The Diatessaron Knows the Marcionite Gospel?

[mlinssen]

Any gospel that blames the Jews is pushing the Marcionite needle. There are other considerations namely the Flying Jesus passages

The Marcionites were but one of many antinomon sects.

Amongst all your assertions, you don't provide even one viable alternative to*Ev

Nor do you pay attention to the fact that *Ev demonstrably is a source text to Luke, and highly likely all the Synoptics

As Dan Ackroyd would say to Jane Curtain's Joan Face character, "Jane you ignorant slut."
[youtube]https://youtu.be/c91XUyg9iWM?list=PLeY_ ... 9d0-r&t=54[/youtube]

The Marcionite gospel is the base document of Luke. But it's not the first gospel form. In my view, if you paid attention to what I've proposed for half a decade or more, you'd know that I think a prototype synoptic circulated, with some locale variances leading to slightly different content and form (miracle of time and distance between communities) which was the base document (in different forms) for the Synoptic gospels. Two main different forms, one with a doublet section common to Matthew and Mark; and one without that section common to Mark and Marcionite/Luke.

I am not in the camp of those who give priority to the Marcionites. Even the Paul in their collection is arguing against rival sects, plural. What I give credit to the Marcionites was the innovation of using what we call the gospel to evangelize. It was obviously successful enough that rival sects immediately went about the same strategy, with some writing their own gospel.

The contradictions in the Marcionite text indicate not primacy, rather a sect that had developed a hermeneutical to harmonize the contents, even developing a strategy of sometimes reading text literally and other times spiritually (see Megethius' statement on the matter in DA 1.7), in order to make it all conform. This strongly indicates the text was not from a single strain of teaching, but a hodgepodge that went into the writings.

Overall, the evidence, IMO, strongly points toward a significant incubation time for Christianity to develop, rather than springing from a single source here and a single splinter there. How else can one explain why there are so many sects (schools of teaching) the very first minute Christianity erupts? (Frankly that alone should rule out an Imperial conspiracy.)

I've never heard of your prototype theory, nor does it become clear what you think that it was and how it came into existence.
You shouldn't conflate the texts that we have with the hearsay from Josephus, nor the dogmatic dating to Christian origins

I agree with your incubation time, and 150 years seems round and about. The alleged sects obviously lead nowhere near Christianity, as none of their content comes even close to what got thrown in there

There most certainly are no contradictions at all in *Ev, but I'd be happy to have you name some

[Stuart]

You should read up more on the Synoptic theory. There are literally dozens of proposed models, although only three or four get any airplay. Over the last two hundred fifty years a number of people who have proposed various prototypes. Even your theory (basically a logia model) falls into a category of prototype known as saying sources or logia. Here's a page showing some of the models out there (not all)

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-pr ... tions.html

The prototypes, Q, logia, et al, are rarely if ever have their reason for existence explained. It's the biblical studies equivalent of the "half a wing" problem in evolution; what was the evolutionary force behind animals that were transforming arms into wings for hundreds of thousands of years, yet could not fly? (Admittedly that problem has a very plausible answer gained from studying flightless chicks behavior). While I look at it as an evolutionary issue or "incubation period" of circulation throughout the Mediterranean proto-Christian communities ("Jesus Communities" is the term you hear for that) fulfilling a different pre-gospel purpose and having many inputs, most scholars default without thought on the matter to the "great master author" theories or single source point where one man wrote a story start to finish (that would be unique in religious literature).

Note, Marsh in 1802 (see Multiple Proto-Gospel Theories) actually came up with a model relatively close to the one I think best explains the material. Ben Smith drew a picture of my model to explain the mechanical development of the gospels. The thick line is the gospels that were responding to prior ones.


There is your mechanical answer. Although, no model is more than a theory, that requires fleshing out it's reasons for happening.

[davidmartin]

I thought ML's theory was like the one that has Mark drawing from *Ev in order to get rid of Q, so that Thomas can be Q?
That 'Lukan' priority won me over, Mark is just a summary of *Ev at a point in time and is earlier than Luke sometimes. How different Mark and *Ev were i wish i knew!

