Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

All we know the midrashic references ("light in the darkness", etc) hence I don't quote them again (nor I want that a reader quotes them again).

Yet we see that in the Gospel of Peter there is no mention at all of 'Galilee'. This fact is the strongest evidence of the extreme antiquity of the its source.

Because it reveals that the Gospel of Peter or the its source had a precise goal in mind: the centrality of Jerusalem and only of Jerusalem. No ministry in Galilee.

Which therefore was added by the Marcionites. This explains why in *Ev the portions where there is more Marcionite tenor are just the episodes placed in Galilee. The meaning is clear: the Marcionite emphasis is on any place that is not Jerusalem.

By adding the Galilee, the gospel started its first steps in the Diaspora of the gentiles, just as Marcion would have always wanted.

Without the Galilee, the centrality of Jerusalem is enormous, extreme at the higher degree.

Corollary: any gospel where 'Galilee' is mentioned comes after *Ev.

The authentic partition of the world between "Paul" and "Peter" never happened between Paul and Peter in a meeting in Jerusalem.

It happened in the pages themselves of the gospel.

On the paper.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:36 am Yet we see that in the Gospel of Peter there is no mention at all of 'Galilee'. This fact is the strongest evidence of the extreme antiquity of the its source.

It's missing the beginning.

The last verse plausibly refers to fishing in the sea of Galilee.

"But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ..."

Correct. I should check if Crossan has removed that last verse in the his reconstruction of the Cross Gospel.

As I have expected. Crossan places that verse in italics.

The meaning is the following:


(Who Killed Jesus?, p. 266, my bold)

My point still stands.

Crossan is guilty of two great macroscopic errors:

• he placed the gospels in the end of the first century;

• he never mentioned Marcion.

...and a venial sin:

• he never mentioned the mythicist Louis Gordon Rylands as his precursor

Even so, he is a great scholar.