# Dawkins makes another innocent mistake: The Gospels **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 21, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877 "2009-04-21T19:03:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/41 "2009-04-22T14:52:11Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > [Gospel of Thomas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas#Date_of_Composition) 50-150 CE That dating is wrong as well, and again not even supported by the Wikipedia page. Many of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas were copied word-for-word from a work called the _Diatessaron_, which is essentially a condensed version of the four real gospels translated into Syriac. The _Diatessaron_ was written by Tatian in 175 AD, which gives us a lower limit for the date that the Gospel of Thomas was written in. Nicholas Perrin proved the dependence of the Gospel of Thomas on the Diatessaron in his book [Thomas and Tatian](http://books.google.com/books?id=_Vg7IZ0P_hwC&pg=PP1&dq=Thomas+and+Tatian); see the chapter titled “Thomas and his Sources”. Besides which, the evidence for early dating of the Gospel of Thomas is laughable. See, for instance, the claim that because Thomas is merely a collection of sayings, it must have been written at same time as ‘Q’, the _hypothetical_ collection of sayings of Jesus from the 1st century. One might as well say that _Don Quixote_ and _The DaVinci Code_ were written at the same time because they’re both novels. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/42 "2009-04-22T15:07:45Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No, they are not. Even the Wikipedia (!) pages that you link to do not justify those dates. I think you don’t understand what a _terminus ad quem_ is. The late dates are not probable suggestions for when it was written, but merely the latest possible dates they COULD have been written. > [@](#): > > For the Gospel of Mark, can you name me a single serious scholar who does not think that the Gospel of Mark was written by 70 AD? Off the top of my head: Paul Meir JD Crossan Robert Funk Robert Eisenman PJ Achtemeir Randel Helms Richard Carrier Even the earlier dates are late 60’s. Mark knows about the 1st Jewish-Roman War, so that put him pretty squarely after 65. He also seems to know about the destruction of the Temple (or at least knows it’s imminent) which puts him probably right around 70. > [@](#): > > As even the Wikipedia article mentions, there are substantial arguments for it being written before that date. No there aren’t. There are arguments, but not substantial ones. > [@](#): > > There are no arguments for it being written later. Wrong. If you want a very at-length discussion, go [here:](http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm) Your Bible College cite is a traditionalist (and not particularly well informed) _apologia_, not a scholarly piece. Even the portion you quoted presumes, with no justification at all, that the traditional association of the author with Peter has any basis in fact. It also assumes the legend of Peter going to Rome as fact, when, in fact, this tradition cannot be established as historical at all. You really do great injury to your own credibility when you try to harrangue people about “serious scholarship” (of which I am convinced you know nothing), when you cite bilge like this. > [@](#): > > For the Gospel of Luke, can you name me a single serious scholar who doesn’t believe it was written by 90 AD at the very latest? Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, JD Crossan, Howard Kee, Werner Georg Kummel, Edward Tinsley, Joseph Tyson, Franklin W. Young, Stevan Davies. Luke seems to know of Josephus’ _Antiquities_, so that puts it in the mid-90’s. > [@](#): > > Once again there are substantial arguments for earlier dates No there aren’t. > [@](#): > > but no arguments for later dates. Wrong. > [@](#): > > Most importantly, Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were a single work, and Acts mentions none of the significant events such as the death of Paul and destruction of Jerusalem. The author shows awareness of both events,actually, the destruction of the Temple in Luke 21:5-30, and the death of Paul (more obliquely) in Acts 20. The author also uses Mark as a primary source, which puts it into the 80’s at the earliest. The reason Luke is scircumspect about Paul’s death probably has to do with the fact that he was writing to Romans and didn’t want to piss them off. In any case, there’s no question he was writing well after 70, most probably after 85 and possibly as late as the turn of the century. > [@](#): > > As for Matthew, I’m again unaware of any serious scholar putting it later than 100 AD. John might be as late as 100 AD. But in short, the time scales you for Mark, Matthew, and Luke are wrong about both the starting and ending dates. Again, you don’t understand the purpose of a _terminus_ range. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/43 "2009-04-22T15:08:31Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Gospel of Peter 70-150 CE > Going by these two sources [1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_peter#Date) [2](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html), it seems perfectly reasonable to ascribe a 1st century origin. The text seems to be based on an oral tradition (rather than a textual one) and doesn’t rely on the other gospels for its information. Wrong again. The Wikipedia page even says that the consensus among scholars puts it in the second century. As for Crossan’s attempt to extract the “Cross Gospel” and date in to the middle of the first century, here’s the response from Gary Evans in [The Case for the Real Jesus](http://books.google.com/books?id=qn1FU3lLcnsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Case+for+the+Real+Jesus) > [@](#): > > Crossan is just about all by himself on that point. Very, very