I see Matthew as being later than that chart has it, it's going anti-Judaic, to Judaic to anti-Judaic to Judaic again like gospel table tennis
How about *Ev then Mark then Luke then Matthew with John somewhere around Mark or between Mark and Luke?

[mlinssen]

You should read up more on the Synoptic theory. There are literally dozens of proposed models, although only three or four get any airplay. Over the last two hundred fifty years a number of people who have proposed various prototypes. Even your theory (basically a logia model) falls into a category of prototype known as saying sources or logia. Here's a page showing some of the models out there (not all)

I certainly wasn't talking about the SP in general Stuart - but thank you for educating me on the subject

Yet you still haven't told me about yours, and the picture is useless as arrows point everywhere and it is impossible to tell what started where: if a picture isn't self explanatory then it represents a convoluted idea

Bilby appears to have a similar idea, by the way

[mlinssen]

I thought ML's theory was like the one that has Mark drawing from *Ev in order to get rid of Q, so that Thomas can be Q?
That 'Lukan' priority won me over, Mark is just a summary of *Ev at a point in time and is earlier than Luke sometimes. How different Mark and *Ev were i wish i knew!

I see Matthew as being later than that chart has it, it's going anti-Judaic, to Judaic to anti-Judaic to Judaic again like gospel table tennis
How about *Ev then Mark then Luke then Matthew with John somewhere around Mark or between Mark and Luke?

A Thomas got taken into a narrative by John, *Ev went back to Thomas and added all the logia (57 of them in the reconstruction by Klinghardt) on top of John while adding more anti-Judaism - that's the full extent and development of Chrestianity, in which Thomas perfectly fits as a true Quelle: just a sayings source.
B Then Mark takes *Ev into a remake, Judaising it all. Matthew follows in order to fix his mistakes and simultaneously redacts *Ev into Luke. John gets mildly redacted in order to close the series of four so that now all stories have a burial and resurrection. And *Ev is the Quelle to Christianity there: not a mere sayings source but a full blown gospel - yet one entirely devoid of Judaic origins, and more importantly one that is fiercely anti-Judaic

So where Chrestianity has the true Quelle, a sayings gospel precisely as predicted, on top of which a narrative is established that ends with the death of its protagonist, Christianity merely plagiarises Chrestianity and turns all of it into (pseudo-) Judaic prophecies come true, necessitating to elaborate on the birth of IS, his (burial and) resurrection, to elaborate on John B who's nothing more but a sock puppet in its Quelle, and so on: the Q that everyone is looking for and that the Jesus Seminar so very unfortunately has created, never existed anywhere but in the mind of Matthew.
Just as Mark made up all his additions and changes to *Ev, Matthew spread his fantasies into his own gospel and that of Luke - with Luke's intended audience receiving the additional message of having to be meek, forgiving, poor, turning the other cheek, and so on: the parasite already sets out to immobilise its Chrestian host in the same way as it immobilises its Judaic host on the other side - and both hosts will get to become consumed, hollowed out, and discarded

It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that - and it certainly isn't useful to have it be so unclear as in the picture provided by Stuart

TL;DR

Thomas is the Quelle to Chrestianity (*Ev),
*Ev is the Quelle to Christianity (the Synoptics).
The Q fabricated by the Jesus Seminar foregoes the fact that no text ever is a composition of only other texts without a few ingredients of the composer himself: obviously the birth narratives and the fake John B sermon are figments of the imagination

[davidmartin]

ok i get that, was surprised to see you saying *Ev draws from John have i got that right?

