Originally Posted by Duvduv

But this does not address the question of the need for many corrections in Acts, and the fact that Acts was assigned a position alongside the epistles despite the contradictions. So are we to assume that every time an epistle has an idea that is different from Acts that it is a "correction" and that the authors never knew that the two contradictory stories would go together? And that the name Saul couldn't have been included in a single epistle?...

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Proportionate.

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Well I'll be darned! I was under the impression that Acts were written long after Galatians.

Originally Posted by Paul Couchoud at Radikalkritik

Did Marcion cut off text parts in the long edition or did the long addition add on to the Apostolicon? In other words: which was the first edition of the Paulina?
For the authors of the Church there was no problem. They used the long edition, which had been declared to be the only canonical one. Of course they considered it to be the original version. When they got their hands on the alternate, they already knew it had been stamped heretical. They found three epistles and a lot of passages missing and they couldn’t help but come to the conclusion that the heretical Marcion had cut them out.
Irenaeus (I, 27, 2) declares that Marcion cut off (abscidit) the epistles of the Apostle and eliminated everything concerning the Creator God and the prophecies.
Tertullian says that Marcion carefully erased (industria erasit V, 3; V, 14), suppressed (abstulit V, 13) leaving traces as thieves do (ut furibus solet V, 4); that he dug deep ditches in one place, taking away what he wanted (quantas foveas… fecerit auferendo quœ voluit V, 13); that he made an immense breach in another place (amplissimum abruptum intercisse scripturae V, 14). Tertullian proclaims the integrity of the catholic document (nostri instrumenti integritate V, 13) and with a rude remark causes Marcion’s sponge veritably to blush (erubescat spongia Marcionis! V, 4).
More soberly Epiphanius, too, asserts that Marcion had abbreviated (perite,mnwn Haer. 42, 9) the Apostle’s epistles.

Originally Posted by spin

...to your usual efforts.

Originally Posted by Toto

Most people think that it was. aa5874 has his own views, and most people here have given up on trying to reason with him.

Most people think that Paul wrote his letters in the mid first century, and that Acts was written sometime in the second century. Acts does not reference Paul's letters, because it was written by a different church faction (anti-Marcionite), and the letters represented the Marcionite faction.

There is a minority view, which has some logic behind it, that parts of Paul's letters were written about the same time as Acts, or were revised to counter Acts.

Originally Posted by Toto

Most people think that it was. aa5874 has his own views, and most people here have given up on trying to reason with him.

Most people think that Paul wrote his letters in the mid first century, and that Acts was written sometime in the second century. Acts does not reference Paul's letters, because it was written by a different church faction (anti-Marcionite), and the letters represented the Marcionite faction...

Originally Posted by Toto

...There is a minority view, which has some logic behind it, that parts of Paul's letters were written about the same time as Acts, or were revised to counter Acts.

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Make up your mind.