Even Joseph Turmel concluded that Matthew had falsified *Ev

[GakuseiDon]

If these views pre-existed Marcion, then perhaps the gospel now associated with Marcion pre-existed him too.

I think something along those lines: that there were oral or written beliefs about Jesus Christ/Chrest that pre-existed Marcion that Marcion or Marcion's Gospel writer put together, probably in line with Paul's letters, and that were then adopted and modified by various Christian cults.

[Secret Alias]

Except that on some level Christianity was competing with a book religion. Christianity without a book is inferior to Judaism.

[Giuseppe]

The Creator of the world of corruptible matter was a daemon or daemons. That seems to have been a belief that came AFTER Jewish Christianity, not before.

I agree with this, since this means, under the priority of *Ev over at least Matthew and Luke, that Matthew, and not only canonical Luke, is a false Jewish-Christian, and only another version of a gentilizing gospel. If chronology serves to something at all, then who comes after Marcion is a betrayer of the original Jewish-Christianity just as Marcion was.

The exception would be if who is doing a reaction against a previous betrayer, preserved some fragments of the tradition preceding the betrayer. But this possibility is excluded when we see that the synoptic relations are so stricty connected that the chronology nips on the bud the possibility of an inversion between first comers and late comers from the POV of 'tradition'.

[Giuseppe]

quoted from facebook (originally addressed to Ken Olson):

1) surely Marcion interpreted spiritually the 'poor' even if *Ev didn't read 'in spirit'. My point is that the his spiritual interpretation would have been facilitated if *Ev had 'poor in spirit'. 2) the fact that the addition 'in spirit' has been made by Matthew and not by Marcion means that probably Matthew comes after *Ev. 3) if only Marcion had known about a previous reading of 'poor IN SPIRIT' (if in Luke or in Matthew), hardly he would have ignored it and preserved the mere reading of 'poor' (without 'in spirit'. It seems to me that you ignore deliberately how much interest Marcion had in spiritualizing things (Jesus and the poor in primis).