New Vatican leader raises celibacy question

[Camerus]

Your dating of the Gorpels of Thomas, Peter and Philip are rather off  all of them  are dated as later except for a few neo-gnostics.

Not true.

Richard Valantasis writes:

Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 40 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.
Valantasis and other scholars argue that it is difficult to date Thomas because, as a collection of logia without a narrative framework, individual sayings could have been added to it gradually over time. (However, Valantasis does date Thomas to 100–110 AD, with some of the material certainly coming from the first stratum which is dated to 30–60 AD.)

Robert E. Van Voorst states:

Most interpreters place its writing in the second century, understanding that many of its oral traditions are much older.

Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.

Most scholars agree that the Gospels of Phillip and Peter were in the same time frame, which is to say that they were written around the same time as the canonical gospels.

We have a pretty good idea which books were considered for inclusion at various church councils.

You do? That's awesome! Care to share, because I've never been able to find a good, comprehensive list. If you've got one, I'd love to see it.

Not so fast you are taking extreme views of date here.  Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century, Gospel of Philip third century, (possibly fourth!), and the Gospel of Peter in the late 2nd century.

I've read in a variety of sources (some sympathetic and some not)that the canonical texts were chosen on the basis of their being the first ones. Even the order of the gospels supports that view(with the possible exception of Matthew and Mark). It further seems unlikely the gnostic gospels were contemporary with the canonical ones.

[merithyn]

Exactly what is the difference here?

Difference between going to church every week and being a bible scholar.

I'm unclear how going to church every week would qualify you as "studying" a subject.  I have lived in a Capitalist country all my life, however I wouldn't say I have "studied" capitalism for 20 years.

And I'd guess that you know more about capitalism than more Chinese Nationals, too, whether you took it as a formal line of study or not.

[merithyn]

Not so fast you are taking extreme views of date here.  Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century, Gospel of Philip third century, (possibly fourth!), and the Gospel of Peter in the late 2nd century.

I'm confused again. What part are you trying to play "gotcha'" on? Because I've explained what I meant several times now.

I said that I was pretty sure that there were books that were rejected from the Bible that showed women in a better light and with a more active role in early Christian churches. (Note: "pretty sure" != "I know for a fact") I've quoted noted historians who've said the same. I've asked you to show me these lists of books that that were rejected that you claim to know about that somehow disprove these historians.

At this point, I'm going to call this discussion a wash. I tried to treat your attempt at discussion as legitimate, but I see that my earlier rule of "don't respond to Raz" had purpose.

[merithyn]

I've read in a variety of sources (some sympathetic and some not)that the canonical texts were chosen on the basis of their being the first ones. Even the order of the gospels supports that view(with the possible exception of Matthew and Mark). It further seems unlikely the gnostic gospels were contemporary with the canonical ones.

Site me on that one, will you? Because my research indicates otherwise. Especially since Matthew & Luke ( I think you mean Luke, not Mark) are believed to be written roughly the same time period as Mary & Peter.

[Tamas]

I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Correctly dating ANY of the gospels - canonical or not - is far from a secure science.  Even more dubious is drawing any kind of firm conclusion about what predecessor texts or oral traditions might have existed prior to the canonical gospels reaching something close to their present day form. A claim as to the primacy of the canonical gospels as a carrier of some kind of uniquely  authentic tradition is theological, not historical.

[Tamas]

Correctly dating ANY of the gospels - canonical or not - is far from a secure science.  Even more dubious is drawing any kind of firm conclusion about what predecessor texts or oral traditions might have existed prior to the canonical gospels reaching something close to their present day form. A claim as to the primacy of the canonical gospels as a carrier of some kind of uniquely  authentic tradition is theological, not historical.

Nonsense. There were real pharaos. Your argument: defeated!!!!

[Malthus]

I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death. 

