Apocryphal Gospel Titles in Coptic

Abstract

During the 2nd–5th centuries, the usual format of the canonical gospel title is “The Gospel According to [person]”. While becoming well-established in this period, the title is reused and transformed when naming the apocryphal gospels. In order to study the meaning of the emerging canonical and apocryphal gospel titles, the claims of these titles will be analysed to determine who each title presents as the gospel’s source (often a divine figure) and who is implied to be that gospel’s author (often a human person). By revisiting well-known apocryphal gospels, and expanding on their number, new insights are achieved regarding the role of titles, authors, and apocryphal gospels. Results concern, for instance, the long recension of the Apocryphon of John, whose title comes to display a prominent gospel title; the Gospel of Judas, of which the author may be the infamous Judas himself; and the Gospel of Truth, which may not be an apocryphal gospel at all.

1. Introduction

Apocryphal gospels are defined as extra-canonical texts that, by entailing the title of “Gospel”, somehow relate to the four canonical gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In Coptic, the usual suspects of apocryphal gospels are the Gospel of Truth (Gos. Truth), the Gospel According to Thomas (Gos. Thom.), the Gospel According to Philip (Gos. Phil.), the Gospel of the Egyptians (Gos. Egyp.), the Gospel According to Mary (Gos. Mary), and the Gospel of Judas (Gos. Judas). Yet, when scanning the scene of Coptic literature for texts explicitly entitled “Gospel” until c. 500 ce, we are able to retrieve more examples, such as the Gospel ascribed to Mani (Gos. Mani) and the Gospel of the Lots of Mary (Gos. Lots Mary), which scholars do not usually consider to be apocryphal gospels. Nevertheless, they are included here as they both bear ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ titles, and as the present study focuses on the meaning of this specific title. Finally, and perhaps surprisingly in this context, we also include the long recension of the Apocryphon of John (Ap. John).¹

Earlier studies on canonical gospel titles are primarily related to the Greek and Coptic titles of the New Testament writings (e.g., Buzi 2004; Gathercole 2013; Allen 2022) as well as the semantics of the canonical gospel title in Greek (e.g., Larsen 2018), but hardly in relation to apocryphal gospels. The current contribution seeks to fulfil such a desideratum. While building on these earlier analyses of the canonical gospel title, the present study focuses, mainly, on the canonical and the apocryphal gospel titles in Coptic.

We are not going to focus much on the meaning of the texts, nor on the dating of their original compositions; instead, the focus will be on their titles as they are transmitted in the Coptic manuscripts. The aim is to reach a clearer picture of how each gospel presents its title (format and content) in connection with its source of authority and its means of textual production until the middle of the first millennium.

After having established the current method of analysis, the selected apocryphal gospels will be studied in two separate groups. The first includes texts where titles attest a clear dependency on the canonical gospel title (Ap. John, Gos. Thom., Gos. Phil., Gos. Mary, and Gos. Judas); the second group consists of texts of a less clear affiliation (Gos. Egyp. and Gos. Mani), sometimes attesting an occurrence of ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ so peculiar that we may question whether it is meant to be a gospel title at all (Gos. Lots Mary and Gos. Truth).

2. Methodology

We begin with the Greek manuscript tradition, on which the Coptic relies. Around the turn of the 3rd century and onwards, the Greek standard form of the canonical gospel title is either εὐαγγέλιον κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον or the abbreviated κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον.² Both these forms are widely attested in our earliest Bible manuscripts: The first one in 𝔓^4.62.66.75 א A C D W as inscription, subscription, and running header, whereas the abbreviated form occurs in א B D as subscription and running header (cf. Gathercole 2013, pp. 37–47). If we take the Gospel of John as example, both εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάννην and κατὰ Ἰωάννην should be translated as “The Gospel According to John”; that is, not with “(Gospel)” in parentheses, in the case of the abbreviated form, since both forms are authentic gospel titles, expressing the same meaning for contemporary readers. This will be an important point when we reach the analysis of the title of Ap. John.

In the 1st century, the canonical gospels are anonymous and only as of the later second half of the 2nd century do they begin to receive what becomes the standard title εὐαγγέλιον κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον (cf. Reed 2002, pp. 16–21). As far as we know, Irenaeus of Lyon is the first to refer to gospels like that (c. 180 ce).³ In contemporary Greek literature, title nomenclature in relation to κατὰ does not designate an author in the modern sense of the term, but the editor/corrector of a living textual tradition (cf. Larsen 2018, pp. 78–79). In the prologue of what later becomes the Gospel of Luke, for instance, an editor and corrector of earlier biographical tradition about Jesus is obviously at work (Luke 1:1–4), but compared with the text’s redaction of its Vorlage (i.e., probably an early version of the Gospel of Mark), the same editor/corrector seems to be a creative author too.⁴ Thus, when Christians begin to use titles with κατὰ, they do not separate editor/corrector from author as is the case in the Classical texts, but use κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον while presenting the evangelist as both. Such a meaning of the gospel title in the canonicals also applies to the apocryphal gospels.

In order to analyse the gospel title we need to have a closer look at its exact meaning. For heuristic reasons, the title, again with John as example, is depicted in Table 1 as εὐαγγέλιον (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) κατ᾽ Ἰωάννην, “The Gospel (of Jesus Christ) According to John”.

In the canonical gospels, the Text as “Gospel (εὐαγγέλιον)” tends to represent a certain genre, namely Jesus’ βίος/vita (or the like). This is hardly the case with the apocryphal gospels, where we find no ‘biography’ of Jesus, but rather a focus on his teaching. However, the extra-canonical gospels also tend to prefer the narrative genre, e.g., three revelation dialogues (Ap. John, Gos. Mary, and Gos. Judas), one sayings collection (Gos. Thom.), and two tractates (Gos. Phil. and Gos. Egyp.), where the last three texts attest narrative sections too. Some apocryphal gospels display very little narrative, taking on other genres, such as homily (Gos. Truth) and oracular discourse (Gos. Lots Mary). One text does not provide enough information to decide its genre (Gos. Mani).

