Powers’ book can be found at libgen.is. If Meta, Apple, Google can use these resources, why not others…
Additionally, it is worth watching David Pallmann’s presentation.

And I am old and stupid, because I forgot how I prepared pro-sales materials for various sales channels regarding the functions of mobile phones and the network services offered by the operator 40 years ago. How to make specialized leaflets no longer than 500 words for each market segment about the same model of Nokia from several dozen pages of instructions.

Once, under the influence of Bart’s lectures on Luke, I accepted his thesis about the limited edition and the later full edition.
Harnack was right – Marcion truncated the gospel. But not for the reasons he attributed to him.

Revelation is a powerful experience, although it doesn’t look like much from the outside. Some guy is standing there looking in the mirror with the sound of water from the tap. Then he goes out, takes a coffee and is surprised that it’s cold. Then he notices that his wife is looking at him, clearly pissed off.

Bart decided that Luke wrote *Ev and then added the first 2 chapters, which made sense because Luke 3 begins with “In the 15th year of reign…” which looks like the beginning of the earlier *Ev.

But in all reconstructions of *Ev, only the first sentence of Luke 3,1 is taken from the entire Luke 3, and then there is a jump to Luke 4,31. And this cut-off is the strangest.

Marcion threw out the text from Luke to create a simple gospel for the people and for missionaries coming from the people. His editorial decisions do not have the character of some theology but of a business practice to focus on the content most expected in the first contact.
Powers noticed the same in the case of Mark. Mark was created as such a text of first contact with the people – highly dramatized, written in the dialect of the poor, with theatrical elements.
Powers was an apologist who wrote a great book that fit the criteria of mass communication.

Bart was wrong. *Ev begins with Luke 3:1 but that’s all from the third chapter. Immediately after that comes the text from the fourth chapter. All reconstructions of Marcion’s gospel show that there were no first 3 and 1/3 chapters.
Marcion truncated Luke for practical reasons so that missionaries would know what to tell a pagan audience. Mark served the same purpose.
There was no protoevangelium or q. The gospels of Luke and Matthew were written at the same time. Mark and *Ev are later abbreviations of them

??? I didn’t say anything like that. The second half is my conclusions. I just said that Bart was wrong when he said that Luke added two chapters to Ev at the beginning and that’s how the canonical Gospel of Luke came into being.

All the Gospels pretended to be texts from the past through false authorial attribution.

The problem is that we can set up any arrangement 2SH, 2GH, Jerusalem School H, Multisource and it still doesn’t work. But if you throw out *Ev and Mark as material for pagan acquisitions, then the matter is simple. The first were the Gospels with birth narratives written in parallel.

Have fun
t=1528

From the begining texts were treated as “memoires of the disciples”

I am not missing anything, dear Robert. This is not a matter of a specific reconstruction, but of all reconstructions since the 19th century. Bart simply assumed that the first two chapters were missing, but really 3 and 1/3 were missing. He was wrong.

For Bart, Marcion uses the limited edition of Luke because that was what was distributed in his circles.

I maintain that Harnack was right. Marcion cut out entire sections of text from Luke. Not for the needs of theology. For the needs of missionary activity, to show missionaries what to focus on. Simple sales training. Powers called it the kerygma for the Gentiles, as opposed to the didache for the faithful. Powers wrote this about the gospel of Mark, which I extrapolated to *Ev.