I have no principled problem with the notion that Marcion knew a Gospel different from and shorter than the text known to the likes of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, and others, but I do find exceedingly problematic the view that the proposed pre-Marcion Luke was Ur-Lukas, the Evangelist’s original composition. All of the competing reconstructions of the pre-Marcion Gospel share the following characteristics: like the canonical Lukan Gospel, the hypothetical earlier truncated version follows the Markan sequence and carefully redacts it. However one views Luke’s agreements with Matthew against Mark—either as evidence of Q/Q+ or Matthew—the two proposed compositional strata share the same redactional tendencies. And what is most relevant to the book at hand, both compositional strata display the same mimetic creativity on the same models, Homer and the Bacchae, though they are greatly expanded in Acts. I fear that the hoopla over the recovery of a likely pre-Marcion Evangelikon will blind future researchers to the literary and brilliant consistency throughout the Gospel as we now have it.
If I understand him well, he is saying that the "literary and brilliant consistency" throughout Luke is so high that hardly the original author could have omitted what is found in canonical Luke but not in Mcn.
Am I reading correctly ?