(Creation of Christ, p. 443, my bold)In my judgment the Gospel of Luke is a revision of Marcion's made in the interests of Catholic orthodoxy. I will cite only two indications of this, because they are recognized by M. Loisy. In the text of Marcion the first clause of the Lord's Prayer runs as follows: “Father, let thy holy Spirit come upon us and purify us.” This reading, says M. Loisy, is guaranteed as authentic by the context to which it directly refers (xi. 13: “....how much more will the heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask him”). Luke reads: “Father, hallowed be thy name “—clearly a correction of Marcion made after Matthew. To escape the obvious conclusion, M. Loisy imagines a precanonical recension of Luke which Marcion must have copied. This recension is a hypothesis; the text of Marcion a reality. Why imagine an unknown text when a known text is there to explain the matter? M. Loisy also recognizes an addition to the body of the Gospel in the stories of the infancy. In Marcion they are absent. To invent in the interests of argument an older version of Luke in which these stories were not to be found is merely another device for escaping the conclusion that Marcion was prior to Luke.
Note 157 reads:
Another example of the same kind. Marcion reads (xvi. 17):
“It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of my words”—again guaranteed by the context (xxi. 33) “heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away.” Luke reads: “. . . than one tittle of the Law to fall”—again a correction made after Matthew. Here M. Loisy maintains the priority of Luke (in spite of the context) on the ground that the “tittle” or “point” is a minute sign used in writing which could not be used in connection with spoken words (paroles). He forgets that the Greek term translated paroles often indicates the written word—as it does here.