Since the Text of the gospel was thought to be of divine origin, Christians believed it to be εὐαγγέλιον (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), “The Gospel (of Jesus Christ)”; thus, the genitivus auctoris denotes the gospel’s Source of Authority as Jesus, the spirit, or another supernatural entity. Early gospel titles do not spell this out, which is the reason why “Jesus Christ” heuristically is put in parenthesis, but we can assume that Christians of Late Antiquity understood it thus.⁵ The Revelation of John may provide a telling example.⁶ The text leaves no doubt that John of Patmos wrote the text himself, but after an angel’s dictation. This aligns with the idea that John is the text’s Author, whereas its Source of Authority is the angel, operating by the agency of Jesus and God (Rev 1:1–2).

One way of finding the Author in an apocryphal gospel is by its depiction of scribal activity, if extant in the text. The Author is often engaged in textual production and recording, and may be detected by the vocabulary of γράφειν (Coptic, ⲥϩⲁⲓ), which means, [1] “to write” as an Author composing a text (Gos. Egyp.), or [2] “to write down” as an Author recording a new text from a Source of Authority (Ap. John, Gos. Thom., and Gos. Mani). Γράφειν/ⲥϩⲁⲓ can also mean [3] “to copy”; in which case we are no longer dealing with an Author as such, but with a scribe who copies an exemplar (Gos. Egyp.). Another way of detecting an Author may be by the use of the κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον (Coptic, ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ) formula, where ἄνθρωπον/ⲣⲱⲙⲉ refers to the name of one of Jesus’ disciples (Ap. John, Gos. Thom., Gos. Phil., and Gos. Mary).

Accordingly, each of the chosen apocryphal gospels will be studied with a focus on the information given in its Title and, to some extent, its running text (mainly prologue and epilogue). These data concern primarily each text’s implied Source of Authority (often Jesus, but not always) and Author (often a disciple, but not always).

Before commencing such a study we need to revisit the traditional gospel title in Coptic. From early on, also Coptic gospel versions attest the two Greek forms of the canonical title (as we saw above), here listed in Table 2.⁷

Of the twelve attestations, the usual form of the gospel title (ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ) is found nine times, though with some variation: “Gospel” occurs seven times with determination (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ) and once, perhaps twice, without (ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ); “According to” (ⲕⲁⲧⲁ) occurs five times with the attributive (ⲛ-), twice with determination (ⲡ-), and once (perhaps twice) without.⁸ The abbreviated form of the gospel title (ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ) only occurs once (ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲑⲁⲓⲟⲥ), in Vienna K 2591, or twice if we follow the restoration of P.Mich.Inv. 3992, taking the running header as a gospel title (ⲕ̄[ⲁⲧⲁ ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ]) and not as a page number (cf. Gathercole 2013, p. 61). The final gospel title is a quite rare species in Coptic, as it attests only the name of the evangelist, ⲙⲁⲣⲕⲟⲥ, without the ⲕⲁⲧⲁ.⁹ The Coptic ⲕⲁⲧⲁ usually takes the name in the Greek nominative, whereas κατὰ takes accusative. Notice also that the construction ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄-ⲣⲱⲙⲉ does not occur in Table 2, contrary to what we find in some apocryphal gospel titles (Gos. Egyp. and Gos. Judas).¹⁰

3. Apocryphal Titles Close to Canonical Titles

The following five texts make use of the ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ (ⲡ)ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ in their title, with a few exceptions. Applying the method of focusing on each text’s Title, Source, and Author, we begin the analysis with Nag Hammadi Codex (NHC) II, which is especially rich in examples. Before analysing the codex’ two well-known gospels, we start out by taking a closer look at the first text, the long recension of Ap. John, which actually attests a canonical gospel title; thereafter, the second text of Codex II, Gos. Thom., and then the third, Gos. Phil. The choice of these three apocryphal gospels may be intended by the scribe who designed the text of NHC II. The fourth text in this section is Gos. Mary, which is a rarity among apocryphal gospels due to its female protagonist. The last apocryphal gospel here is Gos. Judas, which is included since it appears quite alike to Gos. Mary, even if its title does not attest the ⲕⲁⲧⲁ.

3.1. Long Recension of the Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1 1,1–32,9)

Ap. John can be characterised as a revelation dialogue that presents the Saviour and his disciple John in conversation with each other. The text exists in four Coptic versions, where two are traditionally referred to as the short recension and the other two as the long recension. For reasons of convenience scholars simply treat all four texts as witnesses to the same work, referred to as Ap. John (or the Secret Book of John), even though the short and long recensions differs significantly in contents and even have different titles. The short recension is entitled ⲡⲁⲡⲟⲕⲣⲩⲫⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ (“The Apocryphon of John”; NHC III,1 40,10–11; PB 8502,2 77,6–7), whereas the long recension is entitled ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲛ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲕⲣⲩⲫⲟⲛ (NHC II,1 32,8–10) and ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱ[ⲁⲛ]ⲏ̣ⲛ ⲁⲡⲟⲕⲣⲩⲫⲟⲛ (NHC IV,1 49,27–28).¹¹ Notice that both titles present the name, not in the Greek nominative (ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ) as is usually the case in Coptic, but in the Greek accusative (ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲛ), which may indicate that this title already existed in the Greek text that the Coptic version was translated from. Such a suggestion is supported by the title in NHC IV, which even appears to attest a full Greek title, κατὰ ᾽Ιωάν(ν)ην ἀπόκρυφον.¹²

What is of special interest here, though, is the long recension’s use of ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲛ/ ïⲱ[ⲁⲛ]ⲏ̣ⲛ, which in fact corresponds to a gospel title, “The Gospel According to John”, as argued above.¹³ Based on this, we may interpret ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲕⲣⲩⲫⲟⲛ (ἀπόκρυφον) either adverbially (“secretly”) or adjectivally (“secret”). The adverb would call for a title like “The Gospel According to John, secretly”, whereas the adjective seemingly works better as describing the unstated “Gospel”, implied by the use of the ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ formula: “The Secret Gospel According to John”, or, perhaps even catchier, the Secret Gospel of John.¹⁴

Data on Source of Authority and Author of Ap. John can be retrieved from the version found in Nag Hammadi Codex II:

Subscription Title (32,8–10)

The Secret Gospel According to John (ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲛ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲕⲣⲩⲫⲟⲛ).¹⁵