i don't want to interrupt your interesting take on this but i'm still not sure how Chrestians really fit in with Judaism, without knowing their exact theology isn't it hard to be sure?
these early sources do not make it freaking easy so i don't want to commit to any theory
If this thing was around in Isreal as reported it's natural to see it as part of something Jewish but I cannot answer the question 'what is Jewish?'. i don't know, it's too close to tell if you see what i mean

but i agree the anti-Judaic elements was later on read with condemning Judaism in mind (and the Jewish people) which would be heretical to Chrestians or just plain ignorant

its interesting what Jesus says about himself in John. from zero in the epistles to a long sermon in the chapters 10-17 area (with interruptions from the narrator?). if there's a heart to the NT outside the parables it's in this area here not the epistles and I did not notice that till recently. i'm effing glad i did though

in it, i think it's funny how Jesus continually stresses "he never says his own words only what he's been told to say" and he says it as a defense to accusations he's claiming divinity for himself. This denial of divinity is funny coming from Jesus, especially in John's gospel. But that's his defense. This is Thomasine, right? If he never says his own words, when he says "I am the way" he's not talking about himself according to that logic! But the mystical speculation probably comes into play there or some such that divinity can be in him. still there is a divergence there with the simple reading of John that makes him seem to claim divinity when he also denies it

What I'm saying is there's massive paradoxes here up the wazoo

[mlinssen]

ok i get that, was surprised to see you saying *Ev draws from John have i got that right?

Yes. John is the first to take Thomas into a narrative, and *Ev builds onto that. There's a theoretical option that John took *Ev, excised all parables and made it all about the Father, but the likelihood of that is minimal

i don't want to interrupt your interesting take on this but i'm still not sure how Chrestians really fit in with Judaism, without knowing their exact theology isn't it hard to be sure?

Yes, I'm merely extrapolating here. Chrestianity was anti-Judaic, just as Thomas is, and just as we can still trip over all the bread crumbs to that in the NT. But Chrestianity was exactly what one would expect of "a Gentile religion": not rooted in any other, most certainly not Judaism. Basically you can take John and *Ev and that's a mix of what it must have been like

these early sources do not make it freaking easy so i don't want to commit to any theory
If this thing was around in Isreal as reported it's natural to see it as part of something Jewish but I cannot answer the question 'what is Jewish?'. i don't know, it's too close to tell if you see what i mean

There is no such thing as Jewish, we must stop all that nonsense. There's Judaism, and then there are Judeans and Samarians, and then there are Hebrews. Plot anything against either of those and you'll get somewhere - but stick to "it sure smells Jewish" and you'll have a lot of aye-sayers and nothing concrete. Philip tells us how he and his gang derived from Hebrews, which is fine by me.
There's no Judaic sects behind any of this, surely not anything Christian - and never Chrestian for sure

but i agree the anti-Judaic elements was later on read with condemning Judaism in mind (and the Jewish people) which would be heretical to Chrestians or just plain ignorant

Chrestians would love anything anti-Judaic, I'm afraid I haven't been able to get my main point across. Judaism was at the receiving end of ridicule, insults and plain contempt. Read Thomas, read Vinzent's Christi Thora, read what the Pharisees get accused of and remember that Mark cunningly combined most anti-Judaic punches of *Ev with the contempt for Pharisees

its interesting what Jesus says about himself in John. from zero in the epistles to a long sermon in the chapters 10-17 area (with interruptions from the narrator?). if there's a heart to the NT outside the parables it's in this area here not the epistles and I did not notice that till recently. i'm effing glad i did though

in it, i think it's funny how Jesus continually stresses "he never says his own words only what he's been told to say" and he says it as a defense to accusations he's claiming divinity for himself. This denial of divinity is funny coming from Jesus, especially in John's gospel. But that's his defense. This is Thomasine, right?

How would that be Thomasine? The IS in Thomas is untouchable, he's a hardcore winner and effortlessly wins all the word battles

If he never says his own words, when he says "I am the way" he's not talking about himself according to that logic! But the mystical speculation probably comes into play there or some such that divinity can be in him. still there is a divergence there with the simple reading of John that makes him seem to claim divinity when he also denies it

What I'm saying is there's massive paradoxes here up the wazoo

I have a hard time unpicking John, he's so full of redaction. When all this is over I'll pick up Audlin again and see what I can make of it

[mlinssen]

Where it is stronger we get to the beginning of Christianity.

