Errare humanum est, perseverare autem Neil.
Godfrey seems to make the same previous error distorting the Livesey's book :
(my bold)
The phrase "Marcion published his Gospel and Letters of Paul side by side" is ambiguous in the context since it may move wrongly his readers to think that, just as *Ev preceded Luke/Acts, so also the Letters of "Paul"/Marcion preceded Luke/Acts, hence falsifying the Livesey's claim that it is from Acts that we know of Paul. There Saul becomes Paul.
Hence the logical implication is that *Ev was published alone before that Luke/Acts invented Saul/Paul. I can't imagine a proto-Acts preceding *Ev and inventing Paul before *Ev, because otherwise Marcion would have introduced his corrected post-Acts version of Paul in the same Gospel. Contra factum that Paul never appears in none gospel.
Note the malicious attempt by Godfrey in mixing the waters by an unhappy use of words so that the readers don't realize a such easy point.
Godfrey seems to make the same previous error distorting the Livesey's book :
For Marcion, Paul was the only apostle who truly understood the gospel of the Christ who had come from the “unknown god” who was higher than the creator god of the Law and the Prophets. That Marcion published his Gospel and Letters of Paul side by side might be seen as an indicator that he saw his “New Testament” as an “antithesis” of the Law and the Prophets of the “Old Testament”. NL indicates that such factors strongly suggest that Paul’s letters were, like the gospel, originally composed by Marcion himself. If so, then it is also likely that the letters of Paul were written with a clear knowledge of the gospel narrative. They did not precede a written gospel, in other words, but were produced alongside the gospel.
(my bold)
The phrase "Marcion published his Gospel and Letters of Paul side by side" is ambiguous in the context since it may move wrongly his readers to think that, just as *Ev preceded Luke/Acts, so also the Letters of "Paul"/Marcion preceded Luke/Acts, hence falsifying the Livesey's claim that it is from Acts that we know of Paul. There Saul becomes Paul.
Hence the logical implication is that *Ev was published alone before that Luke/Acts invented Saul/Paul. I can't imagine a proto-Acts preceding *Ev and inventing Paul before *Ev, because otherwise Marcion would have introduced his corrected post-Acts version of Paul in the same Gospel. Contra factum that Paul never appears in none gospel.
Note the malicious attempt by Godfrey in mixing the waters by an unhappy use of words so that the readers don't realize a such easy point.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Thu Jan 30, 2025 1:27 am