Prologue (1,1–4)

The teaching (ⲥⲃⲱ) [of the Saviour and] the [revelation] of the mysteries … those he taught (ⲧⲥⲉⲃⲟ⸗) to John, [his] disciple.¹⁶

Epilogue (31,32–33)

The Saviour gave him these (teachings) so that he could write them down (ⲥⲁϩ⸗).¹⁷

“The teaching (ⲥⲃⲱ)”, in the prologue of the Ap. John, originates from Jesus (“[the Saviour]”) and is “taught (ⲧⲥⲉⲃⲟ⸗) to John”. In the epilogue, when “the Saviour gave him these (teachings) so that he could write them down (ⲥⲁϩ⸗)”, the transmission of the teachings from Jesus to John is explicitly described as an act of scribal activity. Thus, following the present method, the content of the Title confirms Jesus as provider of the “teaching … [and] the [revelation] of the mysteries”, i.e., Jesus as Source of “The Secret Gospel”; while “[his] disciple” John is the Author, in line with our understanding of the phrase “According to John”.

3.2. The Gospel According to Thomas (NHC II,2 32,10–51,28)

An identical scheme can be detected in the second text of NHC II. Gos. Thom. is a sayings collection divided by modern scholars into 114 sections. Narrative threads, which include dialogue between Jesus and his disciples, also occur in several of these logia, such as 13, 22, 60, etc. The data we currently are interested in are found in the text’s title and prologue.

Subscription Title (51,27–28)

The Gospel According to Thomas (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲑⲱⲙⲁⲥ).¹⁸

Prologue (32,10–12)

These are the secret words, which the living Jesus spoke, and Twin Judas Thomas wrote them down (ⲥϩⲁï⸗) …¹⁹

“The Gospel” of the title again corresponds to “the secret words” of the prologue, and since “the living Jesus spoke” these words, he fulfils the function of their Source of Authority. We are told that “Twin Judas Thomas wrote them down (ⲥϩⲁï⸗)”, which means that Thomas is the text’s Author, in accordance with the phrasing of the title as ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲑⲱⲙⲁⲥ (“According to Thomas”).

As is the case with Ap. John, also Gos. Thom. seems to be a perfect fit that confirms our method, pertaining to Title, Source, and Author, at least in the Coptic version. The case may be a bit different in the parallel of the Greek witness.²⁰

3.3. The Gospel According to Philip (NHC II,3 51,29–86,20)

This text does not present much coherent narrative, but is rather a polemical discourse that concerns inner-Christian debates. Its genre has been suggested to be a sayings collection or a florilegium of otherwise unconnected themes; however, the text is not as incoherent as early scholarship suggests, but presents its doctrinal themes in a coherent, if at first confusing, manner, probably in the genre of the tractate (cf. Lundhaug 2010, 156–162). The interpretation of the title of this third text of NHC II is more complicated than our previous examples.²¹ Compared to Ap. John and Gos. Thom., Gos. Phil. as a whole is not dictated by Jesus, nor does it directly refer to a secretary disciple, except in its title.

Subscription Title (86,19–20)

The Gospel According to Philip (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲫⲓⲗⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ).²²

In a first reading of the text, it appears as if the text is entitled after “Philip the apostle (ⲫⲓⲗⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ)”, who is briefly mentioned in the third person in the text (73,8), or perhaps after “Philip the evangelist (Φιλίππου τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ)”, who is mentioned in Acts 21:8, but otherwise unknown.²³ The Philip figure within the text quotes, in passing, a short non-canonical saying about Jesus (73,9–15), which seemingly is presented as his own quotation, but nothing else in Gos. Phil. portrays Philip as transmitter or author of Jesus’ teachings. Therefore, we are not able to confirm the Title’s use of ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲫⲓⲗⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ as an indication of Philip as Author from the contents of the text itself. He may in fact be intended as both Author and Source of Authority in the text, in the sense that he is meant to represent the apostle (or evangelist) Philip’s opinion about the inner-Christian conflicts as they are displayed in Gos. Phil. Such a scheme is identical with what we find in the New Testament letters, where an apostolic person (e.g., Paul, Jacob, Peter) gives advice to Christians in a specific context.

Still, the question remains, why is Gos. Phil. given a gospel title, and why with Philip as its author?²⁴ The answer may be found in the comparison with John 14:8–11, where Philip asks Jesus to show the disciples the Father. Jesus’ reply highlights the shared identity of the Father and the Son; thus implying that when the disciples see the Son they see the Father too. Hugo Lundhaug (2010, pp. 347–48) convincingly suggests that Gos. Phil., with its focus on deification, may be “an extended answer” to questions raised by the apostle Philip in John 14 on the nature of the Father and the Son, and the relationship between them. That may answer why Philip appears in the title.

As for the use of “Gospel” in the title, I believe that the Gospel of John, and especially its chapter 14, may shed further light on the case. In John 14:2–7, just before the Philip passage, Thomas asks Jesus how the disciples can know the way to heaven. This aligns with the text before Gos. Phil. in NHC II, namely Gos. Thom., where the core theme also concerns heaven and the kingdom, and the disciples’ access thereto.²⁵ Furthermore, the first text of Codex II, Ap. John, also has a strong connection to the Gospel of John, both through its title, the Secret Gospel of John, and its contents, with clear Johannine themes build into its composition (cf. Falkenberg 2017, pp. 94–97).

Secrecy and hidden teachings are a thread that runs through all the three first texts of Codex II. They are, as we have seen, all entitled as gospels; the title of the first even mimicks the canonical Gospel of John. The following two gospels seem to shed light on the questions posed in John 14:2–11 by Thomas and Philip, in the same sequence and by the same disciples, as is the case with their apocryphal gospels in NHC II. The scribe, who selected the texts of Codex II, may thus have intended the first three to appear as gospels, even secret gospels, and not just any secret gospels, but secret gospels related to the Gospel of John. This may answer why Gos. Phil. receives the title ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲫⲓⲗⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ.²⁶

3.4. The Gospel According to Mary (PB 8502,1 7,1–19,5; pp. 1–6, 11–14 Missing)

Even though this text lacks more than half of its pages, what is left of it still provides ample information about genre and content. Gos. Mary is a revelation dialogue, first between the Saviour and all of his disciples; then, after Christ leaves the scene, Mary takes over and presents the disciples with his teaching, which she has received from him by herself. The Mary figure is clearly Mary Magdalene (cf. Nagel 2014, pp. 5–6).²⁷ The information needed, for our current proposes, is found in the title, corpus, and epilogue.

