Eyewitness To Jesus? The Gospel Authors

Greetings all,

quote:

---

Brian: if you are allowing Mark's Gospel to be an eyewitness account because of his association with Peter, then you have to allow Luke's as he apparently wrote his account from eyewitness reports.

---

But Mark was NOT an eye-witness, so his Gospel (if we assume it WAS by Mark) is NOT an eye-witness account - its HEARSAY.And, as pointed out above, the Gospels were originally ANONYMOUS documents which were un-named until late 2nd century.Furthermore, the 2 other synoptics copied the vast majority of G.Mark, word-for-word, showing they were not by eye-witnesses either.Also, neither the Gospels, nor their contents, nor their authors, are mentioned by any Christians until early-mid 2nd century - the earliest twenty or so Christian documents show NO KNOWLEDGE of the Gospel stories or events.As pointed out in the OP,
the "memoirs of the apostles" become known in mid 2nd century,
then Irenaeus names the four Gospels in late 2nd century,
(with the earliest vague clues possibly provided by Papias in early-mid 2nd century)Notably -
NO Christian shows any knowledge of the Gospels, their contents, or their authors, until a CENTURY after the alleged events.A classic example :
The EMPTY TOMB is not mentioned by any Christian until mid 2nd century - showing the whole Gospel story is a later myth.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

buzsaw : Btw, what's your response to the following? (James Ossuary)

---

This ossuary is a forgery, the creator has even been charged with fraud I believe.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

buzsaw: I would say the evidence for Jesus surpasses many for this reason, there having been preserved very early manuscripts about him.

---

No there isn't.
There are NO contemporary documents at all.Justus of Tiberias wrote a history of Galillee and made NO mention of Jesus. Nor did Philo Judaeus, Musonius Rufus, nor Seneca, nor did dozens of other early writers make any mention of Jesus.
See this list for details of early writers :
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipThe early Christian documents (e.g. Paul, Clement, Hebrews, Jude, James etc) contain no hard evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth - merely mention of a spiritual Iesous Christos derived from scripture.The documents that DO mention the Gospel stories about Jesus are all from a CENTURY and more after the alleged events.The Gospels themselves are traditionally dated to late 1st century, yet the evidence shows that they were UNKNOWN, even to Christians until early-mid 2nd century - and that the Gospels were UN-NAMED until late 2nd century. The actual manuscripts of the Gospels date no earlier than 2nd century.See this table for a clear demonstration of the lateness of the Gospel stories :
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipAll of which goes to show that Paul's original Iesous Christos was a spiritual being, not historical - then, a century afterward (after the total destruction of Jerusalem), the Gospels stories arise and are repeated ad nauseum.In sum, the Gospels are stories, written a century later - Jesus of Nazareth is a myth.Iasion

Greetings judge,

quote:

---

this sounds like an eyewitness account

---

An eye-witness account of what?The message he specifically gives is :
"God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. "
He writes like a Gnostic who has just had a spiritual experience and can't wait to share it.But,
he makes no mention of being an eye-witness to any historical event -
* no mention of the crucifixion
* no mention of the empty tomb
* no mention of the resurrection
* no mention of the cross
* no mention of any miracles by Jesus
* no mention of any teachings of Jesus
* no mention of ANY Gospel events.
* no mention of an apostolic traditionConsider 2:27:
"The anointing which you received from him (God) stays with you; you need no other teacher, but you learn all you need to know from his anointing."This clearly shows the writer had no knowledge of a historical Jesus as a teacher at all - its all about spirits and personal revelations.The writer specifically argues against those who deny the Son of God - yet never provides any mention of a historical Jesus to bolster his argument, rather spiritual arguments - showing the writer thought of Iesous Christos as a spiritual being, not a historical person.Finally,
this letter of John is almost certainly NOT by John - another forgery from the suspect early Christian records.Earl Doherty provides a detailed analysis of 1 John :
LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot TerbesarHe points out that the letter has evidence for early Christians who did NOT believe in a Son, and also Christians who deny Jesus came in the flesh (a common complaint by early sceptics.)Iasion

Greetings again

quote:

---

Judge: I'd have to disagree here. I don't know how much plainer it could be written..."we saw Him...we touched him "