6. His Disciples questioned him; they said to him: do you desire that we Fast, and what is the manner we will pray, we will give Alms, and we will Observe what within food? IS said: do not tell lies, and he who you hate, do not make him be: they all are uncovering outward within the presence of the heaven. There is not anyone Indeed while he is hiding, who will reveal outward not; and there is not anyone, while he is covering, who will remain with lack of him being uncovered.

No comment

12. The Disciples said to IS: we know you will go from the hand of us; who is who that will make be great upward upon us? IS said to them: the place you have come therein, you will go toward Jacob the Righteous; this one has the heaven with the earth come to be because of him.

This is no praise at all, this is outright rejection of this loathsome character (and what he represents). Jacob's ladder is what the final phrase points to

14. IS said to them: if you should Fast, you will beget to you a sin; and if you should pray, they will Condemn you; and if you should give Alms, you will make be a Bad one of your Spirits. And if you should go inward to a certain earth and you walk in the Lands, if they should Accept you; he who they will place him at you: eat him. They who are sick of their heart/mind, Heal them. He who will go Indeed inward in your mouth he will defile you not, Rather he who is coming from your mouth; he is he who will defile you.

No comment

19. IS said: a Fortunate, he who has come to be at the beginning prior to he comes to be. If you should come to be to me Disciple and you hear my words, these stones will make be Serve to you. Have you Indeed therein the five trees in Paradise; they move not within summer or winter and not usually their leaves fall outward; he who will know them he will not taste death.

Trees that don't "move" nor shed leaves: those can only be utterly dead ones

27. In case you don't make be Fast to the World you will not fall to the reign of king; in case you don't make be the Sabbath Father's-day you will not behold the father.

The word play is in the papyrus spelling ⲥⲁⲙⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ versus ⲥⲁⲃ`ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ, Abba

40. IS said a vine of grape she was planted within the part of outside of the father and not made strong; she will be plucked out at her root and destroyed.

The grapevine doesn't root in the father, no: it symbolises Judaism

43. His Disciples said to him: you who? you say these ones to us. In these; I say them to you(PL) and you(PL) understand not: myself who? Rather yourselves you came to be in the manner of those Judeans: they love the tree, they hate his Fruit and they love the Fruit, they hate the tree.

No comment

46. IS said: starting from Adam toward Johannes the Immerser, in the births of the women there is not he who exalted to Johannes the Immerser So that his eyes will not break. I said it However: he who will come to be in you he been made little person he will know the reign of king and he will be high to Johannes.

The Book of Chronicles condensed into one single logion: it starts with Adam and ends with Zedekiah, and all the characters in it are made inferior to Zedekiah - who destroyed Jerusalem, the Temple, and the entire kingdom of Judah. Thomas loves that

51. His Disciples said to him: what? day the Repose of they who are dead will come to be and what? day the new World is coming; he said to them: that one you look outward toward her, did she come; Rather yourselves you know her not.

The disciples have entered their slumber state of Repose long ago, and naturally there will never be any new world

52. His Disciples said to him: twenty four Prophets did they speak in Israel and did they all speak in you - said he to them: did you dismiss him who is living within your presence and did you speak concerning they who are dead.

No comment

53. His Disciples said to him: does the circumcision make be Useful Or no? He said to them: were he make be Useful, their father would beget them from their mother circumcised; Rather the true circumcision in Spirit did he find all usefulness.

Without a doubt the most brilliant put-down of the evident arrogance of the Judaics who intervene in Gawd's creation

88. said IS : the(PL) Messenger be-coming toward you(PL) with the(PL) Prophet and they will give to you(PL) [dop] they-who has/ve you(PL) it and yourselves likewise you(PL) they-who from-the-hand-of you(PL) give they to they and you(PL) say it to you(PL) : what? the(PL) day he-who they be- coming and they take he-who theirs

The proverbial birds of the heaven in logion 3 and 9, the guardians of religion: they will not give you anything that you already but instead take away what is yours

104. said they to IS : come! and we pray [al] today and and we make-be Fast said IS : who/at? Indeed is the sin have I make-be he Or have they become-strong to I in who/at? Rather Whenever "should" the Bridegroom come-forth in the Nymphone Then let! they Fast and let! they pray

