Why Pilate? Because of ''the Jews''.

[Ben C. Smith]

Your thesis and Crossan's have remarkably little in common.

true.

[Giuseppe]

You're a victim of self-hypnosis Giuseppe.

I assume that the my readers are enough independent to judge alone my ideas.

[Giuseppe]

How on earth could this possibly be a reasonable conclusion? Pilate is reference far more often than Herod:

Evidently what escapes you is that Pilate is even inferior in comparison to Herod, in terms of authority, given the fact that Pilate asks the body of Jesus to Herod (therefore Herod is more powerful than Pilate).

And Pilate, having sent to Herod, requested his body.

[Secret Alias]

But what does that have to do with your main argument that Pilate wasn't originally there? He has more of presence in the Gospel of Peter than he does in the Gospel of Mark. That's a simple fact. If I were an actor and I got paid by the line, I'd want to be in the Gospel of Peter production because I am going to get more money. Your arguments are downright silly and dishonest. I can take the silly part but the dishonesty gets to me.

[Secret Alias]

He noted that even in GPeter Pilate is entirely marginal in comparison to Herod himself (to mean that he was a later addition).

This is sheer nonsense. Again:

(a) He noted that even in GPeter Pilate is entirely marginal in comparison to Herod himself

therefore:

(b) he was a later addition.

(b) does not at all follow from (a). Only a madman would think that (a) proves (b) from the Gospel of Peter. We're not reading the same text.

[Secret Alias]

One of the stupidest arguments ever promulgated at the forum. Easily disproved.

[Giuseppe]

Some has proposed that Luke combined two sources in the his strange "ping pong" (you know what I mean) between Pilate and Herod: one where Herod killed Jesus and one where Pilate killed Jesus. So the absence of Pilate in a gospel (better: in the Earliest Gospel) is a plausible hypothesis.

[Giuseppe]

(b) does not at all follow from (a). Only a madman would think that (a) proves (b) from the Gospel of Peter. We're not reading the same text.

clearly the Rylands's argument is in no way reduced to that observation only. Please read the my immediately previous comment .

[Secret Alias]

No don't pass it off that way. How on earth does the Gospel of Peter prove that Pilate wasn't in the original gospel narrative. This is stupid

[Giuseppe]

If Pilate asks the body of Jesus from Herod, then Pilate is so much irrilevant to the basic story of GPeter just as Joseph of Arimathea is not strictly relevant for the basic story in our Mark.