Yes, it came later:

Quote:Date

The gospel is widely thought to date from after the composition of the four canonical gospels. Scholars are divided as to the exact date of the text, with Bart Ehrman placing it in the first half of the second century and considering it to have been compiled based on oral traditions about Jesus, independent of the canonical gospels.[5] The dating of the text depends to a certain extent on whether the text condemned by Serapion, Bishop of Antioch upon inspection at Rhossus is the same as the text that was discovered in modern times.[6] The Rhossus community had already been using it in their liturgy.[7]
John Dominic Crossan disagrees with most Biblical scholarship. Calling this gospel the "cross gospel", Crossan believes that this Gospel was written before the synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, and considers Peter to be a forerunner to those gospels.[8] Crossan's view is not accepted by other Biblical scholars.[9]
Later Western references, which condemn the work, such as Jerome and Decretum Gelasianum, traditionally connected to Pope Gelasius I, are apparently based upon the judgment of Eusebius, not upon a direct knowledge of the text.[10]

Wikipedia -- Gospel of Peter date.

But, not that much later:

Quote:Setting and date

The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the last quarter of the 1st century.[23][Notes 1] This makes it a work of the second generation of Christians, for whom the defining event was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in AD 70 in the course of the First Jewish–Roman War (AD 66–73); from this point on, what had begun with Jesus of Nazareth as a Jewish messianic movement became an increasingly Gentile phenomenon evolving in time into a separate religion.[24] The Christian community to which Matthew belonged, like many 1st-century Christians, was still part of the larger Jewish community: hence the designation Jewish Christian to describe them.[25] The relationship of Matthew to this wider world of Judaism remains a subject of study and contention, the principal question being to what extent, if any, Matthew's community had cut itself off from its Jewish roots.[26] Certainly there was conflict between Matthew's group and other Jewish groups, and it is generally agreed that the root of the conflict was the Matthew community's belief in Jesus as the Messiah and authoritative interpreter of the law, as one risen from the dead and uniquely endowed with divine authority.[27]
The author of Matthew wrote for a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians located probably in Syria (Antioch, the largest city in Roman Syria and the third-largest in the empire, is often mentioned).[28] Unlike Mark, Matthew never bothers to explain Jewish customs, since his intended audience was a Jewish one; unlike Luke, who traces Jesus' ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews; of his three presumed sources only "M", the material from his own community, refers to a "church" (ecclesia), an organised group with rules for keeping order; and the content of "M" suggests that this community was strict in keeping the Jewish law, holding that they must exceed the scribes and the Pharisees in "righteousness" (adherence to Jewish law).[29] Writing from within a Jewish-Christian community growing increasingly distant from other Jews and becoming increasingly Gentile in its membership and outlook, Matthew put down in his gospel his vision "of an assembly or church in which both Jew and Gentile would flourish together".[30]

Wikipedia -- Gospel of Matthew date

And, so, why believe Matthew's account over that of Peter's?

"Mark" was first and all the other 'Jesus on earth' shit was derived from it. Mark was originally written between 70 and 135 or so. No one really knows when it was last edited, either.

The celestial Jesus stuff in the collection now known as "Paul" probably pre-dates all of the later shit since he knows nothing about any of the horseshit.

Quote:Mark probably dates from 66–70 AD.[3] It appears as the second New Testament gospel because it was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, but most scholars now regard it as the earliest written gospel.[4][5] They also reject the tradition which ascribes it to John Mark, the companion of the apostle Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[6]

Wikipedia -- Gospel of Mark

The footnote ascribes the comment to Pheme Perkins - a professor of....guess what?...."theology."

As noted elsewhere, theologians have a driving wish to push this horseshit into the first century when the plain fact of the matter is that we have no evidence at all for first century dates.



That is "0," in the first century.

As in Not Fucking One!  And precious few in the second.

Mainstream theologian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheme_Perkins

Keyword "theologian."  Give me an actual historian as opposed to some shithead with a vested interest for accepting bullshit.

(July 9, 2018 at 12:02 am)Minimalist Wrote: Keyword "theologian."  Give me an actual historian as opposed to some shithead with a vested interest for accepting bullshit.

You want someone who has a vested interest in denying the truth.

GC

(July 9, 2018 at 12:57 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(July 9, 2018 at 12:02 am)Minimalist Wrote: Keyword "theologian."  Give me an actual historian as opposed to some shithead with a vested interest for accepting bullshit.

You want someone who has a vested interest in denying the truth.

GC

She's not some wacky fundamentalist Christian.

She doesn't have to be.  But her rice bowl is filled by pretending this happy horseshit is real.  Do you know that there are religiously-affiliated schools which require their faculty to profess belief in whatever their particular bullshit happens to be?  It is necessary to keep morons like G-C up there happy in their ignorance.

Instances of scholarly integrity among xtians are rare but they do happen.  I posted this several years ago.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-24217-p...#pid608332

Bravo for Callaway.

Boston College is not one of those institutions. I know that there are some open atheist faculty there.