"Luke" (corruptor) had made John as the privileged witness of the descent of Jesus Christ on earth, and not Paul.
Now, the passage found in Galatians 1:15-16:
But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles,my immediate response was not to consult any human being
...gave a good occasion for Marcion show Paul in the exact incipit of his gospel, as the chosen privileged person destined to witness a day the first descent of Jesus Christ on earth.
My point is that, even if
the original incipit of the Evangelion
didn't mention explicitly Paul, neither his birth
(his being "set me apart from my mother’s womb"
) nor his mystical vision, as adult, of the descent of Christ on the earth
, Marcion and his original Marcionite readers understood perfectly that the precise date
("15° year of Tiberius"
) worked perfectly as temporal pointer to Paul and only to him
This is the true reason the Judaizer "Luke" felt obliged to introduce not only John the Baptist as the first receiver of the "voice of god", but also -- observe attentively this point please -- his being "set me apart from my mother’s womb"
, in the form of the stupid story of the birth of John the Baptist: really a very stupid story!!!
A story who finds entirely his function and his goal in the replacement of Paul with John the Baptist in the role of who witnessed for the first time
and even being destined from the birth
the celestial apparition of Jesus Christ on earth.
Note also how much the Catholic priest prof Adamczewski is right to identify Capernaum as allegory of Damascus.
Christ appeared in "Capernaum
", i.e. in Damascus
, being witnessed just before by Paul "on the way to Damascus"
Hence paradoxically Gerd Lüdemann is more precise than Robert M Price in pointing out the "historicity" of the conversion of Paul in Damascus's road.