Subscription Title (19,3–5)

The Gospel According to Mary (ⲡ̣[ⲉ]ⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁ̣ⲣⲓϩⲁⲙⲙ).²⁸

Corpus (10,1–6)

Peter said to Mary, “… Tell us the words of the Saviour that you remember, those known to you, not to us; nor have we heard them”.²⁹

Epilogue (17,7–9)

When Mary had said these (words), she was silent, since the Saviour spoke with her until this point.³⁰

“The Gospel” of the title seemingly corresponds to “the words of the Saviour that you remember, those known to you, not to us” in the corpus, i.e., the words that “the Saviour spoke with her until this point” in the epilogue’s narrative. Yet, the text does not refer directly to any scribal activity in relation to the Mary figure. Still, since the primary teaching of Christ is aimed at her, we may interpret her transmission of Christ’s private instruction as the chief teaching of the text. This teaching is seemingly the same as “The Gospel”, and probably the very reason why she is highlighted in the Title as the textual transmitter, that is, “According to Mary”. So, on the one hand, the text clearly presents the Saviour as its Source; on the other hand, even if Mary is not said to write down anything, she is presented as the key dialogue partner of Christ and as the transmitter of teachings not revealed by him to his other disciples. Thus, the Author of the text’s teaching, in accordance with our interpretation of the phrase “According to Mary”, is Mary Magdalene.

3.5. The Gospel of Judas (CT,3 33,1–58,28)³¹

This gospel text is in a number of ways similar to Gos. Mary; both share the genre of the revelation dialogue, where Christ is in conversation with the group of disciples, but mainly with Mary and Judas. So far, the main research question relating to Gos. Judas has been whether Judas represents the text’s protagonist or antagonist. I tend to interpret him as a bit of both (cf. Petersen 2012, pp. 288–90). Yet, Gos. Judas differs from Gos. Mary in its title, which here is presented together with the incipit.

Subscription Title (58,27–28)

The Gospel of Judas (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅ̣ⲅ̣ⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ïⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ).³²

Incipit (33,1–3)

The secret discourse of the judgment that Jesus spoke with Judas [the] Iscariot.³³

“The Gospel” of the Title corresponds to “The secret discourse of the judgment that Jesus spoke” in the incipit, thus confirming Jesus as the Source of Authority in Gos. Judas. Most scholars hold the text to be the same as “The Gospel of Judas” (Iudae Euangelium/εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Ἰούδα), mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. haer. I.31.1) and Epiphanius (Panarion 38.1.5).³⁴ The Latin and Greek titles correspond to the Coptic title (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅ̣ⲅ̣ⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ïⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ), since none of them attest the use of “According to” (secundum, κατὰ, or ⲕⲁⲧⲁ). So, due to the lack of ⲕⲁⲧⲁ in the title we cannot readily establish Judas as the text’s Author, and, as is the case in Gos. Mary, the main dialogue partner of Jesus in Gos. Judas is not presented as putting anything into writing.

I think it all comes down to our interpretation of the text’s Judas figure. If he is, on the one hand, mainly considered as the antagonist in Gos. Judas, the genitive of the title should be taken in the adnominal sense: “The Gospel about Judas” (cf. Nagel 2008, pp. 101–2, n. 12), thus leaving the text without any Author. If he is, on the other hand, the protagonist, then the genitive of the title should be taken as genitivus auctoris: “The Gospel of Judas”; then, he would, in fact, emerge as the text’s Author.³⁵

4. Other Apocryphal Gospel Titles

Of the last four apocryphal texts with gospel titles, three display the title constructed as ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄- (“The Gospel of/for [a group, a thing, or a topic]”), where the ⲛ̄- signals the genitive (Gos. Lots Mary and Gos. Truth) or perhaps the dative (Gos. Egyp.); in one case, the ⲛ̄- does not occur together with the gospel title in a similar manner (Gos. Mani). When we analyse the Title through the lenses of Source of Authority and Author, the majority of these texts come out quite differently in comparison with the ones discussed in the preceding section, where Jesus represents each text’s Source and a disciple its Author (except for Gos. Phil., where Philip seems to be both). The first and second texts, Gos. Egyp. and Gos. Mani, both introduce another Source than the Christ figure. The last two, Gos. Lot Mary and Gos. Truth, are traditionally entitled by their incipits, and may not be classified as apocryphal gospels at all.

4.1. The Gospel of the Egyptians (NHC III,2 40,12–69,20)

In Nag Hammadi Codex III and IV, we find the tractate often called Gos. Egyp., but also entitled the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, after God’s name in the text. It concerns the structure of the heavenly world and its inhabitants, involving, inter alia, ritualistic discourse (hymns/prayers). The Codex III version includes a colophon, which the other version, in Codex IV, does not (due to missing pages). In the Codex III version we find five (!) titles. Of relevance here is the incipit, epilogue, and colophon.

Title in Incipit (40,12–13)

(1) The book (ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ) of the [holy …] of the great invisible [spirit] …³⁶

Titles in Colophon (69,6–8, 14–17)

(2) The Gospel of the Egyptians (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅ⳿ⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲣ︤ⲙ︥ⲛ̄ⲕⲏⲙⲉ), (3) the divinely written (ⲛ̄ⲥϩⲁï ⲛ̄ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ) Holy Book (ⲃⲓⲃⲗⲟⲥ) that is secret … Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Saviour, ΙΧΘΥΣ, (4) the divinely written (ⲑⲉⲟⲅⲣⲁⲫⲟⲥ) Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit. Amen.³⁷

Subscription Title (69,18–20)

(5) The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit. Amen.³⁸

Epilogue (68,1–19)

This is the book that the great Seth wrote (ⲥⲁϩ⸗) … The great Seth wrote this book … through the gift (ϯ = δόμα/δόσις) of the undetectable, unknown, fatherly intention.³⁹

In the text’s outer frame we find its primary title in the incipit (first title) and subscription (fifth title), “The Holy Book (ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ/ⲃⲓⲃⲗⲟⲥ) of the Great Invisible Spirit”, which is identical with the colophon’s last title (fourth in our counting). Of special interest is the beginning of the colophon, where the second and third titles occur as “The Gospel of the Egyptians, the divinely written Holy Book that is secret”. The third title appears here in abbreviated form, “Holy Book”. The gospel title, “The Gospel of the Egyptians (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅ⳿ⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲣ︤ⲙ︥ⲛ̄ⲕⲏⲙⲉ)”, is only one title out of the five in the text, but may still be important, since it takes as its apposition “the divinely written Holy Book”. That “Gospel” here is identified with a “Book” should come as no surprise, since the Gospel of John also presents itself as a “book (βιβλίον = ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ)” (20:30; 21:25).