---

Pardon?
NO it doesn't.No-where does it say "we saw him (Jesus)".
No-where does it say "we touched him (Jesus)"This is merely your faith read back into the text.What it actually says he "saw", "heard", and "touched", was :"What was from the beginning,
(regarding the word of life)"
"the life (eternal) was manifested"He SPECIFICALLY announces his message :
"God is light"These are all spiritual ideas - he makes no argument about a physical being at all.The comment about Jesus is an merely regarding "fellowship" - no-where does the writer indicate that what he is witnessing has anything to do with a historical Jesus.Iasion

Greetings Brian,Thanks for your informative and supportive reply :-)
(and pardon me for glossing over your main point.)Yes,
I agree its obvious that the Jesus story is suspect - yet I notice that more and more people and web sites are looking into the issue - 5 years ago, the Jesus Myth theory was wild fringe thinking, now I'd say its merely a minority view (and growing.)Iasion

Greetings sfs,Thanks for your reply :-)

quote:

---

The support for Jesus' existence is much better than anything we have for Homer, for whom we have nothing even remotely contemporaneous,

---

False analogy -
Homer is not promoted by a religion as historical proof of unbelievable supernatural events.Furthermore,
the reliablity of MANUSCRIPTS has nothing to do with the reliability of the CONTENTS -
e.g. we have copies of the Book of Mormon from merely a few years after it was written - would you argue that the Book of Mormon is therefore true?

quote:

---

while for Jesus the earliest evidence comes from Paul, writing about 20 years after his death.

---

But Paul contains no hard evidence for a historical Jesus - merely a few vague phrases in spiritual terms which may just as easily apply to a spiritual being who operates on the planes above the physical.Paul's total failure to mention :
* the Gospel events
* the Gospel actors
* teachings of Jesus
* miracles by Jesus
even in hundreds of places where the context calls for it
(see LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot Terbesar )
argues that Paul had never even heard of a historical Jesus of Nazareth.So, the evidence for Jesus in Paul is essentially zero.

quote:

---

Not an eyewitness, but someone who did meet Jesus' brothers.

---

* Paul makes it very clear he got his teachings "from no man",
* he makes it clear he is "just as much" an apostle as the pillars,
* he openly criticises the teachings of the pillars,
* he lists his visions among the appearances to the others.This argues strongly against a historical Jesus - it shows that Paul's type of visions were all any Christian ever saw of Jesus.Iasion

Greetings again,

quote:

---

You're suggesting the gospels were written by non-Christians?

---

No, as CA pointed out, I simply meant no Christian author for the first CENTURY or so after the alleged events (which covers about 20 early Christian documents) shows any knowledge of the empty tomb story.(Oddly enough, the empty tomb motif does show up in a popular Roman novel of the time (Chariton's "Chaereas and Callirhoe".) - i.e. the empty tomb theme was a known fictional story-telling device of the day.)Indeed, the vast bulk of the Gospel stories and actors are totally UNKNOWN to any early Christian till early-mid 2nd century.Please DO check out my analysis here:
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
which clearly lays out my argument.Yet,
AFTER the Gospels arise (mid 2nd century),
the empty tomb, and all the other Gospel stories are repeated at length, ad nauseum, over and over, again and agian, on and on...This is clear evidence that the Gospel and their contents were totally unknown until early-mid 2nd century.This is supported by a fragment from the Apology of Aristides :
"... the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them"
which shows that the Gospel (singular) was new in Aristides time (which was probably in the 120-130s or perhaps later) - and that the formal term "Gospel" was new then (c.f. Justin who says the "memoirs of the apostles" are "called Gospels".)Then, just after the Gospels come to prominence, Celsus attacks them as "fiction based on myth" - an attack so damaging, the Christians attempted to destroy all evidence of it.Furthermore, in this very same period (late 2nd C.) we have Christian fathers describing Christian beliefs at length without a SINGLE MENTION of Jesus (Athenagoras), and even one who specifically denies Christians believe in a crucifixion or an incarnation (Minucius Felix.)Which all goes to show the Gospels were a spurious and late addition to a Christianity originally based on a spiritual being.Iasion

