Bolland saw 1 Cor 15:5 as evidence of the pauline author's knowledge of the Earliest Gospel.
Now, I wonder what could be there of anti-demiurgism in the fact that the betrayer Judah was not still invented.
The point is that Bolland thought that the Earliest Gospel was a drama in 5 acts.
It is a drama in 5 acts, as figured by Robertson: the last supper, the arrest and deportation from the garden, the trial by Pontius Pilatus, the crucifixion, and finally the resurrection.
http://www.egodeath.com/BollandPhilosophyOfReligion.htm
In this way the original anti-demiurgism could be more easily masked.
- The last supper: the gift of the gnosis;
- the arrest and deportation from the garden: the same fate of the genesiac Serpent, found in another garden (of Eden);
- the trial by Pontius Pilatus, i.e. the best candidate to the role of killer of Joshua "Son of Joseph" (Pilate having exterminated en masse the Samaritans, so-called "sons of Joseph");
This would explain why the way was open to judaization of the Earliest Gospel.
What was sufficient was to eclipse the reference to the garden of Eden, where the Genesiac Serpent, gifter of gnosis, was damned by YHWH. The Garden, interpreted by the Judaizers as the garden of Gethsemane, was considered evidence of Jesus being the davidic Messiah of YHWH.