Riverwind

You are playing Socrates. If you have something to say with respect to the Gospel that contradicts my thoughts, then say them.

Peter Kirby

Yeah, sure. There are no "late works" of theology, because the subject of theology is timeless, no work of it is invalidated by that fact of date. There are "late works" of history, but you have provided no reasons for a relative (let alone absolute) chronological ordering of the gospels of Thomas, Peter, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Such a historical study, if it can proceed at all, must proceed from the internal evidence of their connexions to one another literarily. This you haven't scratched in your response, leading me to suspect that the only way in to the subject is not important to you; what is important is the prejudice of the biblical canon.

Riverwind

Fair enough, but I wasn't responding initially to give such datings of these works. You're right, if more detail is required, as it often is, then these details would have to be given. However, there are plenty out there who have done so already.

I'm sad that you would assume that it is "not important" to me. I didn't think you made such assumptions based on short posts in hostile forums where people ask question merely to trip others up. Everyone says something questionable after a while, so if you ask enough questions you can always find something to "win" an argument about.

I suppose I do have a certain "prejudice" about the Biblical canon, but I assure you that it is based upon reason as well as faith. I have read works on the canon and understand its development. Metzger is a wonderful start for those interested in the subject. I'll just say that, from my readings on the canon and my readings of early Christians, I see no reason for accepting gospels outside the preserved gospel traditions. Some would say that the Biblical canon is merely the result of the "winners", but my argument is that sometimes the "winners" were the right ones to begin with, and that is what I happen to believe in this case. One is free to lean either way.

Peter Kirby

(OK. I don't think I was terribly uncharitable though, given that you left the only important consideration out of account entirely.)

The reason for my interlocution in the first place is that pooh-pooh-ing the "authorities" of the Jesus Seminar is just bass-ackwards method. Is something wrong because those in the JSem say it is right?

The idea that we even have reliable authorities for anything in the first century of Christianity approaches the laughable, in my opinion. The Scholastics were right all along, that the argument from authority is the weakest kind, and (I would add) the weakest historical subject to do it in would be ancient Christianity.

Riverwind

Actually, I was merely asking if there was anyone outside those I mentioned that happen to believe the Cross Gospel is that early.

Regardless, you are right that something is not wrong because the Jesus Seminar says it's right. However, it is also true that something is not right just because they say it is. And, many of the Jesus Seminar's views seem to almost have been rejected at this point by both conservative and liberal scholars.

Nazaroo

For a modern analysis of the Jesus Seminar color-codes, go here:

Jesus Seminar Color Codes Analyzed <-- Click Here.

Peter Kirby

OMG no wai I luvz the Jesus Seminar how can u diss them??

Seriously: prove Jesus said one thing found in the Gospels at all. If you can't, join the ranks of those who find the Jesus Seminar far too conservative.

Riverwind

You don't sound like yourself lately, Peter...

Prove that any historical figure said anything recorded in their texts at all. It seems you're beginning to take a minimalist stance. Pity. The wisdom of this world truly is foolishness. The foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom.

Peter Kirby

Jesus wrote texts?

Riverwind

Go to bed, Peter. I think the late night hour is getting to you.