Greetings again,Whoops,
that was "a history IN Galillee" :-)If the Gospel events had transpired, I think Justus would have mentioned Jesus - Photius thought it a "fault" that he didn't.Philo wote at length about Jewish beliefs and history (and he was the first to use the concept of the "Logos") - I think he would have mentioned a religious teacher such as Jesus.Seneca's times and thoughts were so similar to Paul, that a forged correspondence sprung up - if Seneca had heard of Jesus's teachings, it is fairly natural he would have mentioned him.The point is, there are quite a few writers from the period, see my list :
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
Some of these writers, could, or even should, have mentioned Jesus -
none did.

quote:

---

Paul's letters and Hebrews both contain clear references to a physical Jesus;

---

I disagree - please backup your claim with evidence.

quote:

---

They are dated by virtually all contemporary scholars (of whatever religous persuasion) to late first century, or possibly (in the case of John) very early 2nd century.

---

Please pay attention.
That may be so, I make no specific claim to exactly when the (various layers of the) Gospels were WRITTEN.
I do however, make specific claims, backed with evidence, about the rise of knowledge about the Gospels' and contents.
I repeat my claim :
No Christian author shows knowledge of the Gospels or their contents, until early-mid 2nd century

quote:

---

The earliest surviving evidence for one of the gospels is clearly the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke, both late 1st cent.

---

Pardon?
An un-attested document dates another unattested document?
What are you smoking? :-)
There is NO EVIDENCE for any of the Gospels existing before early-mid 2nd century.
How on earth can you claim a document for which we have no evidence as proof of another document for which we have no evidence?
Claims and assertions and opinions about dates are worthless.
Please produce some actual evidence.

quote:

---

The earliest non-Biblical Christian writings that can be roughly dated (I Clement and the letters of Ignatius, the first around 100 and the second ten or twenty years later) both contain repeated references to the gospels (or possibly, in the case of Clement, to similar traditions to those that were included by the gospel writers).

---

The Ignatiana was forged in the 130s (exactly the period the Gospels arose) - the letters are notoriusly corrupt and it is doubtful if the person even existed. Doubts about the letters arose even in early times. (There is NO clear reference to any of the four Gospels by name - in this time, it was still "the Gospel", just like in Aristides.)Clement however, clearly IS an early document,
and I note you allow there may be no clear refereences to the Gospels therein.
Indeed so -
Clement has about 100 references to the OT, often named, and called "scripture",
Clement has about 100 references to Paul, often named, and called "wise writings",
but
Clement has merely 2 sayings similar (not exact) to Gospel sayings, introduced with "remember the words of the Lord Jesus" - i.e. oral tradition about a founder figure, not necessarily historical.

quote:

---

This bears about as much resemblence to real New Testament scholarship as creationism does to science. Any claim that the gospels weren't written until 100 years after the death of Jesus is simply crackpottery.

---

Well,
I never once claimed "the gospels weren't written until 100 years after the death of Jesus" - please do me the courtesy of actually following my argument properly.
I claimed there is no evidence of any knowledge of the Gospels until early-mid 2nd century.So far, you have responded with :
* numerous assertions and opinions,
* no evidence for your claims,
* a claim about Ignatius - that fails, as his writings are late,
* a non-claim about Clement - that supports my case,
and finally
* an insult ("crackpottery"), the last refuge for those with no argument.
In short, whilst long on opinions, you've given nothing to disprove my case.So, my claim stands :
There is no evidence that any Christian knew anything about the Gospels until early-mid 2nd century.Iasion

