Yeah, see, those seem like better choices for attempted legitimacy than the secretaries and traveling companions of the Disciples named.


I did not disregard it, only treat it separately. Speculative ex post facto attribution is a reasonable objection to the canonical Gospels legitimacy, but certainly no argument FOR the non-canonical ones legitimacy. At that point we are dealing with "Gospels" all or most Church Fathers partly or wholly rejected IN ADDITION TO their authorship being both late and speculative in the first place. That leaves almost nothing to support them except that an age difference of a century or more can seem trivial from a distance of two millennia. However, if a Second Century manuscript looks a lot like a First Century one to our eyes, human longevity was even less then than now, and even today someone promoting a week old "Hidden Gettysburg Address" would be deservedly ridiculed into mortified silence.

It reminds me of the Hitchhikers Guide; a "hidden Gospel" cannot be accepted as authentic unless:

1) It is reliably dated to at least the early Second, if not late First, Century,

2) Its language and doctrine is consistent with Gospels that already generally recognized to be legitimate or

3) You really want to.

As I recall, Adams went to note that the last option usually involved cutting others in on the resulting profits, which may explain much of the "hidden Gospels."