Marcion, active in the Christian world from around 130, had a gospel called 'gospel of the Lord'.
But you ignore Clement and Marutha and Papias. Marcion was dated to the apostolic era. These sources are not as hostile towards Marcion as Irenaeus (and Tertullian). Why trust the most bigoted witness against a subject as the most reliable source? Silly.
This shorter gospel (gMarcion)
Show me one ancient source that says that the gospel was 'short.' Ephrem and the Diatessaronic tradition (and Tertullian's source) assume the text was Diatessaronic and thus 'longer' than a canonical gospel.
certainly reflects Marcion's beliefs: little Judaism, Jesus as Son of the ultimate God (not the lesser god of the Jews) and Jesus, when on earth, having an "instant" docetist body.
Don't understand the use of the terms 'little' and 'instant'
Of course, Marcion would not say he wrote the gospel,
Where do you get this information from? Often times the text is referred to as 'Marcion's gospel' and the like. We don't know anything. Just assumptions and guesswork based on our inherited tradition.
more so because he kept Jesus predicting the fall of Jerusalem (in 70).
Or did Jesus actually say the words Jews attribute to him (wrongly) in Mark i.e. 14:58 "We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree." This section in Mark has been edited from an original text which actually had Jesus say "I will destroy this temple" etc. You surely can't believe that what we have is original.
Also, he was likely to contend his gospel was redacted earlier than the others.
Don't understand the English or what the assumptions are based upon.
Unfortunaly, we do not have a copy of Marcion's gospel, but because of Tertullian's 'Against Marcion' and Epiphanius' 'Panarion', reconstructions had been attempted but cannot be definitive, by reason of not having enough accurate informations.
Agreed. But don't exclude the testimony of the Diatessaronic witnesses. The gospel was Diatessaronic cf. Casey's article.
However, I found three short passages in gMarcion which were fairly well witnessed, and show significant differences with the corresponding gLuke verses. Let's examine them and ask ourselves: did Marcion write his gospel from gLuke (case 1) or was gLuke an elaboration from gMarcion (case 2)?
2) Lk 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail." NKJV
gMarcion "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, ... than one tittle of my [Jesus] words to fail."
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel4.html
Case 1: The change is easy to explain: Marcion was light years away from accepting compliance with the Law of Moses.
Why don't you first attempt to figure out what a 'tittle' is before you go on to assume 'compliance' with the Law. What is a 'tittle' of the Law? Notice that 'tittle' is now associated with 'words' (oral) rather than written words on page. There were many Jews who held the Ten Commandments only to have holiness, that Moses wrote the 603 other commandments. Your opinions about Judaism lack sophistication. How do you know what is and isn't possible within Judaism (and thus for a 'Jew' to believe). You don't know enough to have your beliefs carry any weight.
But what about gLuke? Certainly the gospel has a Gentile outlook (2:29-32, 7:4-10), yet not very pronounced.
Again more superficiality. I don't know how much more of this I can take.
However the same saying appears also in gMatthew (5:18), but not in gMark, and therefore would be part of Q, which "Luke" felt compelled to include, even when it hurts (another example is Lk 14:26). See here for the dating of gMatthew (& therefore the latest dates for the completion of Q). See here for the existence and dating of Q.
No I won't go to any of these pages because you don't have enough knowledge about what is and isn't possible within contemporary Judaism to have established these artificial distinctions which you then turn around and use to 'disprove' Marcion. It's all stupid and worthless.
Case 2: Why would "Luke" modify a verse from gMarcion (when it was very acceptable for the author) in order to comply with gMatthew (with a clear Jewish outlook)?
That's very unlikely.
Oh please NO MORE!!! It's like watching cats try and use a typewriter. NO MORE OPINIONS ABOUT JEWS FROM PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JEWS OR JEWISH RELIGIOUS HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me give you some advice. Jesus argument about divorce and the sacredness of one man and woman is shared by the literature from Qumran literature. It is based on the assumption that some commandments were God-given and others given by man (Moses). Similarly Moses gave the commandment about the sanctity of circumcision. It was human given not God given. If Irenaeus made this position appear to be 'anti-Jewish' that would be one thing. But Irenaeus demonstrates that the Marcionite opinions were in keeping with the Judaism of Philo (in terms of the division of the godhead) and Tertullian and Ephrem accuse Marcion of being Jewish-friendly. I can't think of an ancient writer who says that Marcion hated Jews. In fact what Tertullian writes against the Jews is also turned around against Marcion. How is this explained? If in doubt I will send you Vinzent's recent Marcion the Jew
https://www.academia.edu/7547506/Marcion_the_Jew
To conclude, it is more likely Marcion modified a verse from gLuke rather than "Luke" changing it from gMarcion.
I can't do this any more. But let me ask you, why would you think it reasonable to assume you have the expertise to determine Marcion's 'anti-Jewish' nature when you know absolutely nothing about Judaism. It's shocking. Why not read a book about the Jewish heresies from the period? Why not?