Greetings all,Sorry I missed this before...Justus of TiberiasAre you arguing that ONLY Kings would be found in the work?
But then, Moses was NOT a King, was he? so thats not correct.
Jesus WAS seen as a political figure by some, he could easily have been mentioned if he existed.
I agree with Photius that it is surprising he wasn't.PhiloMany of Philo's works were semi-historical (e.g. on Abel, Cain, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Joseph.)
Two in particular cover recent history - Flaccus, On The Embassy.
Others could have easily mentioned a Jesus, if he existed - On Dreams, Virtues, Every Good man is Free, On the Contemplative Life.
Philo mentions many minor figures such as - Zipporah, Thyestes, Theodorus, Tamar, Syleus, Stephanion, Silanus, Phayllus, Pentephoe, Onomarchus, etc...
It is entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that he would have mentioned Jesus.
Of course it is not certain he would have, but this absence adds to others. (I can't seem to track down the reference to Philo being in Jerusalem, but considering he travelled to Rome about events at the Temple, it seems very likely.)Seneca"Why would Seneca, living in Rome when he wasn't in exile, have heard of Jesus' teachings?"Well, Christians argue Nero had heard of Christians by then.
Supposedly Paul and Peter were in Rome by this period.
Again, it is not certain that he would have heard of, or mentioned Jesus - but its another silence by someone would could, perhaps should, have mentioned Jesus.
You didn't answer why Christians would FORGE a correspondence between Paul and Seneca if a connection was not plausible?HebrewsHebrews is a very odd document -
* it refers to a "new covenant" but never mentions the Last Supper,
* it says nothing about the empty tomb,
* it never gives any sayings of Jesus,
* it imagery is heavenly and Platonic, not historical.
* it has a FIRST coming, a not second (10:37)I agree with Doherty that this document does not contain references to a historical Jesus - the quotes you gave are tiny snippets taken out of the spiritual context of the letter. I refer you to -
LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot TerbesarMatthew & Gospels"And your claim is wrong, since the author of Matthew was a Christian author, wrote before the early 2nd century, and showed detailed knowledge of the content of the gospels. "Are you REALLY claiming a Gospel as proof for the Gospels?
So, when is the first clear reference our written G.Matthew?"What authors are there who could have displayed a knowledge of the Gospels before the early 2nd century? "How about the first century of Christian writings? The first dozen or so books written by Christians show NO mention of the Gospels or their events (not counting the original core of spiritual crucifixion and resurrection) -
Hebrews (60s)
Colossians (70s)
James (80s)
1 John (80s)
2 Thessalonians (80s)
Ephesians (90s)
1 Peter (90s)
Revelation (90s)
Clement (90s)
Jude (100s)
Didakhe (100s)
2 John (120s)
3 John (120s)Not one of these works shows clear knowledge of the Gospels or their contents (baring vague references to spiritual events.)Not until the early 2nd century do any clues to the Gospels existence arise -
* Papias
* JustinIgnatius"There are a number of lines of evidence that indicate that Matthew was written well before 130. Ignatius (whose letters, despite your rejection of them, are nearly universally accepted by the relevant experts) is one."The Ignatiana is notoriously corrupt - 8 letters are considered spurious, the rest come in several versions of unclear provenance. Their authenticity has been questioned for centuries - Dallaeus (1666), Lardner (1743), Joly 1979, Jortin (1751), Mosheim (1755), Griesbach (1768), Rosenmller (1795), Neander (1826),Killen (1886)
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/KillenIgnatius.pdfDutch radicals argued they were spurious :
Seite nicht gefunden – Hermann DeteringIgnatius from 130sBernard Muller makes a convincing case that the letters date to about the 130s -
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html
I agree with Bernard - these letters were written c.135One author even argues a specific forgery conspiracy -
http://www.thecosmiccontext.de/christianity/Ignatius1.htmlFurthermore, the connection between Ignatius and G.Matthew is NOT clear - at no time does he specifically name or quote a written Gospel - he uses the early form of "gospel" (singular, un-named) meaning the good news. His failure to distinguish between these two, shows he has no knowledge of a written Gospel. He does give a few phrases similar to Gospel sayings, but in general shows only little knowledge of Gospel events.Polycarp"Polycarp's clear quotation of Matthew is another. The date of Polycarp's letter was probably around 110-120."Polycarp makes NO clear quotation of G.Matthew.
He does NOT mention a "Gospel"
He does NOT refer to "Matthew"
He merely gives a few Sayings of Jesus that are similar to some also found in G.Matthew and elsewhere in the NT.
But the date of this letter is not certain, Kirby gives 110 (or 120) to 140.Papias"There's also Papias, who wrote sometime in the period 120-140; he reports traditions about the origin of written gospels, placing them in the generation of the apostles."Oh sure -
4th century Eusebius, the master forger, wrote that Papias wrote that he had heard from followers who heard from the elders who heard from.... talk about Chinese Whispers.
Anyway -
Papias refers to a G.Mark NOT like our modern one (not in order.)
Papias refers to a G.Matthew NOT like our modern one (in Hebrew.)
Papias then explicitly says these "writings" are of LESS VALUE than a living voice."Whether the traditions are accurate or not is unimportant; what matters is that by the time of Papias, there were already written gospels (attributed to Mark and Matthew) that were old, old enough to have accumulated traditions. "Oh?
It doesn't matter if what he says is accurate? Provided he agrees with you? Ridiculous.
What matters is that Papias DISMISSES these writings as of little value.
What matters is that Papias describes proto-gospels NOT like our modern ones.Clement"Where did you get these numbers? I just went through Clement's letter to the Corinthians..."Straight from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, here -
Philip Schaff: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Where you will see the notes go up to 261.I provide an detailed analysis here -
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
Where you will clearly see the evidence for the numbers I cited."I also note that your claim was that there was no evidence that any of the Gospel stories or events were known earlier than the 2nd century. Since Clement is late 1st century, and knows stories of Jesus teaching, your claim would seem to be wrong."OK, I wrote unclearly.
By "stories" I meant events, e.g. the Cleansing of the Temple.
I admit there ARE references to some SAYINGS of Jesus before the other gospel stories were known - but belief in SAYINGS of Jesus does NOT depend on a historical person - e.g. Paul gets his knowledge of Jesus from visions and scripture.Summary"...you were saying that the Gospels were stories, written a century later. What exactly have I misunderstood about that sentence? "
D'oh
You got me. Of course I do suspect this, but it is not certain and it is NOT my argument. The actual date of WRITING is unclear, and may never be known.My argument is -
there is NO CLEAR EVIDENCE for knowledge of the Gospels (or their contents as historical events) before early-mid 2nd centuryThe examples you cited do not stand up to scrutiny -
* Hebrews - platonic imagery and spiritual happenings - unclear allusions at best.
* Ignatius - probably from the 130s, no clear mention of Gospels.
* G.Matthew - vague reference in Papias c.130, otherwise unknown until mid-late 2nd century
* Polycarp - knowledge of some NT sayings from 110 to 140.
* Papias - mention c.130 of proto-gospels NOT quite like ours, which he dismisses as of little value.
* Clement - mention of 2 sayings of Jesus, NOT exactly like the Gospels - but NO mention of Gospels, NO mention of Evangelists, yet MANY cites to OT and Paul.So,
not one of your examples stands as clear evidence for the Gospels, or the events therein, before early-mid 2nd century.Iasion