One of the hundreds of hapax legomena in the NT: the Nymphone was a temple reserved to women only for their festival

Look no further

[davidmartin]

Yes. John is the first to take Thomas into a narrative, and *Ev builds onto that. There's a theoretical option that John took *Ev, excised all parables and made it all about the Father, but the likelihood of that is minimal

I think John is the gospel with the most connection back to the earlier movement, ie it's originators were from that movement (Whereas the other gospels used their sources but were not from them - *Ev being the possible exception?)

So this crap about John being late, is over simplification. Maybe it is, but it's more authentic

It would explain why John quotes no parables (although its aware of them) because in this group they are handed out once you're in - for the proper, real explanation not the tom foolery of the synoptics
*Ev basing itself off a proto-John .. um, ok so long as the redacted John still gets to rebut the synoptics and play the late role as well?

Chrestians would love anything anti-Judaic, I'm afraid I haven't been able to get my main point across. Judaism was at the receiving end of ridicule, insults and plain contempt. Read Thomas, read Vinzent's Christi Thora, read what the Pharisees get accused of

You may be right. You're theory knocks through a lot of layers but once it hits the 'black box' of these Chrestians... we can agree yes anti-pharisee but also knocked away are the Christian interpolations that separate Christianity from Judaism. I just see it becoming unclear as mud at this point. All we see is this guy Jesus stomping around as an itinerant prophet or teacher of some kind. Why not just leave it at that, he's a reformer of some sort, a mystic that's never gonna be accepted by the establishment that he dislikes.

What bothers me is the Christian redactors. We know these guys are more than just anti-pharisee, they are anti-Judaic and way outside Judaism you know the kind of things they said racially. Not only that, the Gnostic views are on the rise about the same time as the redactors are. it's freaking suspicious

Could the John gospel we have skew the presentation of Jesus in John?
That is what bothers me

I would put forward one piece of evidence for that I see that's the most obvious
In the account of the trial

Originally I think it swiftly passed the blame onto the Romans and it's their soldiers who torture Jesus unlike Mark where it is the high priests goons
Key point! John is actually blaming the Romans and I think desires to blame them and shift blame away from the people, either because it does not like the way Christians are beginning to be so anti-Jewish however much they disliked the pharisees, or because it was the Romans that were mostly to blame anyway. But this original is totally undone by the pro-Roman redactor

He comes along and does not like this much so he inserts the goofy stuff about continually bringing Jesus out to be rejected again and again by Jews. This is clear redaction that makes John's gospel appear more anti-Judaic that it originally was in my opinion and it makes me doubt some of the other anti-Judaic statements, did the redactor insert a lot of narratives between Jesus and the pharisees as well? I suspect it that's all

Originally it was just something like this, note the square brackets - here it's the 'Jewish leaders' the soldiers and their commander disappears, you can see the redaction going on. originally it was simple, the Romans are involved from start to finish and Pilate would have known who he was not act like he's never heard of him.

Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year
Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
[Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor.] By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.
Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they slapped him in the face.
So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). There they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.

How would that be Thomasine? The IS in Thomas is untouchable, he's a hardcore winner and effortlessly wins all the word battles

He also says his followers are the same as him or can be. Its another angle how a simple 'divine man' reading is awkward if he's saying people can be like him or he only says what he has heard. It's a fine line, exultation of Jesus isn't surprising even for Chrestians, but did Christians just ramp that up to the next level?

[mlinssen]

Yes. John is the first to take Thomas into a narrative, and *Ev builds onto that. There's a theoretical option that John took *Ev, excised all parables and made it all about the Father, but the likelihood of that is minimal

I think John is the gospel with the most connection back to the earlier movement, ie it's originators were from that movement (Whereas the other gospels used their sources but were not from them - *Ev being the possible exception?)

