Adam

Regarding my Post #19, the dissertation by Henderson turned out to be quite good research and thinking, except I don't recall the word "Aramaic" ever occurring. Yet there is so little textual agreement with any of our canonical gospels (p. 35) that it has to be obvious that the Gospel of Peter cannot share even Greek sources. Like the earliest sources it is a Passion Narrative (shared even with GJohn, Teeple's source S, but adding much we find particularly in Matthew), but freely rewritten for apologetic purposes.

Why is it that so much of scholarship splits into hostile camps (dependence on the gospels vs. independence, or the extreme position of the gospels drawing from GP) and ignores the middle ground resolution of conflicting translations from underlying sources?