Greetings bambooguy,"In 1 Corinthians, Paul lays out the "gospel", which includes Jesus death & resurrection. "Sure.
But what makes YOU think he is refering to physical, historical events?
He fails to give any details which indicate he considered Jesus a real, recent person.
He gives no dates, times, places, names...
Paul never once mentions the Sermon on the Mount, or the empty tomb, or the Cleansing of the Temple, or the miracles or healings by Jesus etc, etc, - there is nothing in Paul to show he clearly believes in a physical historical Jesus at all."We know from Galatians that those people were Jews in and around Jerusalem before 35 AD."Pardon?
Where is your evidence for this?"So, we know that there were Jews in Judea who believed that Jesus had lived, had died, and had been resurrected no more than 5 years after his death."No we don't.
We know that ONE person wrote he had HEARD from others that Jesus had appeared (i.e. in a vision) to 500 people.
What on Earth makes YOU think this is actual evidence for 500 people believing in Jesus resurrection?"No one makes up a myth with events 5 years in the past; you have to put things far enough into the mythical past to where they cannot be disproven."Firstly - myths can arise within DAYS, there are many cases (e.g. Augustus, Schneerson)
Anyway, Paul's myths about a spiritual Jesus could have been developing for decades or centuries.And when it comes to the Gospels, we find -
* no Christian knows the Gospels or their contents until early-mid 2nd century
* mid 2nd century shows variant proto Gospels, UN-NAMED
* our modern Gospels only took form LATE 2nd centuryThe Gospels stories were essentially unknown until the 130s and after -
* a CENTURY after the alleged events
* the Jewish War of 70AD
* the total RAZING of Jerusalem in c.135When the Gospels finally arose in early-mid 2nd century,
there was NO Jerusalem left,
all the Jews had been DISPERSED.
Who could check? How, exactly?Suppose I made up a story now set in New Guinea in 1903, a century ago, (about the same period it took for the Gospels to arise) - how easy would that be to disprove, even in our modern era? What about in primitive iron-age culture? After TWO wars?Iasion

