Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Furthemore, the interpreters of the Holy Scriptures, especially of the Gospels, are so familiar with them that they often regard most of their features as natural. Consequently, they do not ask the fundamental question, 'why?'. In this context, it should be reminded that 'there is no other beginning of philosophy than wondering' (Plato, Theaet. 155d), so that all true scholarship begins in wondering. If the interpreters, especially educates ones, start their analyses with the idea that they know quite much about the Gospels, they may be unprepared for perceiving many of the features as in fact surprising or even astonishing.

(Adamczewski, The Gospel of Mark A Hypertextual Commentary, p.29)


I want to put every reader of this forum to a little test: how much do you expect that the first immediate reaction to the reading of the first Gospel was a reaction of surprise? And indifference? And of hate?

In my opinion:

SURPRISE: 70%

INDIFFERENCE: 5%

HATE: 25%

The reason because I hate Q is that its existence contradicts totally (!) what I would expect: that a first Gospel caused so much indifference to even be lost!

My argument for dating the first Gospel is therefore the following:

1) it's 70% expected that the first immediate reaction, when the first Gospel is read by outsiders, was a reaction of SURPRISE.
2) this particular text A betrays surprise to the reading of the Gospel.
3) therefore: the first gospel was written just before the text A.

Question: why apparently no scholar uses that argument?

Perhaps you have never heard of Peter Kirby, and his Early Christian Writings.
He describes a list of Gospels, with their approximative dates of writing :

The 4 Canonical Gospels.
50-90 The Signs Gospel.
50-140 The Gospel of Thomas.
80-150 The Gospel of the Hebrews.
70-160 The Gospel of Peter.
80-150 The Gospel of the Egyptians.
100-160 The Gospel of the Ebionites.
100-160 The Gospel of the Nazoreans.
110-160 The Traditions of Matthias.
120-140 The Gospel of Basilides.
120-180 The Gospel of Mary.
130-170 The Gospel of Judas.
140-170 The Infancy Gospel of James (Proto-Evangelium).
140-180 The Gospel of Truth.
The Gospel of Valentinus according to Irenaeus, was the same as the "Gospel of Truth".
150-255 The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati).
180-250 The Gospel of Philip.

and also :
100-150 The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.
The Gospel of Marcion.
The Gospel of Eve.
The writing Genna Marias.
The Gospel Teleioseos.
Second Treatise of the Great Seth.

You are making my argument.

Some wrote the first of these Gospels:

The 4 Canonical Gospels.

And the reaction he/she triggered was precisely that:

50-90 The Signs Gospel. [???]
50-140 The Gospel of Thomas.
80-150 The Gospel of the Hebrews.
70-160 The Gospel of Peter.
80-150 The Gospel of the Egyptians.
100-160 The Gospel of the Ebionites.
100-160 The Gospel of the Nazoreans.
110-160 The Traditions of Matthias.
120-140 The Gospel of Basilides.
120-180 The Gospel of Mary.
130-170 The Gospel of Judas.
140-170 The Infancy Gospel of James (Proto-Evangelium).
140-180 The Gospel of Truth.
The Gospel of Valentinus according to Irenaeus, was the same as the "Gospel of Truth".
150-255 The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati).
180-250 The Gospel of Philip.

and also :
100-150 The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.
The Gospel of Marcion.
The Gospel of Eve.
The writing Genna Marias.
The Gospel Teleioseos.
Second Treatise of the Great Seth.

If that reaction is not evidence of SURPRISE in front of the first gospel, then what would it be?

Several fragments of a Greek version of Thomas were found among the Oxyrhynchys Papyri in the late 19th century. These fragments consist of the preamble, and sayings 1-6, 26-28, 30-32, 36-38, and 39, as well as a saying not found in the Coptic version, which follows 32. These fragments are found on Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1, 654, and 655. Generally, the sayings are essentially the same in both versions. However, the equivalent of saying 30 adds the end of the Coptic version's saying 77.

http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsi ... htm#gthgk1

A mere collection of sayings as Thomas is not able to kindle SURPRISE of such a large scale.

Remember that 90 % of the population (Christians or Pagans) could not read.
Their first immediate reaction was "listen !".

Giuseppe wrote:You are making my argument.

Some wrote the first of these Gospels:

The 4 Canonical Gospels.

