Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Luke Chapter 1
Luke 1:1
Luke 1:2
Luke 1:3
Luke 1:4
Luke 1:5
Luke 1:6
Luke 1:7
Luke 1:8
Luke 1:9
Luke 1:10
Luke 1:11
Luke 1:12
Luke 1:13
Luke 1:14
Luke 1:15
Luke 1:16
Luke 1:17
Luke 1:18
Luke 1:19
Luke 1:20
Luke 1:21
Luke 1:22
Luke 1:23
Luke 1:24
Luke 1:25
Luke 1:26
Luke 1:27
Luke 1:28
Luke 1:29
Luke 1:30
Luke 1:31
Luke 1:32
Luke 1:33
Luke 1:34
Luke 1:35
Luke 1:36
Luke 1:37
Luke 1:38
Luke 1:39
Luke 1:40
Luke 1:41
Luke 1:42
Luke 1:43
Luke 1:44
Luke 1:45
Luke 1:46
Luke 1:47
Luke 1:48
Luke 1:49
Luke 1:50
Luke 1:51
Luke 1:52
Luke 1:53
Luke 1:54
Luke 1:55
Luke 1:56
Luke 1:57
Luke 1:58
Luke 1:59
Luke 1:60
Luke 1:61
Luke 1:62
Luke 1:63
Luke 1:64
Luke 1:65
Luke 1:66
Luke 1:67
Luke 1:68
Luke 1:69
Luke 1:70
Luke 1:71
Luke 1:72
Luke 1:73
Luke 1:74
Luke 1:75
Luke 1:76
Luke 1:77
Luke 1:78
Luke 1:79
Luke 1:80
Luke Chapter 2
Luke 2:1
Luke 2:2
Luke 2:3
Luke 2:4
Luke 2:5
Luke 2:6
Luke 2:7
Luke 2:8
Luke 2:9
Luke 2:10
Luke 2:11
Luke 2:12
Luke 2:13
Luke 2:14
Luke 2:15
Luke 2:16
Luke 2:17
Luke 2:18
Luke 2:19
Luke 2:20
Luke 2:21
Luke 2:22
Luke 2:23
Luke 2:24
Luke 2:25
Luke 2:26
Luke 2:27
Luke 2:28
Luke 2:29
Luke 2:30
Luke 2:31
Luke 2:32
Luke 2:33
Luke 2:34
Luke 2:35
Luke 2:36
Luke 2:37
Luke 2:38
Luke 2:39
Luke 2:40
Luke 2:41
Luke 2:42
Luke 2:43
Luke 2:44
Luke 2:45
Luke 2:46
Luke 2:47
Luke 2:48
Luke 2:49
Luke 2:50
Luke 2:51
Luke 2:52

A note. A statement like Tertullian's "Likewise, when extolling the centurion's faith, how incredible a thing it is, that He should confess that He had "found so great a faith not even in Israel." to whom Israel's faith was in no way interesting!" implies that there was no difference whatsoever with the canonical text. The passage was the canonical text and the Marcionite gospel was Luke. There isn't a shade of nuance in any of these sections. It reads just like the original author is just citing a text already known to his audience, it sounds like he is reading canonical Luke.

So too with the opening of the previous chapter: And now, on the subject of a loan, when He asks, "And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? " compare with this the following words of Ezekiel, in which He says of the before-mentioned just man, "He hath not given his money upon usury, nor will he take any increase" ----meaning the redundance of interest, which is usury." Marcion is supposed to be a falsifier, an interpolator, a "cutter" but the entire argument proceeds as if those following along at home can just open their gospels of Luke and read along. There isn't a reference to any buffer between what Tertullian has before him and the people at home. He's saying "compare canonical Luke (that you have at home) with the text of Ezekiel (which you have at home)." There isn't even a passing reference to having something "strange" something "different" - viz. something specifically Marcionite.

Red = Tertullian Blue = Epiphanius

What is the source of the data?

The 1651 footnotes in Holmes' Adversus Marcionem and the footnotes in Williams' Panarion pamphlet. Once you get into the weeds it becomes too subjective.