Summary:
In Marcion's Gospel (Ev) vv. 4:33-39 were as we see Lk 4:33-39, except for the reference to Nazareth in Lk 4:34.
Details:
And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice, [4:33] Saying, let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God. [4:34] And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the devil had thrown him in the midst, he came out of him, and hurt him not. [4:35]
Tertullian continues with Ev 4:33-35, and so this episode takes place in Capernaum, as it does in Luke. He writes:
In the same passage, "the spirit of an unclean devil" [4:33] exclaims: "What have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God." [4:34] … Well, but Jesus rebuked him [4:35], you say…
Tertullian also refers to Ev 4:34 in his commentary on Marcion's version of First Corinthians, where he writes that:
... according to the record which is common to both (Marcionites and ourselves) the evil spirit knew that Jesus was the Holy One of God, and that Jesus was His name, and that He had come to destroy them.
It is likely from this that Ev had these verses as we see them, except that “of Nazareth” was not in v. 4:34. In Ev this takes place in Capernaum, before Jesus is recorded as having been to Nazareth, so it would be strange for him to be referred to as “of Nazareth” before Nazareth had even been mentioned. Therefore, it is more likely that these words were added to Luke later, after Nazareth had been moved so that it came before Capernaum, unlike the order in Mark and Matthew.
And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out. [4:36] And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about. [4:37]
These verses have close parallels in Mark:
And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. [Mk 1:27] And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee. [Mk 1:28]
However, the apparent parallel to Ev 4:36 and Mk 1:27 in Matthew is significantly different:
And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: [Mt 7:28] For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. [Mt 7:29]
In addition to having no mention of the “unclean spirits” and the spread of Jesus’ “fame,” in Matthew these verses mark the ending of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1 – 7:27), and while they may be an adaptation of either Lk 4:36 or Mk 1:27, they should not be considered to be parallels as they are used in a completely different context.
Tertullian does not refer to Ev 4:36-37 in Adv. Marcion IV, and there appear to be no other references by Tertullian or other church fathers to any of these three sets of verses. However, despite this lack of evidence that these verses were known to Tertullian, there is really no valid basis on which to suggest that Lk 4:36-37 had no parallel in Ev. Instead, as elsewhere, Tertullian does not refer to these verses because there is nothing specific here regarding Jesus' words or actions in Ev that he could use against aMarcion.
And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon’s house. And Simon’s wife’s mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her. [4:38] And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and immediately she arose and ministered unto them. [4:39]
Although these verses have parallels in both Mark and Matthew (at Mk 1:29-31 and Mt 8:14-15 respectively), it should be noted that in both Jesus had previously met Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew by the Sea of Galilee, whereas in Luke this does not take place until later, in Lk 5:3, so leaving Simon appearing ‘unannounced’ here. In addition D, it(b, c, d, e, ff2, l, r1), vgmss refer to “Simon and Andrew’s house” rather than just “Simon’s house,” and again, Andrew is not introduced until later, in this instance at Lk 6:14. It therefore appears that Lk 4:38-39 were either originally located after Lk 6:14, or perhaps are an interpolation from the parallels. However, Tertullian does mention that "He did himself touch others, upon whom He laid His hands, which were capable of being felt, and conferred the blessings of healing," and while this may just refer to the healings in Lk 4:40, there is no reason to exclude Simons' wife's mother from this statement.
This is another consequence of bringing the Nazareth episode (Lk 4:16-30) forward in Luke, with Capernaum (Lk 4:31-44) following, so that both now take place before Jesus meets Simon and Andrew in Luke 5. Even though in Ev Capernaum comes before the Nazareth episode, these episodes still take place before Jesus meets either brother. It might be expected that Ev would have the same order of events as in Mark and Matthew, but neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius have any mention of Simon’s mother-in-law either before or after Ev 5:10-11. However, both do mention the healing of the leper that follows in Ev 5:12-16, and it seems unlikely that Jesus in Simon's house could have been located immediately before this passage.
Given the negative evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius, some reconstructions assume that these verses were not present in Ev. According to Lardner:
Dr. Mill says [c. 1861], that Marcion expunged the story about Peter's wife's mother, contained in the 38th and 39th of the 4th chapter. By the mark which he puts before the 37th verse, one would naturally conclude that he meant that the 37th verse also was expunged [but see above]; he gives no authority for this. Whether he grounds it on Tertullian's omitting to quote this, when he has quoted every circumstance mentioned in that chapter of the 31st verse, I know not.
Despite the uncertainties regarding the original location of Lk 4:38-39, this appears to be the only evidence indicating that these verses were not present in Ev. However:
We have no knowledge of any textual variant of Luke that excludes these verses;
They have parallels in both Mark and Matthew;
The verses immediately following them (Ev 4:40-41) are referred to by Tertullian, and have equivalents in both Matthew and Mark (immediately following Mt 8:15 and Mk 1:31 respectively), and could reasonably by taken to encompass Ev 4:39 as well.
For the above reasons, it is likely that these verses were included in Ev, and that Tertullian simply had no point to make regarding them, even though they referred to actions by Jesus.
See also: Simon's Mother-in-Law: Mk 1:30-31 in 'Is Marcion's Gospel Based on Mark?'