few scholars would say the Akhmim fragment could be as early as the New Testament Gospels, but I’m not sure even they would say it’s ot an early core on which the canonical Gospels depend. Crossan does, but not too many people think that’s credible, since it’s such a _thour de force_ of special pleading. > > The problem is when the Akhmim fragment is critically studied, it appears to be loosely based on Matthew, and it contains errors that somebody ignorant of first-century political and cultural realities in Palestine would make–like having ruling priests spend the night in the graveyard. They would _not_ do that–and anybody writing in the middle of the first century would know that. Obviously the author is ignorant of Jewish burial traditions and rules about corpse impurity. Also the fragment is anti-Semitic, which would reflect lateness, not earliness. Only a Jew would write a Gospel in the 50’s. But honestly, are you just linking to Wikipedia pages and hoping that I won’t bother to read them? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/44 "2009-04-22T15:19:48Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I haven’t read Ehrman’s book but I’ve read a response to it. From what I read, it seems that Ehrman can only list three lengthy passages in the Gospels that are truly in dispute. What you read is wildly incorrect. > [@](#): > > But the important point is the point that was made by Dr. Metzger. The vast majority of the discrepancies between copies of the Gospels are minor. Ehrman makes this point himself. It’s really not salient, though. The fact that there are thousands of even _minor_ (and they’re not ALL minor) discrepencies shows that we can’t ever know exactly what the originals said. This is important if you think these books are literally the word of God. > [@](#): > > Metzger said specifically that there is “no doctrine of the Church” that is “significantly called into question by textual variants”. Johannine comma. > [@](#): > > And he said that in his book _The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration_, which was co-authored by … Bart Ehrman. Funny how you say that like you think it’s significant. Metzger was Ehrman’s mentor. That is well known. You seem to have the impression that Ehrman’s writings are in some kind of significant contradiction to Metzger. They are not. Ehrman’s popular books are expositions of pretty straight down the middle of the road NT scholarship. Ehrman is not espousing radical, personal opinions. He’s jus presenting mainstream scholarship to a lay audience. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/45 "2009-04-22T15:27:59Z")
ITR, do you ever get tired of having Diogenes prove you wrong? Seriously, these threads of yours merely convince everyone that you’re completely wrong about everything. So why do you keep starting them? You’re not a fundamentalist so why the need to propagate this nonsense? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/46 "2009-04-22T15:29:02Z")
My summation of **ITR’s** thesis thus far. Richard Dawkins confused the Sayings Gospel of Thomas with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, therefore Christ is Lord. Is that about right? All this quibbling over the dating of the Apocryphals is ultimately beside the point. Dawkins was essentially correct that the Canonicals wre chosen from a multiplicity of Gospels, none of which were authored by eyewitnesses of Jesus, none of which agree very well and none of which are historically reliable. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/47 "2009-04-22T15:34:02Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Seriously, these threads of yours merely convince everyone that you’re completely wrong about everything. So why do you keep starting them? You’re not a fundamentalist so why the need to propagate this nonsense? I find it educational to read **DtC** ’s posts on biblical scholarship and following his and others links, so it’s an interesting read in anycase. Not sure that’s **ITR** ’s motivation for starting the thread though. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/48 "2009-04-22T15:40:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > My summation of **ITR’s** thesis thus far. > > Richard Dawkins confused the Sayings Gospel of Thomas with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, therefore Christ is Lord. > > Is that about right? No. My argument is presented in the first post of [this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=514922) Perhaps you should read it. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/49 "2009-04-22T15:55:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No. My argument is presented in the first post of [this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=514922) Perhaps you should read it. Perhaps you should address one of the many posts in which Diogenes, without any effort to speak of, makes you look incredibly ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/50 "2009-04-22T15:59:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What is a “fake Gospel?” Define your terms. If you mean non-canoical gospels, you’re flat wrong. Yes, that’s what I mean. There is no hard evidence for the non-canonical gospels being in existence prior to about 170-180 AD. There are irresponsible speculations like the kind I mentioned in my response to **Sage Rat** about the Gospel of Peter, but that’s it. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/51 "2009-04-22T16:05:50Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > **DtC** basically already addressed this, but since I said I’d return to respond to the rest of your post, I’ll just repeat what he said, Irenaeus didn’t reference Thomas by name, but rather quoted a story from it. > > And in general, it doesn’t really matter. Dating of all the gospels is pretty hazy and open to many different interpretations. But Dawkin’s view (at least going by what in the OP, I’ve never read his book) seems to be at least consistent with the consensus scholarship. There were more then four gospels bouncing around over the 3rd and 4th centuries that were taken seriously by at least some proto-Christian communities, several of these were probably written around the same time period as the canonical gospels, and at the end the Church decided to just keep the canonical four and tossed/repressed the rest. > > His saying the selection was “more or less arbitrary” I’m sure glosses over a ton of scholarly research and speculation, I doubt the chosen four were randomly pulled out of a hat. But from Dawkin’s perspective the grainy details don’t really matter, from the secular prospective several gospels entered the marketplace of religious ideas at the beginning of the second century, none of which had any obvious superior claim to holy revelation over the next, and by th end of the 4th century, the canon had been wittled down to the four. > > Of course I’m sure you could construct a timeline within the range of dates where this wasn’t true (though the dates given by the OP seem to be outside even those broad ranges), where the canonical gospels largely proceeded other texts, but that’s basically just a guess, and it seems silly to take Dawkin’s to task for not subscribing to one of many possible guesses about the timeline of the gospels. Well here’s the thing. Whenever we have a thread like this, we see phrases like “scholarly consensus” and “mainline scholarship” tossed around. Now I’m all in favor of generally respecting a consensus where it actually exists. I just don’t like seeing one pulled from a hat like this. Where is the evidence that “consensus scholarship” puts any non-canonical gospel “around the same time period as the canonical gospels”. What sources better than Wikipedia report this? The authors I’ve linked to already are all mainstream scholars in the New Testament, quoted often by both Christian and secular sources. I could add to that list Craig Blomberg, N. T. Wright, and numerous others. They recognize the wide gap between the canonical and non-canonical gospels. How do they fit into this supposed consensus? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/52 "2009-04-22T16:55:27Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I find it educational to read **DtC** ’s posts on biblical scholarship and following his and others links, so it’s an interesting read in anycase. Not sure that’s **ITR** ’s motivation for starting the thread though. I do as well. ITR seems to represent what I consider the angry fringe fundamentalists (although I don’t think he’s a fundie, IIRC), a la JP Holding and Frank Walton type. It’s very interesting to read DtC’s blasting away of ITR’s arguments. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/53 "2009-04-22T17:10:59Z")
> [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](#): > > No Dawkins was unknown at the time I went to college. > > The process of choosing the gospels we were presented was similar to what he describes. And it’s not like the Church denounces the apocryphal gospels today either. I, too, would be quite interested in hearing of any mainstream church teaching that what Dawkins says is true or close to true. Dawkins says that the choice of the four canonical gospels was “arbitrary”. But it was not arbitrary. They were chosen as canonical because they had been written long before any others, because the church had used them continuously since the start, and because church doctrine was based on them. There was nothing arbitrary about them. If we are to accept Dawkins’ statement, then modern day historians are making “arbitrary” distinctions every day. As for Dawkins hinting that certain gospels were not included because they contained “embarrassing” stories, he has a grand total of zero facts to back that up with. He’s just making it up, much as he makes up most of what’s in the book. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/54 "2009-04-22T17:11:34Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Yes, that’s what I mean. There is no hard evidence for the non-canonical gospels being in existence prior to about 170-180 This is not true. To give one example, the Gospel of the Hebrews is mentioned by Hegesippus around 165. It’s also pretty well accepted that the Gospel of Peter (embedded Cross Gospel or no embedded Cross Gospel), the Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of the Ebionites and others all date from the mid 2nd Century or earlier – possibly MUCH earlier. And that’s just the works that are labeled as Gospels. There are are also apocryphal works of other genres – the Apocalypse of Peter, for instance, and the Didache which is dated between 50-120 CE. Even if you were right, it wouldn’t matter. A lot f these things are hard to date and there’s no hard evidence to date then AFTER 180 either. Even the datings of the Canonical Gospels could be slid to the 2nd Century. They all have a range. None of them can really be nailed down hard. At the end of the day, though, the point still stands that the NT Canon was selected from dozens of other extant works, none of them with any clear provenence, and while the Canonical Gospels are not exactly AP reports, they were chosen largely because they were the best of a bad lot. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/55 "2009-04-22T17:18:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, JD Crossan, Howard Kee, Werner Georg Kummel, Edward Tinsley, Joseph Tyson, Franklin W. Young, Stevan Davies. Exactly when and where do each of these scholars say that they believe Luke was written after 90 AD? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/56 "2009-04-22T17:28:16Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I, too, would be quite interested in hearing of any mainstream church teaching that what Dawkins says is true or close to true. You need to distinguish between what is taught as Church doctrine and what is taught in Church seminaries and colleges. You want a mainstream seminary that backs up Dawkins? How about the Princeton Theological Seminary, home of the late Bruce Metzger, who was regarded as the foremost expert on Biblical manuscripts, and who was also an ordained presbyterian minister. > [@](#): > > As for Dawkins hinting that certain gospels were not included because they contained “embarrassing” stories, he has a grand total of zero facts to back that up with. He’s just making it up, much as he makes up most of what’s in the book. [Secret Mark](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretmark.html) ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/57 "2009-04-22T17:30:48Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Where is the evidence that “consensus scholarship” puts any non-canonical gospel “around the same time period as the canonical gospels”. What sources better than Wikipedia report this? Did you perhaps miss **Diogenes** ’ post where he mentioned Paul Meir JD Crossan Robert Funk Robert Eisenman PJ Achtemeir Randel Helms Richard Carrier Bruce Metzger Bart Ehrman Howard Kee Werner Georg Kummel Edward Tinsley Joseph Tyson Franklin W. Young Stevan Davies eta: Diogenes has already pointed out many, many, many specific facts that you have yet to rebut. Your argument basically consists of saying “no it didn’t”. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/58 "2009-04-22T17:52:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If you want a very at-length discussion, go [here:](http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm) > Your Bible College cite is a traditionalist (and not particularly well informed) _apologia_, not a scholarly piece. Should I instead follow your lead and provide no cites at all? > [@](#): > > Even the portion you quoted presumes, with no justification at all, that the traditional association of the author with Peter has any basis in fact. It also assumes the legend of Peter going to Rome as fact, when, in fact, this tradition cannot be established as historical at all. You really do great injury to your own credibility when you try to harrangue people about “serious scholarship” (of which I am convinced you know nothing), when you cite bilge like this. The fact that Peter was in Rome is testified to by Clement of Rome. Papias and Clement of Alexandria both testify conerning not only Peter, but also his relationsihp with Mark and the authorship of Mark’s gospel. Bishop Dionysius of Corinth testifies that Peter was at Rome. One letter of Ignatius of Antioch strongly suggests that Peter was in Rome with Paul. Irenaeus says that the Church in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. So does Tertullian. etc… One could, I suppose, complain that Peter failed to post vidoes of himself in Rome on YouTube, but by the standards of the ancient history the case for Peter being in Rome is firm. We accept a lot of facts about figures from ancient history on less evidence than that. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/59 "2009-04-22T18:00:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Exactly when and where do each of these scholars say that they believe Luke was written after 90 AD? It’s in their books, for instance Bruce Metzger’s _The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development, and Significance_, Ehrman in any number of books, ditto for Crossan, Kummel’s _Introduction to the New Testament_. These are actual books, not web articles, and I don’t have the page numbers at my fingertips. If I give a list of each and every book with page numbers, are you going to seek them out? would it make any difference to you. You asked for one, I gave you several. Take them or leave them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877/60 "2009-04-22T18:38:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The fact that Peter was in Rome is testified to by Clement of Rome. Not so. [this letter](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html) is the only known writing Clement I. Show me where he says Peter went to Rome. > [@](#): > > Papias and Clement of Alexandria both testify conerning not only Peter, but also his relationsihp with Mark and the authorship of Mark’s gospel. Bishop Dionysius of Corinth testifies that Peter was at Rome. One letter of Ignatius of Antioch strongly suggests that Peter was in Rome with Paul. Irenaeus says that the Church in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. So does Tertullian. etc… One could, I suppose, complain that Peter failed to post vidoes of himself in Rome on YouTube, but by the standards of the ancient history the case for Peter being in Rome is firm. We accept a lot of facts about figures from ancient history on less evidence than that. Now you’re citing 2nd Century folklore. There is no hard, historical evidence that Peter went to Rome. None of these writers (with the possible exception of Clement I, who does not claim Peter went to Rome) are contemporary sources or witnesses to anything. It’s not impossible that Peter went to Rome, founded the Church there, and was executed by Nero, but that’s all 2nd Century tradition. None of it is historically verifiable. Incidentally, you’re also mistaken that Papias (who Eusebius called “a man of small intellect”) said anything about the Canonical Gospel of Mark. He says that Peter had a secretary named Mark who wrote down Peter’s recollections of Jesus, and this forms the basis for the traditional ascription of authorship to Canonical Mark, but the reality is that Papias’ description doesn’t match the Canonical Gospel, and whatever Petrine memoir he was talking about (if it existed at all) was not Canonical Mark. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dawkins-makes-another-innocent-mistake-the-gospels/493877.md?page=4)