gospels were anonymous...

[Publisher]

Not surprising that those who agree with liberal reconstructions are not interested in the dating of these writings. However there isn’t much scholarly work out there that is convincing that the Gnostic material antedates the Synoptics or Paul’s writings. Quite the opposite actually. Date of authorship is obviously important in determining historical significance especially when one claims the two groups were on equall playing ground and “orthodoxy” was not precipitated by historical but rather purely political reasons.

No, that is not what was stated…the “liberal reconstructions” ARE very much interested in the dating of the writings which became canonized as well as dating Gnostic material.

“Orthodoxy” was a “stream of thought”…perhaps even the more “centrist” view of Christianity which became the predominant view held by the people called Christians.

 

[Erich]

Yes I would find them credible IF proof of the established traditions were verifiable…but that’s the issue…they are not verifiable.

Actually, they are. I encourage you to read, in its entirety, The Authors of the Gospels. You will find that the Clementine tradition is in full accord with the earliest Christian historians *and *modern literary analysis (as well as with the doctrine of the church and recent Church statements, even though that might not carry as much weight with you).

 

[Nicea325]

I think we agree more than we disagree…I totally agree with this statement.