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

[Secret Alias]

But the clearest example of the meaning is found with respect to Εὐαγγελιστής Ἰωάννης which is meant to distinguish the John who wrote the gospel from all the other Johns in early Christianity.

[Secret Alias]

And the key thing here is Irenaeus's use of the term 'evangelist' and 'evangelists.' The only other employment of the terminology assumes that evangelist = gospel writer:

Such, then, is the account which they all give of their Pleroma, and of the formation of the universe, striving, as they do, to adapt the good words of revelation to their own wicked inventions. And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles (τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ὰποστολικών) that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected. [Adv Haer 1.3.6]

Here the terminology mirrors the Marcionite tradition i.e. apostolikon and evangelikon i.e. a fixed set of writings in a collection. I think the early Catholic tradition tried to expand the meaning of 'evangelic' and 'evangelist' against the heretics who understood 'apostle' and 'evangelist' in very concrete terms.

[Secret Alias]

Muller explains the old (mis)understanding of the term 'my gospel' (that is, until it was corrected by the modern understanding!) - the old misunderstanding of Paul's expression “my gospel” as referring to a special written gospel. Thus Marcion thought it was the gospel behind the distorting reworking of it in the Gospel of Luke, which, accordingly, he “cleansed”, while Eusebius in his Historia Ecclesiastica III 4.7 refers to a tradition telling that Paul used to think of the Gospel of Luke when he wrote “according of to my gospel.' [p 132]

[Secret Alias]

And Jerome:

And Jerome is certainly mistaken, if what is quoted as a remark of his is rightly assigned to him by Fabricius, to the effect that whenever St. Paul says “according to my Gospel” he means the written Gospel of his companion St. Luke, who had

[Secret Alias]

Aune also attributes Marcion as 'one of the first' (undoubtedly the first) to apply 'evangel' to only mean 'written gospel'

Marcion was one of the first to use the singular form εὐαγγέλιον to refer to a written gospel, in this case the Gospel of Luke, based on his view that the Pauline phrase “my gospel” (Rom 2:16, 16:25) referred specifically to Luke.

[Secret Alias]

Kelhoffer and Koester

Koester explains that Marcion interpreted Paul's "my Gospel" as referring to a written document, namely Luke (pp. 36f)[James Kelhoffer Miracle and Mission]

When we return to Irenaeus's statement he is again clearly (a) witnessing the heretical understanding of Paul receiving a written 'secret' gospel by revelation and (b) correcting that view by introducing Luke and the chronology leading up to the production of his gospel by tracing the chronology in Acts and then its conclusion (i.e. the two year rest at Rome) and identifying that period as the time Luke wrote the gospel for/with Paul.

[Secret Alias]

Wieseler argues for 2 Timothy being written during the two years' imprisonment at Rome (Acts 28) - an interpretation shared by Irenaeus in the section cited above. It was at this time that Irenaeus thought the gospel of Luke was written and that is why he reads Acts as leading up to the statement in 2 Timothy that only Luke was with him and the two men had in their possession the material needed to write the gospel together. The alternative view is clearly that Paul wrote the gospel on his own 'by revelation.'

[Secret Alias]

Here is how the Encyclopedia harmonizes Acts, 2 Timothy and other texts:

The data of the historical position of 2 Timothy appear to be (a) that St Paul either was or had been in Rome (i. 17), (b) that he was in prison (i. 16; ii. 9), (c) that he had already had a trial (iv. 16), (d) that he believed himself to be near the end of his life (iv. 6), (e) that lie was expecting shortly to see Timothy (i. 4 ; iv. 9, 21), (f) that he had been, apparently not long before, at Troas, Corinth, and Miletus (iv. 13, 20). Upon these data two hypotheses have been fra.med. (1) It has been supposed that the required historical position is to be found at the beginning of the " two whole years " of Acts xxviii. 30, and that consequently the epistle was written before those to the Philippians and Colossians (so, among others, Schrader, Otto, and Reuss).

I don't think it too much to suppose that Irenaeus shared this view and that it was at this time that he thought that the gospel of Luke was written.

[TedM]

And the key thing here is Irenaeus's use of the term 'evangelist' and 'evangelists.' The only other employment of the terminology assumes that evangelist = gospel writer:

Such, then, is the account which they all give of their Pleroma, and of the formation of the universe, striving, as they do, to adapt the good words of revelation to their own wicked inventions. And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles (τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ὰποστολικών) that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected. [Adv Haer 1.3.6]

Here the terminology mirrors the Marcionite tradition i.e. apostolikon and evangelikon i.e. a fixed set of writings in a collection. I think the early Catholic tradition tried to expand the meaning of 'evangelic' and 'evangelist' against the heretics who understood 'apostle' and 'evangelist' in very concrete terms.

2 references by Irenaeus in the face of the counter evidences by writings that preceded Irenaeus don't make much of a case to me for the idea that evangelist = gospel writer exclusively. Especially when the passage he uses that includes Paul's name is this one:

But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him "the beloved," and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel,

If I said to you "Bob was a great painter, and made some hellacious egg salad" would you conclude that all painters were makers of great egg salad?

I think it is great you are challenging convention and seeking new clues, but again I don't see that this thread has gone from A to B.

[Secret Alias]

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.