In ver. 33, for obsecrationes a has orationes, and for edunt manducant:  a and b also have quamdiu (Vulg. cum) in ver. 35.

Equally erroneous was Marcion’s interpretation of the concluding verses of the chapter which dealt with the distinction between old and new.  He indeed was intoxicated with ’new wine’—­though the real ‘new wine’ had been prophesied as far back as Jer. iv. 4 and Is. xliii. 19—­but He to whom belonged the new wine and the new bottles also belonged the old.  The difference between the old and new dispensations was of developement and progression, not of diversity or contrariety.  Both had one and the same Author.

Errasti in illa etiam domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova et vetera discernere.  Inflatus es utribus veteribus et excerebratus es novo vino:  atque ita veteri, i.e. priori evangelio pannum haereticae novitatis adsuisli ...  Venum novum is non committit in veteres utres qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et novum additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento nisi cui non defuerit vetus vestimentum.

Luke v. 36-38:  [36] Dicebat autem et similitudinem ad illos quia nemo commissuram a vestimento novo inmittit in vestimentum vetus.... [37] Et nemo mittit vinum novum in utres veteres.... [38] Sed vinum novum in utres novos mittendum est.

Of the phrases peculiar to Tertullian’s version of Marcion’s text, a has pannum (-no) and adsuisti (-it).

It is observed that Tertullian does not quote verse 39, which is omitted by D, a, b, c, c, ff, l, and perhaps, also by Eusebius.

Two of the Scholia of Epiphanius (Adv.  Haer. 322 D sqq.), nos. 1 and 2, have reference to this chapter.

[Greek:  Echul. a.  Apelthon deixon seauton to hierei kai prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxe Mousaes, hina ae marturion touto humin.]

Luke v. 14. [Greek:  Apeltheon deixon seauton to hierei, kai prosenenke peri tou katharismou sou, kathos prosetaxen Mousaes, eis marturion autois.]

v.l. [Greek:  hina eis marturion] (D’1, [Greek:  ae] D’2) [Greek:  humin touto] D, (a, b), c, ff, l.

The comment of Epiphanius on this is similar to that of Tertullian.  To bid the leper ‘do as Moses commanded,’ was practically to sanction the law of Moses.  Epiphanius expressly accuses Marcion of falsifying the phrase ’for a testimony unto them.’  He says that he changed ‘them’ to ‘you,’ without however, even in this perverted form, preventing the text from recoiling upon his own head [Greek:  diestrepsas de to rhaeton, o Markion, anti tou eipein ‘eis marturion autois’ marturion legon ‘humin.’ kai touto saphos epseuso kata taes sautou kephalaes].

[Greek:  Echol.  B’.  Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios tou anthropou aphienai hamartias epi taes gaes.]

Luke v. 24. [Greek:  Hina de eidaete hoti exousian echei ho uhios tou anthropou epi taes gaes aphienai hamartias.]