Even Joseph Turmel concluded that Matthew had falsified *Ev

[Giuseppe]

Matthew 5:3:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 6:20:

Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Did Luke materialize the logion? Or did Matthew spiritualized the logion?

Ici intervient l'axiome: l'auteur du délit est celui à qui il profite; la déformation est l'oeuvre de celui qui avait intérêt à la faire. Or Lc aurait combattu la cause religieuse à laquelle il travaillait, s'il avait découronné les béatitudes de Mt, tandis que Mt servait cette même cause, en auréolant les béatitudes de Lc.

C'est donc chez Mt que se trouve la retouche, et c'est Lc qui a le texte primitif.

(Turmel's words quoted by Etienne Weil-Raynal in Chronologie des Evangiles, p. 68)

The comment by the same Weil-Raynal (p. 69):

En faisant cette pénétrante analyse, Turmel se placait provisoirement dans l'hypothèse d'un "document antérieur à Lc et à Mt", et qu'ils "ont utilisé chacun à sa manière". D'autre part, la reconstitution de l'Evangélion par Harnack - que Turmel ne connaissait pas encore, - ne laisse aucun doute sur l'exactitude de l'interprétation de celui-ci.

En effet Harnack s'appuie sur la citation du passage correspendant de l'Evangélion, faite en latin par Tertullien, qui porte: "Heureux les mendiants...", pour établir, à l'égard de ce verset, un texte semblable à celui de Lc; et nous avons montré dans le chapitre précédent que le "document utilisé" par Lc est l'Evangélion.
Ainsi, suivant l'expression de Turmel, Mt à épuré ici le texte qu'avait reproduit Lc.

So there are no doubts at all: all the best authors of my knowledge, Bruno Bauer, Joseph Turmel, P.-L. Couchoud, Weill-Raynal, Prosper Alfaric, Guy Fau (only Turmel was historicist among them, and with the strong suspicion that the historical Jesus was Judas the Galilean), well, all them, concluded that *Ev preceded both Luke and Matthew beyond any doubt.

I am doubly justified to suspect of apologetics all the people who disagree with them on this point.

[StephenGoranson]

Giuseppe, you may feel "justified to suspect" as you wish, but the fact remains that several scholars of various backgrounds interpret Marcion as having altered a pre-existing gLuke.

[Secret Alias]

But how is that possible? The argument is as follows:

1. Marcion knew the fourfold gospel (i.e. a set of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)
2. Marcion for some reason (it is never explained) "chose Luke to falsify"

I don't even think this is a serious suggestion. Surely a motive has to be given to accuse someone of something? Given the fact that Irenaeus (who invents this story about Marcion and at the same time introduces a hitherto unknown gospel called "according to Luke" along with Acts) often times speaks of text "witnessing" against the various heresies who supposedly used it (i.e. Matthew "happening to have" written in its account of the birth of Jesus a reference to "Christ" rather than "Jesus" which "proves" allegedly that the author recognized Jesus to be "Christ" at his birth cf. Adv Haer 3.16). Similarly John "witnesses" against the heretics who use his gospel. Doesn't it make more sense to suppose that Luke was specifically written against Marcion?

I don't get why take one side in a disputes POV as more truthful than another when we haven't even bothered to even attempt to see things from the Marcionite perspective. Paul says "I am giving you the gospel." The orthodox say "he didn't mean written gospel." Why do we believe them?

[StephenGoranson]

Putting aside, for now, whether Marcion had four gospels, the option that he modified gLuke for his proposed canon--accepted canons ordinarily being formed and agreed by more than one person--is surely possible.

[Secret Alias]

But only if you put aside the first part of the equation. Look at Irenaeus's specific wording. It mirrors Tertullian's statement to the same effect (because Tertullian was repurposing Irenaeus). I do not think that the Marcion falsified Luke proposition is even worth considering. It doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. Another reason. The Marcionites claimed they had the original gospel from which all gospels were corrupted. Why would you make that claim with a gospel like Luke which no one ever heard of before the end of the second century. Doesn't add up.

It really only comes down to one question. Could Irenaeus be capable of lying. If Irenaeus is capable of lying then explaining the Marcion story as a lie is more probable than its factuality because it's crazy. It's an insane suggestion to suggest that Marcion had the four gospels and just decided to falsify one part of the four gospels and pretend this was Paul's gospel.

[StephenGoranson]

If you think it "not worth considering" then you haven't done open-minded research.

[Giuseppe]

How could Marcion, the best candidate to spiritualize the poor, to be satisfied with "the poor" (without "in spirit") while just Matthew, the presumed old Jewish-Christian author and collector/heir of even older Jewish-Christian traditions, be moved to add "in spirit"?

The answer by Matthean prioritists will be: silence.

[StephenGoranson]

I'm not clear if you are calling me one of the "Matthean prioritists."
In any case, calling "Marcion, the best candidate to spiritualize the poor" comes from...where?

[Secret Alias]

If you think it "not worth considering" then you haven't done open-minded research.

I think it is unreasonable to suggest that Marcion had access to a four gospel set which only appeared at the end of the second century and chose the least known of the four gospels, falsified it, and claimed that this was the gospel Paul was referring to when he said "my gospel." That conclusion does not originate from a lack of objectivity or nuance. It comes from a careful evaluation of the original claim. I would argue, in contrast to you, that cherry picking what Irenaeus says about Marcion's use of Luke is not nuanced and does not develop from carefully considered research.

[Giuseppe]

In any case, calling "Marcion, the best candidate to spiritualize the poor" comes from...where?

Marcion hated the material world. He would have had any interest to spiritualize the poor, to make them poor in spirit.

Contra factum that he read "the poor" while his ideological enemy read "poor in spirit".