Patristica team (Bilby, Bull and Vinzent) has just released their reconstructed and translated Apostolos. There are some interesting differences which may affect things. For example, Paul only references himself once in Apostolos (1Cr3:22) but in CPaul it’s 15 times
(Gal 5:2, 1Cr 1:12, 13, 3:4, 5, 16:21, 2Cr 10:1, Eph 3:1, Col 1:23, 4:18, Phm 1:9, 19, 1Th 2:18, 2Th 3:17)

Careful. Do not mistake “we don’t know what it said here” with “it did not say that here.” That is a fallacy. Even just by itself, but it’s the worse that those passages are the least likely to be quoted by polemicists because they don’t make any statement relevant to any argument the polemicist is concerned about. Therefore we expect those omissions. This is why you have to attend precisely to the difference in every case between “it is not attested as there” and “it is attested as not there.”

It looks like the changes are additions in order to support the Acts narrative.

Not sure what you mean here. The anti-Marcionite text of the Epistles repeatedly and conspicuously contradicts the Acts narrative. The mainstream consensus on Acts is thus correct: Acts was written to override the Epistles with a more convenient narrative that they exhibit. Which actually argues for the authenticity of the Epistles. If the anti-Marcionites wanted the Acts narrative, they would have edited the Epistles to match it, not preserve their constant contradicting of it.

There is also a problem here depending on whether you agree with Livesey’s belief that Acts predates the Epistles, or post-dates even Marcion’s Gospel. The usual crowd doubting Paul usually argue the other way around: the Galatians was written to refute Acts. But that requires Acts to predate Marcion. Which is not at all plausible if you are claiming the Gospels all post-date Marcion. So trying to come up with a coherent alternative theory is not easy here.

But I have never found the non-Livesey case credible either. Acts is more clearly revisionist, not Galatians. Galatians is not aware of the things Acts wants to say, whereas Acts is aware of the things it wants to correct. That suggests direction of editing from Galatians to Acts, not the other way around. And then of course, Acts clearly is post-Gospel, and Luke depends on Mark, who depended on Paul’s letters.

So trying to completely scramble the order of these documents creates more problems than it solves. And I don’t see doubters doing a good job of solving the problems they are creating. And that’s in addition to everything else I have pointed out in my three-part series on Livesey here.

On another theory, what do you think of the idea of Paul being the “spouter of lies” from the Dead Sea community?

There is no evidence for it. And that’s that.

We can’t elevate speculations to the status of even theories much less probabilities, with no evidence at all.

The most I can say for it is that one could in theory make that jibe with the low-chronology (Jesus killed under Jannaeus in 70s BC and Paul writing in the 50s to 40s BC). But I have already explained why the low chronology has yet to achieve any evidential probability relative to the standard high chronology (e.g. see How Do We Know the Apostle Paul Wrote His Epistles in the 50s A.D.?).

Patristica team (Bilby, Bull and Vinzent) has just released their reconstructed and translated Apostolos. There are some interesting differences which may affect things. For example, Paul only references himself once in Apostolos (1Cr3:22) but in CPaul it’s 15 times
(Gal 5:2, 1Cr 1:12, 13, 3:4, 5, 16:21, 2Cr 10:1, Eph 3:1, Col 1:23, 4:18, Phm 1:9, 19, 1Th 2:18, 2Th 3:17)

The addressees are also changing in the comparisons. That would be a long list for blog comment but a short quote:
“In MPaul, proper place names only appear in the letter openings to indicate addressees, but in CPaul
they often appear at the end of letters, and sometimes in the middle (Col 2:1; 1Th 2:2), supplying
specific details about the itineraries of Paul and companions, details that often correlate with Acts.”

Also, Antioch is totally missing from the Apostolos, which I find fascinating.

I wonder if you’ve seen this. Also, what do you think of the theory that Marcion’s 10 letter collection is the first we see of it in the record, and would you think Marcion or the canonical versions would be closer to the originals? It looks like the changes are additions in order to support the Acts narrative. It is a reconstruction based on , so we can’t know how complete it is but it is certainly interesting. Large tracts missing etc.

On another theory, what do you think of the idea of Paul being the “spouter of lies” from the Dead Sea community?

Thanks

Even if that were true (you haven’t cited a source or identified the manuscript), variant errors are commonplace in manuscripts. That does not argue for anything.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I’m following facts as stated.

You’re the one making things up.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please read my original comment.

There was never any such person as “Visellius” governing Syria. And that word does not exist in the Greek text you quoted.

So what the hell are you talking about?

You can’t just make stuff up, Gustave.