὶ δικαίους, καὶ βρέχοντα ἐπὶ ὁσίους καὶ πονηρούς, οὓς πάντας ὅτι καὶ κρίνειν μέλλει ἐδίδαξε. / For He taught us to pray for our enemies also, saying, 'Love your enemies [Luke 6.35]; be kind and merciful, as your heavenly Father is [Luke 6.36].' For we see that the Almighty God is kind and merciful, causing His sun to rise on the unthankful and on the righteous, and sending rain on the holy and on the wicked [Matthew 5.45], all of whom He has taught us He will judge.
From Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 96.3: οὗτος γὰρ ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν εὔχεσθαι, εἰπών· Γίνεσθε χρηστοὶ καὶ οἰκτίρμονες, ὡς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος. καὶ γὰρ τὸν παντοκράτορα θεὸν χρηστὸν καὶ οἰκτίρμονα ὁρῶμεν, τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλοντα ἐπὶ ἀχαρίστους καὶ δικαίους, καὶ βρέχοντα ἐπὶ ὁσίους καὶ πονηρούς, οὓς πάντας ὅτι καὶ κρίνειν μέλλει ἐδίδαξε. / For He taught us to pray for our enemies also, saying, 'Love your enemies [Luke 6.35]; be kind and merciful, as your heavenly Father is [Luke 6.36].' For we see that the Almighty God is kind and merciful, causing His sun to rise on the unthankful and on the righteous, and sending rain on the holy and on the wicked [Matthew 5.45], all of whom He has taught us He will judge.
Tertullian here comments at some length on Luke 6.35 (on loving one's enemies), which contains the promise, "and you shall be the sons of the most high" (though Tertullian has "God" while Matthew has "your heavenly father"), right before a statement about God being kind to the ungrateful and the evil. The bit about showers and sunshine, however, which Tertullian accuses Marcion of deleting, comes from Matthew 5.45, not from anywhere in our extant Luke. Notice that Justin attests to basically the same constellation of textual notions.
Matthew 5.21-48.
This example is unlike the rest; it has been argued that Marcion's Antitheses took their cue from, or are related in some way to, Matthew's repeated pattern in the sermon on the mount:
"You have heard it said... but I say to you...."
Matthew 8.4.
From Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17: «καὶ προσένεγκε περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου» κἄν τε ἀποκόψῃς «τὸ δῶρον», φανήσεται ἐκ τοῦ προσένεγκε ὅτι περὶ δώρου λέγει. / (b) 'And offer for thy cleansing.' Even if you excise 'the gift,' it will be evident, from the word, 'offer,' that he is speaking of a gift.
From Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.9.9: Secundum haec cetera quoque occurrunt. Quantum enim ad gloriae humanae aversionem pertinebat, vetuit eum divulgare, quantum autem ad tutelam legis, iussit ordinem impleri: Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer munus quod praecepit Moyses. / On the same principle occurs all the rest. So far as renouncing all human glory went, He forbade the man to publish abroad the cure; but so far as the honour of the law was concerned, He requested that the usual course should be followed: "Go, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded."
From Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.9.9: Secundum haec cetera quoque occurrunt. Quantum enim ad gloriae humanae aversionem pertinebat, vetuit eum divulgare, quantum autem ad tutelam legis, iussit ordinem impleri: Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer munus quod praecepit Moyses. / On the same principle occurs all the rest. So far as renouncing all human glory went, He forbade the man to publish abroad the cure; but so far as the honour of the law was concerned, He requested that the usual course should be followed: "Go, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded."