So this crap about John being late, is over simplification. Maybe it is, but it's more authentic

It would explain why John quotes no parables (although its aware of them) because in this group they are handed out once you're in - for the proper, real explanation not the tom foolery of the synoptics
*Ev basing itself off a proto-John .. um, ok so long as the redacted John still gets to rebut the synoptics and play the late role as well?

I'd love to have each of them just go their separate directions - but what are the odds that they stick to the same narrative?
The problem I have is that John, like you say, breathes origins; it is placed latest so it can close the book on the Synoptics precisely because it is the earliest.
But it is evident that John is unlike the Synoptics, and any John that served as input to *Ev can only be very proto, compared to what we have now

Chrestians would love anything anti-Judaic, I'm afraid I haven't been able to get my main point across. Judaism was at the receiving end of ridicule, insults and plain contempt. Read Thomas, read Vinzent's Christi Thora, read what the Pharisees get accused of

You may be right. You're theory knocks through a lot of layers but once it hits the 'black box' of these Chrestians... we can agree yes anti-pharisee but also knocked away are the Christian interpolations that separate Christianity from Judaism. I just see it becoming unclear as mud at this point. All we see is this guy Jesus stomping around as an itinerant prophet or teacher of some kind. Why not just leave it at that, he's a reformer of some sort, a mystic that's never gonna be accepted by the establishment that he dislikes.

He's a rebel, even if you drop all the miracles - which are nothing spectacular anyway.
But why do you keep going on about "Christian interpolations that separate Christianity from Judaism"? You keep insisting, without explanation, that Christianity somehow was innately linked to Judaism. Can you explain please?

What bothers me is the Christian redactors. We know these guys are more than just anti-pharisee, they are anti-Judaic and way outside Judaism you know the kind of things they said racially. Not only that, the Gnostic views are on the rise about the same time as the redactors are. it's freaking suspicious

By Christian redactors I assume you mean Mark and Matthew (as I equate Luke to Matthew). They're not anti-Judaic, they just don't give a damn about Judaism or and other religion - so they confabulate their own prophecies and scripture so they can shake and support their own IS.
The "Gnostics" had already been at their movement for over a century by then

Could the John gospel we have skew the presentation of Jesus in John?
That is what bothers me

I would put forward one piece of evidence for that I see that's the most obvious
In the account of the trial

Originally I think it swiftly passed the blame onto the Romans and it's their soldiers who torture Jesus unlike Mark where it is the high priests goons
Key point! John is actually blaming the Romans and I think desires to blame them and shift blame away from the people, either because it does not like the way Christians are beginning to be so anti-Jewish however much they disliked the pharisees, or because it was the Romans that were mostly to blame anyway. But this original is totally undone by the pro-Roman redactor

He comes along and does not like this much so he inserts the goofy stuff about continually bringing Jesus out to be rejected again and again by Jews. This is clear redaction that makes John's gospel appear more anti-Judaic that it originally was in my opinion and it makes me doubt some of the other anti-Judaic statements, did the redactor insert a lot of narratives between Jesus and the pharisees as well? I suspect it that's all

Originally it was just something like this, note the square brackets - here it's the 'Jewish leaders' the soldiers and their commander disappears, you can see the redaction going on. originally it was simple, the Romans are involved from start to finish and Pilate would have known who he was not act like he's never heard of him.

Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year
Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
[Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor.] By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.
Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they slapped him in the face.
So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). There they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.

How would that be Thomasine? The IS in Thomas is untouchable, he's a hardcore winner and effortlessly wins all the word battles

He also says his followers are the same as him or can be. Its another angle how a simple 'divine man' reading is awkward if he's saying people can be like him or he only says what he has heard. It's a fine line, exultation of Jesus isn't surprising even for Chrestians, but did Christians just ramp that up to the next level?

Oh yes, there's nothing divine about the IS of Thomas, he's not even there: he's a mere concept. And if I look at Philip then that's still the case, people can become XRS.
Yet Christianity literalises everything, and they turn IS into their Judaic Messiah, even as pseudo-Messiah that he becomes

I think I need to work it all out, in bullet points, per level. The story is absolutely clear for me, as clear as it is that such is not the case for others