Greetings again,Thanks for your reply bambooguy : "And regarding myths in general, I'd like to point out that your two examples of quick myths (Augustus & Schneerson) include historical people. Some of the tales about Jesus are probably mythical in nature, but your examples do not prove that a myth can arise in days without some sort of true, historical figure."Pardon?
We've seen that myths and legends can arise within days of historical figures (even in the modern era).But,
you seem to argue that myths and legends about a MYTHICAL figure couldn't develop in days after, um .. after what?The myths of Jesus could have been developing for decades before Paul wrote down the first version - myths always have a first version, then they grow and develop."The essential parts of the Jesus story (in Paul's mind) arrive complete in 1 Corinthians which was written approx. 15 years after his "conversion". "Not really sure what you mean here...
The creed in 1 Cor. is hardly the complete Christian belief set. We do not know what was in Paul's mind. 15 years is plenty of time for legends to change."Since there are no intermediate stories, I find it difficult to believe that it developed over decades."Pardon?
The record we have DOES show intermediate versions developing over the decades.
The first version is apparently the Foundation Myth of Christianity, Paul has heard it from prior figures -pre-Pauline Version (unknown date.)
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
and that he was buried,
and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas,
then to the twelve,
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James;
then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."Note that "according to the scriptures"seems to mean Paul is describing a new interpretation of the scripture, and that THAT is where the details about Christ are derived.Pauline Version (mid 2nd century) -
Paul fleshes out the myth with several new details about the Risen Christ -
Son of God
Seed of David
the crucifixion
the cross
the blood
the resurrection
that he suffered
and was pierced(but only in spiritual terms of the Risen Christ - no historical details - no ministry of Jesus.)Pre-Gospel versions -
Barnabas (early 2nd century) gives a rather odd view of Jesus - he adds or fleshes out details such as the Ascension, and the Passion. He gives an early version of the vinegar and gall story, he discusses the Cross, he talks about Jesus as scapegoat. Yet he doesn't seem to know about a ministry of Jesus.
Ignatius (early-mid 2nd century) is the first to mention Herod, Pilate amd the virgin.
Justin (mid 2nd century) knows most of the Gospel stories (but does not know the four Gospels by name. and gives quotes not always like modern Gospels.)G.Mark's Version -
(The Gospel stories only become known in mid 2nd century.)
G.Mark was written first, and its the plainest Gospel -
it has no birth stories
it has no miracles
it has the Messiah as a secret
it originally had no resurrection (16:9-20 is a late addition.)G.Luke, G.Matthew versions -
Both these versions were derived from the earlier G.Mark. and both add -
birth stories (different to each other)
miracles (different to each other)
Messiah no longer a secret
post-resurrection stories (very different to each other)G.John's version -
This Gospel is even more different - Jesus is Logos etc.Other versions -
Many other versions developed, some quite early :
G.Thomas (2nd century)
Protoevangelium of James (2nd century)
The Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel (early 2nd century?)
The Egerton Gospel (early 2nd century?)
The Gospel of Peter (2nd century)
The Epistula Apostolorum (2nd century)
The Gospel of Philip
Sophia of Jesus Chist
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of Truth
The Traditions of Matthias
The Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
The Gospel of the Egyptians
The Secret Book of James
The Gospel of the Ebionites
The Gospel of the Nazoreans
The Dialogue of the Savior
The Gospel of the HebrewsSummary
The sequence is clear -
1. primitive foundation myth
2. Pauline version
2a (intermediate versions)
3. G.Mark version
4. G.Matthew, G.Luke (G.John) versions
5. Later variant versions)Iasion

Greetings sfs,Thanks for your detailed response, more answers follow later,
meanwhile ..."Then why do we have a copy of the gospel of John that dates from early in the second century? "We don't.
We have a tiny scrap of one passage which is also found in G.John (P52.)It is entirely false to say we have a copy of Gospel of John. This passage could have existed as a pericope without G.John.My point was our
"MODERN Gospels only took form in late 2nd century"
and I provided detailed evidence of this.Evidence e.g. that early proto-Gospels were NOT like our modern four (Papias, Justin)- and the first evidence for Gospels LIKE our modern four comes from Irenaeus.P52 does NOT tell us about the form of any Gospel it MAY have been in.P52 is NOT certainly dated from early 2nd century - it merely MAY be.Iasion