"At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priority"

[Secret Alias]

But again as always you argue from a point of view that has nothing to do with the OP. What was Irenaeus's POV? Did Irenaeus take 'evangelist' to mean gospel writer? Is it conceivable that Irenaeus thought that Luke was the first gospel? It's possible IMO. The only other possibility is that Irenaeus thought that Matthew and Luke were written at the same time in Rome. Irenaeus does speak in terms of Rome as the see of Peter and Paul. Perhaps he thought that they both received the gospel at the same time in the same city. But it would seem that Luke came first.

[TedM]

2 references by Irenaeus in the face of the counter evidences by writings that preceded Irenaeus

But the question is what did evangelist mean to Irenaeus and all subsequent Church Fathers? Answer a term used specifically for 'gospel writer.' That's a fact. Why is that? The most obvious explanation is that the heretical terminology was more widespread than the pseudo-Paulines.

I'm not seeing a very coherent argument here. If others were using the term differently there is no reason to impose a restricted definition unless there are texts that clearly restrict the definition. The first example you gave from Irenaeus said that both evangelists and apostles had writings. Big deal. Evangelists today have writings. And, evangelists today also don't have writings. There is nothing in that passage that suggests that evangelists meant anything different to Irenaeus than it did to the Pastoral writer (don't you claim that was Irenaeus too?), or to us today. The second example names both Luke and Paul as evangelists, and then mentions that Luke wrote a gospel. The exclusive equivocation of writings to evangelists appears to be in your imagination.

What you seem to be doing is looking for anything--any tiny little thing that suggests that there was one gospel of Paul written down, that the Marcionites used, and that Irenaeus later came along and perverted it, and one thing to help you in that theory is to claim that Paul=evangelist=gospel writer since Paul was 'early'. It would certainly help if you could show that only gospel writers were called evangelists, but I don't think that's going to be possible. If it is, I sure haven't seen it yet. But, even if you could show that Paul (via Luke) wrote an early gospel how does that really help you Stephan? How does that say ANYTHING about who perverted what? I'm missing that part of the puzzle still.

[Secret Alias]

I'm not seeing a very coherent argument here. If others were using the term differently there is no reason to impose a restricted definition unless there are texts that clearly restrict the definition.

At the time Irenaeus was writing down through to modern Greek 'evangelist' means gospel writer. In the Marcionite and other Christian communities who did not use Acts and the Pastorals 'evangelist' means 'gospel writer. Acts and the Pastorals use of 'evangelist' is anomalous. It stands opposed to the contemporary Marcionite use and more importantly had no influence over subsequent generations of Christians. What is so difficult to understand about that? Not even the people (the Church Fathers) who used Acts and the Pastorals employed 'evangelist' to mean 'one who preached the gospel.'

[TedM]

I don't believe it just because you say it. You have to show it.

But again, even if you are right about that word how does that matter? We already know that Paul had a gospel and the Marcionites claimed to be perpetuating Paul's gospel whether that be a written document by Paul, GLuke, oral tradition, or 'hidden revelations'. How does that make Irenaeus a liar and forgerer the GLuke? How does that in any way establish the authenticity of the Marcionite claims?

[Secret Alias]

You might be right here. I was using the English translation rather than the Latin original where the verb 'to evangelize' rather than the noun 'evangelist' is used. That changes everything. Anyone can evangelize not just 'evangelists' (a term which is quite specific but which strangely Irenaeus never uses). So on the whole there is nothing in that section of text that I cited which explicitly supports the idea that the gospel was written when Luke and Paul were likely (at least according to Irenaeus) together in Rome. So you win that one.

[TedM]

Well ok, but I still am wondering even if you were right how that helps with understanding what the true Marcionism was. We can reasonably assume that the Marcionites had a document and they claimed it went back to Paul. Is your position that it doesn't really make a lot of sense for the FIRST known usage of Paul's gospel--or really ANYONE's gospel to have been a perversion of it? And that it is likely that if there are two versions, the first one is the more authentic, which means it is likely that the orthodox version of GLuke really is the perverted one?

I like that theory on logical grounds. But, there has to be more evidence than the first canon being Marcions. After all, if Paul really did have a gospel, there was nearly 100 years in which it could have been perverted BEFORE anyone named Marcion even came along.

[Secret Alias]

This has nothing to do with Marcion or at least doesn't have to have anything to do with Marcion. Let me try one more time.

[Secret Alias]

The section starts with this statement which is the 'subject' or context of all that follows:

With regard to those who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them

Eos autem qui dicunt, solum Paulum veritatem cognovisse, cui per revelationem manifestatum est mysterium, ipse Paulus convincat eos

What does 'Paul alone knew the truth' mean? The context would seem to suggest pretty strongly (while it is not explicitly stated) that Paul wrote the gospel and that he did so not through human contact or 'perception' but as a' revelation of a mystery' which came while he was in an ecstatic state. This is what the heretics believed. Even though gospel writing is not explicitly referenced we know that it is lurking in the background because of all that follows. Are you there with me for that much?

[Secret Alias]

He immediately follows that up with a clear sense that gospel is meant even though Irenaeus - as is his inevitably approach - widens the meaning of 'evangel' to 'evangelize':

For our Lord never came to save Paul alone, nor is God so limited in means, that He should have but one apostle who knew the dispensation of His Son. And again, when Paul says, "How beautiful are the feet of those bringing glad tidings of good things, and preaching the Gospel of peace," he shows clearly that it was not merely one, but there were many who used to preach the truth.

But the heretics have in mind "write the gospel" because the Marcionites are meant. All translations suppose that the Marcionites are the group in question. Irenaeus's tactic is to demonstrate from his gospel that Jesus appeared after the resurrection to Peter, Philip and others. But clearly the Marcionites did not believe this. Jesus only came to Paul and brought to Paul the gospel which he wrote out on his own.

[TedM]

The section starts with this statement which is the 'subject' or context of all that follows:

With regard to those who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them

Eos autem qui dicunt, solum Paulum veritatem cognovisse, cui per revelationem manifestatum est mysterium, ipse Paulus convincat eos

What does 'Paul alone knew the truth' mean? The context would seem to suggest pretty strongly (while it is not explicitly stated) that Paul wrote the gospel and that he did so not through human contact or 'perception' but as a' revelation of a mystery' which came while he was in an ecstatic state. This is what the heretics believed. Even though gospel writing is not explicitly referenced we know that it is lurking in the background because of all that follows. Are you there with me for that much?

Not really. The 'truth' Irenaeus is talking about is whether there are 2 Gods or not, and he points to passages in Paul's alleged epistles as well as the gospels and Acts that show that Paul and others didn't believe in the Marcionite conception of 2 Gods. He explicitly is saying that there is no basis for those that claim that Paul's truth was revealed to them. He says they claim 'hidden' truths, but he is explicitly saying that if there WAS any gospel that that would reveal Paul's hidden truths is would be GLuke since Luke and Paul were so close, and that GLuke does NOT support the marcionite claims. So, either he is lying or the Marcionites are lying.