What do we actually have in our hands and what can we legitimately talk about? We have no ancient works: not an Aristotle, not a Plato, not a Homer, not a Gospel either, etc. All our materials are from the early Middle Ages and the first of them is the codex vaticanus from the year 350, containing the Septuagint and the Gospel in one complete work - nothing below, nothing around. Between Aristotle and the first material document with his name on the cover, seven and a half centuries apart, and so on. The invention of the book is the first codex and the first editorial gesture that we have - it is not a problem correlative to the invention of printing. I looked the ancient void of sources in the face, and from it I derived the strategic decision not to betray the void by means of I don't know what "theory"; I placed myself at the date of my materials - our only sources - by refusing to divide the problem of content, substance, form, design science and the editorial gesture. I have examined the Septuagint and the Gospel together, posing myself in 350, giving primacy to the editorial gesture that the codex represents. I have analyzed the mutation it represents in relation to the mediologies that preceded it and the implications that flow from it. Indeed, if a Roman in the year 200 goes to the library in Rome, asks for a Homer - and knowing that neither the codex nor the complete work is given to him because it does not yet exist - what does he read? Who reads who and what? The revolution of the codex, of the complete work and of the long and complex narrative constructed from the first to the last line, represent a shift equivalent to the one we are experiencing between the world of the book and that of the digital. Materially, therefore intellectually, the Ancients could never read what we read. I have done the same with the Koran to the exclusion of everything we don't have and that may not even have existed. I have disregarded legends and traditions, even scholarly ones; I have disregarded everything that tried to preserve the possibility of faith within science, and I have disregarded the reason for the existence of knowledge independently of any other consideration. I have therefore studied the non narrative that is the Quran and the narrative that is the Sevenfold Gospel, trying to recover the anthropology of those who created them: their relationship to language, to writing, etc. I have studied the Qur'an and the narrative that is the Sevenfold Gospel, trying to recover the anthropology of those who created them. The narratives speak for themselves: about themselves by themselves. They give the method for cracking them from the inside and the explanation of the language they use; they give their grammar, their dictionary and their instructions for use. They talk about the problems encountered by their designers, by the teams of professionals - Late Antique and Medieval scholars - in building works. It emerges from this study that Genesis is the story of the creation of the story itself, by itself; that the Gospel is mainly a communication strategy of the fourth century which, through a false process, responds to a true process of intention: that of the bad reputation that the Christians dragged behind them during the pax romana - it responds to unfounded accusations and also takes advantage of it to settle family matters; that the Quran, finally, far from being reached by an acute Bedouinite outburst, is the work of the last academics in Alexandria who use it to throw methodological and problematic spotlights on all the works written in non-Arabic languages preceding the Quran - that is to say, on our entire classical library, the one that this technical milieu of professionals of the written word conceived and created between 350 and 800, between the advent of Christianity and that of Islam, and as a result. Under the mantle of the new hegemonisms, academics have given us something other than what we believe.