In the epilogue, the divine Seth, son of Adam (Gen 5:3–8), is twice said to be the one who “wrote this book”; thus, taking on the role of the text’s Author. This also explains why the “Holy Book” in the colophon is “divinely written (ⲛ̄ⲥϩⲁï ⲛ̄ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ/ⲑⲉⲟⲅⲣⲁⲫⲟⲥ)”, namely by a god called “the great Seth” in the epilogue. That the acronym ΙΧΘΥΣ (“Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Saviour”) is mentioned in close connection to Seth’s authorship in the colophon (“the divinely written Holy Book”), can be explained by the fact that Seth earlier in the text is said to have clothed himself in Jesus (64,1–3), thus establishing their shared identity, even while Seth is the text’s key protagonist.⁴⁰

We also read in the epilogue that Seth’s Holy Book came to be “through the gift of the undetectable, unknown, fatherly intention”, which by usual apophatic discourse refers to God’s plan. So, Seth’s work happens “through the gift (ϯ = δόμα/δόσις)” of God’s “intention”, where the highest god then comes to represent the text’s Source of Authority. This conclusion is confirmed by the Title, “The Holy Book of (ⲙ̄-) the Great Invisible Spirit (=God)”, where the ⲙ̄- is the genitivus auctoris, representing the Source of the text’s teachings.

However, such a use of the genitive hardly applies to the Title, “The Gospel of (ⲛ̄-) the Egyptians”, since native people of Egypt is not mentioned in the text, apart from this title.⁴¹ An explanation of the current use of “Egyptians” has formerly been that the text aims at presenting the biblical Seth figure as superseding the Egyptian god Seth (cf. Böhlig et al. 1975, pp. 22–23). However, this may not be the better explanation. We notice instead that the manuscript in which the text is attested was found in Egypt, for sure, and it may therefore be the work of an Egyptian aimed at other Egyptians. Accordingly, we could interpret the ⲛ̄- of the Title in the dative case, indicating “The Gospel for the Egyptians”, thus referring to the text’s implied, and even actual, readers.

Such an Egyptian person was seemingly at work in the colophon, where the scribe presents himself as “the one who copied (ⲣ̄ⲥϩⲏ⸗) it, Eugnostos the loving one in spirit, in flesh my name is Gongessos” (69,9–12).⁴² It seems clear that the use of ⲥϩⲁⲓ here cannot designate authorship, since that has already been explicitly ascribed to Seth, but rather designates the scribe who copied the text of Gos. Egyp. into Nag Hammadi Codex III from another Coptic exemplar.⁴³

4.2. Mani’s Gospel from Manichaean Canon Lists

Mani (216–c. 276 ce) was from Mesopotamia and established a new religion, which was based on Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Christianity, and which flourished for more than a millennium from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. Manichaeism may have entered Egypt already in Mani’s lifetime, and had its heyday in the Mediterranean region in the 4th–5th centuries. The religion’s founder composed a number of writings, only left to posterity in fragments, among them a text on the Manichaean deities, mythology, and secret teachings, namely Gos. Mani.⁴⁴ The text does not exist in Coptic, but its title is attested in the Manichaean canon lists, preserved in the writings of his followers.

First Canon List (Manichaean Homilies 25,1–5)

(1) [The] Gospel ([ⲡⲉⲩ]ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ) and (2) the Treasury of Life, (3) the Tractate and (4) the Book of Secrets, (5) the Book [of] the Giants and (6) the Epistles, (7) the Psalms and Prayers of my Lord.⁴⁵

Second Canon List (Kephalaia 355,5–11)

These great writings (ⲅⲣⲁⲫⲁⲩⲉ) that I wrote down (ⲥⲁϩ⸗) to you are gifts ([ϩ]ⲙⲁⲧ = χάρις) gracefully given (ⲭⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ) you from the light fathers: (1) The Great Living Gospel (ⲡ̣ⲛⲁϭ … ⲛ̄ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲁⲛϩ) is the gift (ϩⲙⲁ[ⲧ]) of the Messenger; (2) the Treasury of Life is the gift of the Pillar of Glory (etc.).⁴⁶

The Title of Gos. Mani is always mentioned as the first in the Coptic canon lists, here in the first list as “[The] Gospel ([ⲡⲉⲩ]ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ)”, and in the second list as “The Great Living Gospel (ⲡ̣ⲛⲁϭ … ⲛ̄ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲁⲛϩ)”. The first canon list simply presents the seven classical writings of Mani, whereas the second provides us with the information we currently need on Author and Source of Authority. Mani is the one who “wrote down” his “great writings” to his disciples, which makes him Author of these texts.

Before moving on to the Source, we briefly return to Gos. Egyp., where the Author, Seth, wrote his Holy Book “through the gift (ϯ = δόμα/δόσις)” of God’s “intention” (NHC III,2 68,17–19), making God the Source of that text. A similar scheme is at work in the second canon list, when we are told that Mani’s writings also are “gifts ([ϩ]ⲙⲁⲧ = χάρις) … from the light fathers”, namely the prime gods of the Manichaean system. Concerning Gos. Mani, it is specifically said that his “Gospel is the gift (ϩⲙⲁ[ⲧ]) of the Messenger”, who is one of these light fathers; thus, the Source of Authority in Gos. Mani is here the deity called the Messenger.⁴⁷

4.3. The Gospel of the Lots of Mary (HUAM 1984.669 1,1–75,7)⁴⁸

This text is probably the newest of our texts under study. It exists in the format of a handy miniature codex, which may have been produced in the 5th or even 6th century (Luijendijk 2014, pp. 44–46). The text belongs to the genre of oracular literature, and was probably not intended for proficient Christian readers, but instead for lay Christians. They could ask for advice from the book holder, who then would pick random pages with one of the 37 extant oracles and present it to the person asking. Here, the incipit provides the data we need.

