because a skeleton has to be there!
But why stop there? Might not someone else, applying the same criteria you named, have gotten rid of those verses (and maybe kept different ones)?
Magne derived it from the Fourth Gospel. He made on all the gospels what I have made only on Mark.
Also, the word governor is a word you added.
someway, you seem to be a victim of the false prejudice that the metaphor of the onion has to be applied on the my case, but you are ignoring a tiny detail: Magne was not a historicist when he derived that skeleton from the gospels.
I don't remember who it was that said it, but someone compared doing tradition history on the gospels to peeling the layers of an onion. Only you never get to the core, you just find more layers you could peel away.
I think yet that *Ev precedes all the canonicals. Only, I agree with Jarek Stolarz when the latter says, based on recent readings of Klinghardt and Gramaglia (who is critical of Klinghardt), that even *Ev has a long editorial tradition before itself. The Stolarz's conclusion is a revaluation of Rolland, Boismard, Burkett.
Also, why did you use Mark's passion narrative to get to the earliest layers instead of Marcion's? Don't you think Marcion was earlier?
Now, not coincidentially, the Jean Magne's conclusion about the Earliest Passion Story is meant to prove that the Synoptic Solution of Philippe Rolland is definitely correct.
*EV could be one of the intermediate gospels preceding Mark, Matthew and Luke.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Fri Feb 23, 2024 9:19 am