This one comes from Stephan's list. It is a tricky one. Tertullian attests "gift" in the text of Marcion. Epiphanius accuses Marcion of cutting out "gift". Yet "gift" appears in virtually no manuscripts of Luke 5.14 (only in Monacensis, Verona, and Colbertinus 4051). Epiphanius appears to be relying on Luke 5.14 in Panarion 66.57.2, for the most part (the underlined words are unique to Luke in the standard texts, and the only words absent from our standard texts of Luke are the ones in dispute, τὸ δῶρόν): «ἀπελθὼν προσένεγκε τὸ δῶρόν σου,» τῷ καθαρισθέντι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ λεπρῷ λέγων «καθὼς προσέταξε Μωυσῆς». It is quite possible, from Tertullian, that the Marcionite text contained the Matthean "gift"; it seems pretty certain that Epiphanius, for whatever reason, is accusing Marcion of omitting "gift". Therefore, this example belongs on this list as a possible instance of both criteria separately being met (Matthean material in Marcion and Marcion being accused of omitting Matthean material).
Matthew 10.10.
From Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.21.1: Dimittit discipulos ad praedicandum dei regnum. Numquid vel hic edidit cuius? Prohibet eos victui aut vestitui quid in viam ferre. Quis hoc mandasset, nisi qui et corvos alit et flores agri vestit, qui bovi quoque terenti libertatem oris ad veniam pabuli ex opere summovendi ante praecepit, quia dignus operarius mercede sua? Haec Marcion deleat, dum sensui salva sint. / He sends forth His disciples to preach the kingdom of God. Does He here say of what God? He forbids their taking anything for their journey, by way of either food or raiment. Who would have given such a commandment as this, but He who feeds the ravens and clothes the flowers of the field? Who anciently enjoined for the treading ox an unmuzzled mouth, that he might be at liberty to gather his fodder from his labour, on the principle that the worker is worthy of his hire? Marcion may expunge such precepts, but no matter, provided the sense of them survives.
The worker being worthy of his food comes from Matthew 10.10, which belongs to the passage parallel to Luke 9.1-6, which is under discussion in this section. But Luke 9.1-6 lacks such a statement; rather, it is to be found in Luke 10.7, where Tertullian seems to attest the phrase in Marcion (Against Marcion 4.24.4). So it is odd, at least, that he seems to think it has been deleted from 9.1-6. Nevertheless, he quotes the Lucan form of the saying (with "wage" or "hire"), not the Matthean form (with "food").
Matthew 10.34 (Luke 12.51).
From Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.29.13-14: Ipse melius interpretabitur ignis istius qualitatem, adiciens, Putatis venisse me pacem mittere in terram? non, dico vobis, sed separationem. Machaeram quidem scriptum est. Sed Marcion emendat; quasi non et separatio opus sit machaerae. / But He will Himself best explain the quality of that fire which He mentioned, when He goes on to say, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." It is written "a sword," but Marcion makes an emendation of the word, just as if a division were not the work of the sword.
This verse is present both in Matthew and in Luke, but it is Matthew that attests "sword", while Luke attests "division"; yet Tertullian accuses Marcion of changing the former to the latter, as if "sword" stood in Luke, as well.
Matthew 12.48 (Mark 3.33).
From Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.19.6-7: Venimus ad constantissimum argurnentum omnium qui domini nativitatem in controversiam deferunt. Ipse, inquiunt, contestatur se non esse natum dicendo, Quae mihi mater, et qui mihi fratres? Ita semper haeretici aut nudas et simplices voces coniecturis quo volunt rapiunt, aut rursus condicionales et rationales simplicitatis condicione dissolvunt, ut hoc in loco. [7] Nos contrario dicimus primo non potuisse illi annuntiari quod mater et fratres eius foris starent quaerentes videre eum, si nulla illi mater et fratres nulli fuissent. / We now come to the most strenuously-plied argument of all those who call in question the Lord's nativity. They say that He testifies Himself to His not having been born, when He asks, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? " In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution, as in this passage. We, for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brethren.
From Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17 (elenchus 12): καὶ μή σε πλανάτω ὁ λόγος, ὃν εἶπεν ὁ κύριος «τίς μου ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί;» οὐ γὰρ ἀρνούμενος τὴν ητέρα ταῦτ' ἔφη, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄκαιρον ἀνατρέπων τοῦ εἰπόντος, τοσούτου ὄχλου περιεστῶτος καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ σωτηριώδους διδασκαλίας προχεομένης καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὰς ἰάσεις καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα ἀσχολουμένου. / And do not let the thing the Lord said, 'Who are my mother and brethren?' mislead you. He did not say this to deny his mother, but to reproach the untimely speech of the person who spoke when there was such a large crowd surrounding him, when his saving teaching was pouring forth and he himself was busy with healings and preaching.
From Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17 (elenchus 12): καὶ μή σε πλανάτω ὁ λόγος, ὃν εἶπεν ὁ κύριος «τίς μου ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί;» οὐ γὰρ ἀρνούμενος τὴν ητέρα ταῦτ' ἔφη, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄκαιρον ἀνατρέπων τοῦ εἰπόντος, τοσούτου ὄχλου περιεστῶτος καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ σωτηριώδους διδασκαλίας προχεομένης καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὰς ἰάσεις καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα ἀσχολουμένου. / And do not let the thing the Lord said, 'Who are my mother and brethren?' mislead you. He did not say this to deny his mother, but to reproach the untimely speech of the person who spoke when there was such a large crowd surrounding him, when his saving teaching was pouring forth and he himself was busy with healings and preaching.
Thus Tertullian and Epiphanius both seem to assert that the question, "Who are my mother and brothers," stood in the Marcionite gospel. Both Matthew and Mark contain the question in some form; Luke does not. It has been pointed out (A) that Tertullian, at least, here speaks more generally of heretics than specifically of Marcion and (B) that Marcion possibly used the question against his opponents only for the sake of argument, simply because it stood in their gospel, without either finding it in or inserting it into his own.
Matthew 15.14 (Luke 6.39).
Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.7.1: Discat nunc haereticus ex abundanti cum ipso licebit Iudaeo rationem quoque errorum eius, a quo ducatum mutuatus in hac argumentatione caecus a caeco in eandem decidit foveam. Duos dicimus Christi habitus a prophetis demonstratos totidem adventus eius praenotasse: unum in humilitate, utique primum, cum tanquam ovis ad victimam deduci habebat, et tanquam agnus ante tondentem sine voce, ita non aperiens os suum, ne aspectu quidem honestus. / Our heretic will now have the fullest opportunity of learning the clue of his errors along with the Jew himself, from whom he has borrowed his guidance in this discussion. Since, however, the blind leads the blind, they fall into the ditch together. We affirm that, as there are two conditions demonstrated by the prophets to belong to Christ, so these presignified the same number of advents; one, and that the first, was to be in lowliness, when He had to be led as a sheep to be slain as a victim, and to be as a lamb dumb before the shearer, not opening His mouth, and not fair to look upon.
The statement about the blind leading the blind into a ditch appears to be closer to Matthew than to Luke.
Matthew 15.24, 26 (Mark 7.37).
From Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.7.5: De caelo statim ad synagogam. Ut dici solet, ad quod venimus; hoc age, Marcion, aufer etiam illud de evangelio, Non sum missus nisi ad oves perditas domus Israel, et, Non est auferre panem filiis et dare eum canibus, ne scilicet Christus Israelis videretur. / From heaven straight to the synagogue. As the adage runs: "The business on which we are come, do at once." Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; " and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs," ----in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite.
Luke does not contain the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman; both Matthew and Mark do. Matthew contains both the statement about being sent to the lost sheep of Israel and the statement about casting the children's bread to dogs; Mark contains only the latter.
Matthew 26.24 (Luke 22.22).
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.35.1-4: Conversus ibidem ad discipulos Vae dicit auctori scandalorum, expedisse ei si natus non fuisset, aut si molino saxo ad collum deligato praecipitatus esset in profundum, quam unum ex illis modicis utique discipulis eius scandalizasset. Aestima quale supplicium comminetur illi. Nec enim alius ulciscetur scandalum discipulorum eius. / Then, turning to His disciples, He says: "Woe unto him through whom offences come! It were better for him if he had not been born, or if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones," that is, one of His disciples. Judge, then, what the sort of punishment is which He so severely threatens. For it is no stranger who is to avenge the offence done to His disciples.
Luke lacks the bit about it being better never to have been born.
Ben.