Incipit (1,1–2,1)

The gospel of the lots of Mary (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ), the Lord Jesus Christ’s mother, whom Gabriel the archangel brought the gospel (ⲡϣⲉⲛⲟⲩϥⲉ = εὐαγγέλιον).⁴⁹

The incipit begins and ends with “the gospel (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ/ⲡϣⲉⲛⲟⲩϥⲉ)”, which “Gabriel the archangel brought” to “Mary, the Lord Jesus Christ’s mother”. According to our definition of Source of Authority, Gabriel is, as the bringer of the gospel message, the best candidate. The text does not display any explicit Author.

All information of the incipit points to Luke 1:26–38, which is a dialogue where (a) Gabriel (b) brings revelation of the future (c) to Mary. The scene parallels the practical circumstances of Gos. Lots Mary, as also (a) the book holder (b) gives oracles of the future (c) to a person seeking advice. This is exactly what the system of drawing lots or oracles is all about.

In this context, ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ and ⲡϣⲉⲛⲟⲩϥⲉ are not referring to “the gospel” as Text, but instead to “the good news” of a given oracle’s lucky outcome. Even if the text refers to a well-known passage of a canonical gospel, Gos. Lots Mary seems to use ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ/ ⲡϣⲉⲛⲟⲩϥⲉ quite differently: It is about selling the book holder’s divination services, namely “The good news of the lots of Mary (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ) … Jesus Christ … Gabriel”, where three strong divine beings help the hopeful broker authorising his or her oracle message. So, even if the incipit begins with ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ, I am not sure we automatically should take it as designating the gospel genre. “The Lots (ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲥ) of Mary” is the better choice, if the quality of a Title still is to be determined by its ability to characterise the text properly. I therefore think that Gos. Lots Mary should not be included in our stock of apocryphal gospels, since it fits better together with other oracular literature. The reason why the word ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ was used in the incipit may be the marketing value of its association by allusion to the canonical gospels.⁵⁰

4.4. The Gospel of Truth (NHC I,3 16,31–43,24)

This commonly used title of the text is derived entirely from its incipit. The text belongs to the genre of the homily and concerns divine revelation, the book and name of God, and readers’ ability to escape deficient and worldly nature in order to obtain heavenly perfection. The text lacks a proper title, so the information we need for our current purposes may be found in the text’s incipit and corpus.

Incipit (16,31–17,4)

The gospel of truth (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲏⲉ) is a joy for those who received the gift (ϩⲙⲁⲧ), through the father of truth (ⲡⲓⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲧⲙⲏⲉ), to know him by the word’s power …⁵¹

Corpus (18,11–15)

This, the gospel (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅ·ⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ) of him they search for, was revealed to the perfect ones through the mercies of the father.⁵²

Gos. Truth has often been associated with a “Gospel of Truth”, mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. haer. III.11.9).⁵³ Yet, Peter Nagel (2014, pp. 29–32) is right to note that such an identification hardly can be the case. It may seem as if the incipit provides us with the text’s Title, “The gospel of truth”, and the Source of Authority, “the father of truth”. (Here, and in the rest of Gos. Truth we do not have any explicit data on the text’s Author.) Moreover, “the gospel” mentioned in the incipit and corpus does not refer to the canonical genre, but instead to “the gospel message”, as displayed in the Pauline letters in connection with truth, God, and word.⁵⁴

Now, if the incipit does not present us with the text’s title, it does not help us identify its Source of Authority or Author. As for content, Gos. Truth is in one sense a sibling to Gos. Phil., since both texts centre on Christian teaching in a discourse almost without a coherent narrative (contrary to Ap. John, Gos. Thom., Gos. Mary, and Gos. Judas). In Gos. Phil., Source and Author merged in the figure of Philip because of its Title, but if Gos. Truth lacks both Title and Author, then the question of Source becomes irrelevant.

To be clear, I am hardly able to change the usual title of Gos. Truth, even if a title such as the Homily on the Father of Truth (or the like) would be a more saying alternative. What I am able to do, though, is to state the case that the text, as it is presented in the manuscript, is without title. To strengthen such an assumption we will first look at the extant titles in the facsimile edition of NHC I, where Gos. Truth is the third text.⁵⁵ These results are listed in Table 3.

Only two titles are detected paratextually in NHC I: “Prayer of Paul the Apostle” and “Tractate on the Resurrection” (the latter text copied by a second hand). Therefore, scholars have entitled the other codex texts artificially, the Apocryphon of James and the Tripartite Tractate.⁵⁸ Even if NHC I is damaged in relevant passages, it does not seem to attest any inscriptions, and the last two texts do not display titles in incipit. So, we have two subscription titles in Codex I, but conceivably three texts without titles, and two of the three do not seem to attest a title in incipit at all.

Yet, our observations regarding Gos. Truth in Table 3 are not conclusive. We simply need a broader basis of comparanda. The other Nag Hammadi codices provide such a basis, since they attest plenty of titles in incipit. Incipit and title of each of the seven relevant texts are, together with Gos. Truth, listed below in Table 4.

Admittedly, only two of the texts attest verbatim correlation with their title (“Eugnostos the Blessed” and “The Wisdom of Jesus”), but the other five quite closely confirm their title and are therefore included in the list. Not only did Gos. Truth stand out as the one text that may, or may not, have a title in incipit in Table 3, but compared to the rest of NHC in Table 4 we are now better off, when concluding on the title of the text. It surely seems as if titles in incipit were widely used throughout NHC, but always confirmed in an affiliated inscription, subscription, or colophon.

