The Gospel of Peter versus the Gospel of Matthew.

[Brian37]

Contradictions in holy writings? NO, say it isn't so.

[Minimalist]

But she's a theologian.... and when it comes to theologians, I agree with Dawkins.




Theologians are as useful as balls on a cow.

[Jehanne]

I view theology as being on par with the study of literature.

[Drich]

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.

please bruh.. we have 15 of the 27 books represented in this so call "few second century fragments" and we also have several thousand first century and pre first century documents in the dead sea scroll and in the silver scrolls which all very accurately repeat what has been written in our latest versions of the bible.

No other document on earth has a provenance like this. to doubt the legitimacy of the bible is to doubt all other documents from 1700 back as nothing has been written copied and accurately recoppied till the invention of the printing press, for this length of time.. and even then the bible can still exceed in total manuscripts of works like shakespeare. we are missing entire acts and whole plays have been lost to time. yet we tell the tales of shakespeare as if those are all his words!

Show me a graff or a pie chart of what is left of the odyssey (the next closest period piece of literature) which has maybe 625 total fragments leaving upto 1/3 of it unknown yet taught as if the oddesy as we know it was complete works of Homer Himself.

You douche bags always like to show where the bible lacks... now show me what the secular libraries have to compare apples to apples. show me something greater than the bible or sit down and shut up mud duck. we have over 5000 documents that support the NT add another 20K if you include the whole bible! Nothing you have compares! why doesn't you ever talk about that?

[RoadRunner79]

---

Yes, it came later:

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:

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?

Because it's not just about the age of the material.   The early Church disregarded  a number of materials, that where late (did not have the connection to the apostles), because they conflicted with the Gospel they where given.  Many of these Churches where said to be founded by the apostles and disciples within 100 years of the time that you are talking about.   The Gospel of Peter, if what we have today resembles what it was then (remember it was lost for about 1000 years), actually isn't that much different.  In corroborates a number of things in the orthodox Gospels.  There are reports that it was read in some churches, and there are also reports from those saying not to.  It has docetic overtones which where against the teaching of the bible.  It's not just the age, but also the history behind it.

[Drich]

Yes, it came later:

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:

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?

I don't think there was ever a conflict between mat and mark.

However there is one between luke and mark.

How? because we know luke wrote both luke and acts. as they were written both by luke who was a slave to theophilus. who was a well to do roman citizen.
Luke was a 3rd party historian/physician which we know came first. then He writes the same theophilus referencing his first book. so Acts came second. Now take the events in acts and the story stops during Paul's final crusade to Rome where in 4 years he is executed which puts the book of acts in the mide 60's already the book of acts is younger than the supposed book of mark's release date, now take in consideration the book of luke if written 20 after christ would put the book of luke 35 years before the supposed book of mark date. That IF the book was written that late... which does make sense because Luke has first hand knowledge of the events that immediately happen after the death burial and resurrection. as ACTS 1 is the continuation of the 4 gospels. and Luke as intimate knowledge of everyone and where they were He even records Paul's conversion from saul and how He enters the church..  Not saying he was there for all of it but it would make a helluva lot more sense for him to have been in the mix from the start that the idea that someone else writing in his style 100 years after luke died. as the book reads like a journal of the church mentioning the high points all the way to mid 60s AD...

Douche commentators say luke was copied from earlier work, but if you actually read the two books chronologically that theory does not jive. Mark is devoid of detail like someone trying to remember something that happened 50 years ago. it hit all the top stories but the smell of the flowers has all but been forgotten. Luke is a gritty retelling as if it were all still fresh. Mat's story was written to satisfy the qualification of the jews, and john was the regular guy pov.

[Minimalist]

Dripshit, as usual you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Go read something besides religious drivel and then maybe your opinions would change.  Doubtful.  I think you are far too stupid to change.

[Jehanne]

The argument put forward for the "4 Gospels" was that there were "4 corners" of the Earth and "4 winds". And, so, that number stuck in people's heads.

[Neo-Scholastic]

- messy editing, just delete -

[Angrboda]

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.

No, he said he didn't want a theologian's opinion. Weren't you reading what he wrote?