And the reaction he/she triggered was precisely that:

• 50-90 The Signs Gospel. [???]
  50-140 The Gospel of Thomas.
  80-150 The Gospel of the Hebrews.
  70-160 The Gospel of Peter.
  80-150 The Gospel of the Egyptians.
  100-160 The Gospel of the Ebionites.
  100-160 The Gospel of the Nazoreans.
  110-160 The Traditions of Matthias.
  120-140 The Gospel of Basilides.
  120-180 The Gospel of Mary.
  130-170 The Gospel of Judas.
  140-170 The Infancy Gospel of James (Proto-Evangelium).
  140-180 The Gospel of Truth.
  The Gospel of Valentinus according to Irenaeus, was the same as the "Gospel of Truth".
  150-255 The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati).
  180-250 The Gospel of Philip.

and also :

• 100-150 The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.
  The Gospel of Marcion.
  The Gospel of Eve.
  The writing Genna Marias.
  The Gospel Teleioseos.
  Second Treatise of the Great Seth.

If that reaction is not evidence of SURPRISE in front of the first gospel, then what would it be?

It is possible that the so-called apocryphal gospels are not 'reactions' to the Canonical gospels: there are a number of possible scenarios such as different communities develop or editing gospels concurrently, subsequently, or independently; or a combination of these.

In the early first century CE, a Jewish small movement was created around Jesus in Palestine.
After the execution of Jesus, and his resurrection (...), his followers found reason to continue the movement all the more vigorously. Their leader was James, the brother of Jesus.
They did not take part in the revolt of the Jews in 70 CE, and increasingly came into contact with interested parties who were not otherwise observant Jews.
They created independant communities in Alexandria, Antioch (the town of the first Christians), and Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamon, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea on the Lycus (the seven churches of the Book of Revelation), and Corinth and Rome. Each community had a bishop, episcopos, supervisor, not necessarily dependant of James.
Peter prefered to go with Paul.
The mission to the gentiles was greatly accelerated by Paul.
The mix of Jewish and gentile converts led to tensions over the role of Jewish practices that required resolution or split.
The most widely accepted resolution became the foundation of the Christianity we know today.
Thus while Christianity very early flourished as a chaotic array of various sects and factions, it originated from a monolithic movement.

MrMacSon wrote:

Giuseppe wrote:You are making my argument.

Some wrote the first of these Gospels:

The 4 Canonical Gospels.

And the reaction he/she triggered was precisely that:

• 50-90 The Signs Gospel. [???]
  50-140 The Gospel of Thomas.
  80-150 The Gospel of the Hebrews.
  70-160 The Gospel of Peter.
  80-150 The Gospel of the Egyptians.
  100-160 The Gospel of the Ebionites.
  100-160 The Gospel of the Nazoreans.
  110-160 The Traditions of Matthias.
  120-140 The Gospel of Basilides.
  120-180 The Gospel of Mary.
  130-170 The Gospel of Judas.
  140-170 The Infancy Gospel of James (Proto-Evangelium).
  140-180 The Gospel of Truth.
  The Gospel of Valentinus according to Irenaeus, was the same as the "Gospel of Truth".
  150-255 The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati).
  180-250 The Gospel of Philip.

and also :

• 100-150 The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.
  The Gospel of Marcion.
  The Gospel of Eve.
  The writing Genna Marias.
  The Gospel Teleioseos.
  Second Treatise of the Great Seth.

If that reaction is not evidence of SURPRISE in front of the first gospel, then what would it be?

It is possible that the so-called apocryphal gospels are not 'reactions' to the Canonical gospels: there are a number of possible scenarios such as different communities develop or editing gospels concurrently, subsequently, or independently; or a combination of these.

I don't mean that. My view is that the reaction after the reading of the first Gospel - the reaction by learned Christian people who could read, therefore the reaction from high society - was a reaction of SURPRISE and the evidence is the creation on the table of 10000 gospels all based, more or less, on the first Gospel.

Remember that 90 % of the population (Christians or Pagans) could not read.
Their first immediate reaction was "listen !".

It's not expected a so passive reaction (the mere ''listen!'') behind the creation, in reply to the first Gospel, of 10000 Gospels all based on the first Gospel. Therefore I refer to the principal reaction of the learned Christians, their leaders, their insiders. Not to the passive hoi polloi.


When an insider of a community x did read the first Gospel, he was surprised by it, he wrote his own Gospel and did reveal it to his outsiders.
All that was made in few years, maybe months, maybe even days. There was not opposition at all to the idea that Jesus came down on Terra firma, because all Christians did accept that idea in very few days, since the new message relative to that new idea was a message of SURPRISE. And all were really surprised.

The surprise was the precise goal of the first evangelist. Because the essentia of the Gospel Jesus, shared by all the our Gospel Jesuses, is the dramatic contrast between:

1) the old and the new
2) the expected and the unexpected
3) the 'historical' and the mythical
4) the traditional and the revolutionary
5) the boring and the surprising
6) the known and the unknown
7) the prophetized and the un-prophetized
8) the material and the spiritual


In other terms, the reaction of Iraeneus, Justin, Tertullian, Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentinus and other learned heretics and/or proto-catholics when they listened for the first time the first Gospel: Mcn.