What makes the presumed title in the incipit of Gos. Truth stand out even more is the fact that the texts of Codex I are attesting paratextual titles, i.e., “Prayer of Paul the Apostle” and “Tractate on the Resurrection” (as is the case with the seven texts in Table 4), but without any titles in incipit; furthermore, Codex I includes texts without titles, namely the Apocryphon of James and the Tripartite Tractate. Hence, I suggest that Gos. Truth is to be included among the latter two as a text without a title. Then, it no longer stands out compared to its two titleless siblings in Codex I, but also compared to the rest of the NHC texts, where many other writings attest no title in the manuscript: On the Origin of the World (NHC II,5), Plato’s Republic (NHC VI,5), the Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth (NHC VI,6), Asclepius (NHC VI,8), the Thought of Norea (NHC IX,1), the Testimony of Truth (NHC IX,2), Valentinian Exposition (NHC XI,2), and the Sentences of Sextus (NHC XII,1).

5. Conclusions

The current results regarding the content of the apocryphal gospel title in accordance with the chosen methodology are listed in Table 5.

In our analysis of the canonical gospel title, we discovered that both εὐαγγέλιον κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον and the abbreviated κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον attest genuine gospel titles in the earliest New Testament manuscripts. Hence, the text known as the long recension of Ap. John was included in the study since its title use ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲛ, i.e., “The Gospel According to John” (thus including “Gospel”, as it is an authentic gospel title). With its full title as ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲛ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲕⲣⲩⲫⲟⲛ, we may now count this Secret Gospel of John among the apocryphal texts that bear gospel titles.

Of the first five gospel titles, four are built on the canonical format of ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ (ⲡ)ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ, whereas Gos. Judas has ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ïⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ, i.e., without ⲕⲁⲧⲁ. Here, Judas can be labelled Author, if he is the text’s protagonist; if not, the title should be “The Gospel about Judas”. Of the first five texts, four have Jesus as Source of Authority, whereas Gos. Philip merges Source and Author into one in the Philip figure, because that text displays the disciple’s authority alike to canonical authorship as found in the New Testament letters. All five texts have disciples known from the canonical gospels as Authors, because they either perform scribal activity (Ap. John and Gos. Thom.) or are the key dialogue partners of Jesus (Gos. Mary and Gos. Judas).

All these parameters change in the last of our apocryphal gospels. As Source of Authority, Jesus is no longer explicitly part of the equation: Gos. Egyp. has God, i.e., “the Great Invisible Spirit”; Gos. Mani has one of the divine light fathers, the Messenger; and Gos. Lots Mary has the archangel Gabriel. In addition, the traditional disciple group vanishes here, when presenting the Author: Gos. Egyp. has the deity Seth writing the text; Gos. Mani has Mani himself writing the text down; and Gos. Lots Mary does not provide that information.

Gos. Egyp. attests the astonishing number of five titles: “The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit” (in incipit, colophon, and subscription); its abbreviation as “Holy Book” (in colophon); and finally as “The Gospel of (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄-) the Egyptians” (in colophon). Since the manuscript of the text was unearthed in Egypt, I assume that an Egyptian writer intended it for Egyptian readership, and therefore the title may be translated as “The Gospel for the Egyptians”.

Additionally, Gos. Lots Mary attests a title in incipit. However, it seems as if ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ is added to the title in order to heighten the text’s market value and attain more customers for the divination business, which is offered by the text. In fact, the remaining part of the title, “The Lots of Mary”, more clearly hits the target concerning the text’s content and genre. So, even if it entails “The gospel” in the incipit, Gos. Lots Mary hardly belongs in the apocryphal gospel repertoire, but instead among other oracular literature.

Traditionally Gos. Truth has been named from its incipit. However, when comparing the text with the other four writings of NHC I, its ascribed title stands out, since other titles in incipit are not found there. Lots of other titles in incipit are attested throughout the Nag Hammadi codices, but always confirmed in inscription, colophon, or subscription, which is not the case in Gos. Truth. So, instead of viewing the text as a stand-alone example of incipit entitling, I prefer to categorise it together with the many other writings without titles in the NHC. Since Gos. Truth does not seem to hold a gospel Title, we cannot apply the current method for a study of its Source and Author.

Furthermore, we notice that “the gospel” not only occurs in the apocryphal gospel titles, but also within the running text in other Coptic writings from relevant codices: When the disciples ‘preach the gospel’ in the Wisdom of Jesus Christ (NHC III,4 119,14–15) and Gos. Mary (PB 8502,1 8,21–22; 9,8–9; 18,18–19), and when readers ‘search the gospel’ in Gos. Truth (NHC I,3 17,1–4; 18,11–15 (quoted above)).

Interestingly, the Gospel of Mark are even alluded to in the Wisdom of Jesus Christ, “Bartholomeus then said to him, ‘How did they in the gospel (ϩⲓ ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅ⳿ⲅⲉⲗ<ⲓ>ⲟⲛ) declare ‘Man’ and ‘Son of Man’ (cf. Mark 2:27–28), from which of them is this son?’” (NHC III,4 103,22–104,4), and in the Tractate on the Resurrection, “For did you remember reading in the gospel (ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ), ‘Elijah appeared and Moses with him (cf. Mark 9:4)’?” (NHC I,4 48,6–10).⁶⁶ This indicates that any use of ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ in Coptic apocryphal literature always refers back to the story of Jesus in the canonical gospels, or at least to “the good message” of the Jesus story, as it is interpreted in Paul or the rest of the New Testament. Thus, all texts scrutinised in this contribution are later apocryphal gospels, which reuse and transform that story from older gospels that later on became canonical.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Notes

1. In passing, we also notice two other apocryphal gospel titles within the current timeframe: [1] “The Gospel According to the Hebrews (ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ϩⲉⲃⲣⲁⲓⲟⲥ)”, title mentioned (and its text briefly quoted) in the Coptic version of Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem’s On the Virgin Mary 28 (= Morgan M597, f. 57v; edition: Bombeck 2001, p. 52). [2] “The Gospel of Jesus, Son of God, Offspring from the Angels (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓ̄ⲟⲛ ⲛⲓ︤ⲥ︥ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉϫⲡⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ̄ ⲛⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ)”, mentioned by Shenoute, who cites only the title in I Am Amazed 309 (= HB 19; edition: Cristea 2011, p. 141). I thank Hugo Lundhaug for kindly providing both examples. All translations in the present study are my own, unless stated otherwise.