It's more complex than that. There is no doubt that the powers that be (or at least, the priestly class thereof) try to get stuff useful to themselves included; however, they also have to please existing audiences, who would be pissed off if stuff they know and love from tradition doesn't get included. You can see this tension at work in the OT, which contains what appear to be survivals from ancient traditions which are of no obvious use to anyone, but which appear to have been inserted simply because they were traditional (for example, the "nephalim" or demi-gods which are mentioned exactly once; and the inclusion of two different, and somewhat contradictory, creation myths)

[The Minsky Moment]

I said that I was pretty sure that there were books that were rejected from the Bible that showed women in a better light and with a more active role in early Christian churches. (Note: "pretty sure" != "I know for a fact") I've quoted noted historians who've said the same. I've asked you to show me these lists of books that that were rejected that you claim to know about that somehow disprove these historians.

It's more than that.
There were competing versions of Christianity that had female prophets and even ordained priests.  We know about them primarily through their enemies who sought to suppress them.  Indeed the Nag Hammadi texts exist only because of the pains taken to conceal them.

[Valmy]

Nonsense. There were real pharaos. Your argument: defeated!!!!

Dude my two year old is faster on the uptake than you.  Are you really this hilariously clueless as to what my point was in saying that?

Further I am not even participating in this gospel dating discussion, which makes your idiocy even more bizarre.

[Tamas]

Nonsense. There were real pharaos. Your argument: defeated!!!!

Dude my two year old is faster on the uptake than you.  Are you really this hilariously clueless as to what my point was in saying that?

Further I am not even participating in this gospel dating discussion, which makes your idiocy even more bizarre.

I am sorry man, I just found it hilarious that when I declared the Bible`s general content as unproven, you tried to argue that by pointing out that it contains some proper historical stuff.

[merithyn]

I said that I was pretty sure that there were books that were rejected from the Bible that showed women in a better light and with a more active role in early Christian churches. (Note: "pretty sure" != "I know for a fact") I've quoted noted historians who've said the same. I've asked you to show me these lists of books that that were rejected that you claim to know about that somehow disprove these historians.

It's more than that.
There were competing versions of Christianity that had female prophets and even ordained priests.  We know about them primarily through their enemies who sought to suppress them.  Indeed the Nag Hammadi texts exist only because of the pains taken to conceal them.

I was trying to keep it simple for Raz. It didn't help, though.

[merithyn]

Correctly dating ANY of the gospels - canonical or not - is far from a secure science.  Even more dubious is drawing any kind of firm conclusion about what predecessor texts or oral traditions might have existed prior to the canonical gospels reaching something close to their present day form. A claim as to the primacy of the canonical gospels as a carrier of some kind of uniquely  authentic tradition is theological, not historical.

Of course. I tried to explain that, but it somehow got lost in the "prove your knowledge" gotcha' game.

It's impossible to know what came when. At best, we have really good guesses. The process wasn't well documented, nor were most of the books presented as potentially going into the Bible documented somewhere. We know they exist because parts (and sometimes whole) bits of them are found hidden away somewhere. From those, we can make educated guesses based on context, paper-type, placement, and language of the texts, but we're never going to know anything definitively. It's just not possible.

[crazy canuck]

Care to elborate on what these "quite a few letters" are?

Letter's is perhaps a bit of an understatement.  Many of the early christians wrote about which books that were considered heretical.  Irenaeus and Tatian are prime examples of people saying what was in and out.

I see you are still Erhman partisan, despite everything.

I think you have just made my point that the only way scholars knew about the "heretic" works was through the refutations written by Orthodox Churchmen.  Irenaeus is our main source for this.  If "many" other orthodox christians also wrote refutations then they have not survived. 

And as for Erhman, yeah, I prefer to side with the leading academic in this area.

[Jacob]

I have a suspicion that all religious texts are chosen based on how much useful contemporary relevance they have based on the clergy`s intentions on social stability and power plays.
Like, how Mohammed had all those hajids or whatevers detailing the finer points of the Egyptian society existing two hundred years after his death. 

Hadith