2. I am well aware that scholars tend to use κατ᾽ άνδρα (kat’ andra, “According to man”), and not κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον (“According to human being/person”), in connection with the canonical gospels, traditionally associated with male evangelists. However, when studying apocryphal gospel traditions a more gender neutral approach is called for since these gospel titles also include women: “The Gospel According to Mary” (Papyrus Berolinensis [PB] 8502,1 19,3–5; edition: Parkhouse 2019, p. 255); “The Gospel of the Lots of Mary” (HUAM 1984.669 1,1–4; edition: Luijendijk 2014, p. 98); and in the Greek tradition as “The Gospel of Eve” (εὐαγγέλιον Εὔας; Panarion 26.2.6; edition: Holl 1915, pp. 277–78).

3. Irenaeus is also the first we know to formulate the idea of one gospel in four forms: “From this it is clear that the logos—everything’s designer, who sits upon the (four) cherubim, he who holds everything together (συνέχων), he who was revealed to humankind—gave us the four-formed gospel (τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον), held together (συνεχόμενον) by one spirit … The Gospel According to John (τὸ … κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην) … The Gospel According to Luke (τὸ … κατὰ Λουκᾶν) … The Gospel According to Matthew (τὸ … κατὰ Ματθαῖον) … The Gospel According to Mark (τὸ … κατὰ Μάρκον)” (Adv. haer. III.11.8; edition: Brox 1995, pp. 110–12). Here, the logos is said to hold the universe together (συνέχων) in the same manner as the spirit has held the four gospels together (συνεχόμενον); thus, the spirit can be said to guarantee the divine origin of the four gospels, thought to be authored by the evangelists.

4. That is, if we presuppose the Two-Source Hypothesis, where the earlier Gospel of Mark and the sayings source Q formed the basis of the later gospels of Matthew and Luke.

5. For the idea that the written gospel ultimately originated from Jesus or another divine figure, cf., e.g., Didache 8,2; 2 Clement 8,5; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum 12. The one Coptic example of an apocryphal gospel title, known to me, which applies authorship directly to Jesus is the Gospel of Jesus (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓ̄ⲟⲛ ⲛ-ⲓ︤ⲥ︥), Son of God, Offspring from the Angels, mentioned only by title in Shenoute’s I Am Amazed; cf. n. 1 above.

6. According to the incipit, possibly the original title, it is hardly John’s revelation, but “The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)”, first given by God to Christ, and then given by an angel to John, who finally sees and transmits its content (Rev 1:1–3). Afterwards, even if John himself is said to write letters (1:4ff.), he is consistently urged to write down what he sees and hears (1:11, 19; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). In the rest of the text, he sees and sees revelations and, the reader gets it at this point, even though John no longer is told explicitly to write down the visions, he now does this implicitly. All Greek text of the New Testament is translated from the 28th edition of Nestle-Aland.

7. The list is built on the study of Simon Gathercole (2013, pp. 58–62).

8. I here take caution when including the bilingual fragment (P.Osl.Inv. 1661a) in the counting since the two determinations are restored: [(ⲡ)]ⲉⲩⲁ[ⲅ]ⲅ̣ⲉⲗ[ⲓ]ⲟⲛ [(ⲡ)ⲕⲁ]ⲧ̣ⲁ (cf. Gathercole 2013, pp. 39–40, 59; round parentheses mine). Comparing with the other titles in Table 2, the last restoration may in fact be [ⲛⲕⲁ]ⲧ̣ⲁ or simply [ⲕⲁ]ⲧ̣ⲁ.

9. Nevertheless, the fact remains that his name presented as inscription still depicts him as the author of “The Gospel According to Mark”.

10. An additional apocryphal example is “The Gospel of Jesus (ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓ̄ⲟⲛ ⲛ-ⲓ︤ⲥ︥), Son of God, Offspring from the Angels” (Edition: Cf. n. 1 above), mentioned by Shenoute.

11. Coptic text of all versions taken from from edition of Waldstein and Wisse (1995, pp. 176–77), except for their restoration of the title in Codex IV 49,27–28: ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱ[ⲏ]ⲛ̣ ⲛ̄|ⲁⲡⲟⲕⲣⲩⲫⲟⲛ. Poirier (1997, p. 369) suggests, correctly I think, the alternative ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱ[ϩⲁⲛ]ⲏ̣ⲛ | ⲁⲡⲟⲕⲣⲩⲫⲟⲛ, thus reading the last letter of line 27 as part of the name, contrary to Waldstein and Wisse’s reading that presupposes line 27 to consist of an abbreviated name (ïⲱ[ⲏ]ⲛ̣) followed by the attributive (ⲛ̄-). However, when scrutinizing the manuscript in the facsimile edition (cf. Kasser and Robinson 1975, p. 57), Waldstein and Wisse’s restoration of ⲛ̣ can just as easily attest ⲏ̣, and the manuscript does not attest the superliniar stroke of their attributive (ⲛ̄-). So, Poirier’s suggestion of ïⲱ[ϩⲁⲛ]ⲏ̣ⲛ instead of ïⲱ[ⲏ]ⲛ̣ ⲛ̄- is a splendid restoration, even if I would leave out the Coptic hori (ϩ), suggesting instead the reading, ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱ[ⲁⲛ]ⲏ̣ⲛ ⲁⲡⲟⲕⲣⲩⲫⲟⲛ, since it is clear that the lacuna does not allow space for more than two letters (or three if including the unsecure reading of ⲏ̣).

12. Greek titles are common in the NHC, according to the counting of Poirier (1997, p. 350): [1] NHC I,1 B,8–11: “Prayer of Paul the Apostle, in peace, holy Christ”, ⲡⲣⲟⲥⲉⲩⲭⲏ ⲡⲁ[ⲩⲗⲟⲩ] ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲩ ⲉⲛ ⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ̣ ⲟ ⳩(ⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ) ⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ = προσευχὴ Παύλου ἀποστόλου, ἐν εἰρήνῃ, ὁ Χριστὸς ἅγιος (subscription and colophon; edition: Mueller 1985, p. 10); [2] NHC VI,3 35,23–24: “Authoritative Tractate”, ⲁⲩⲑⲉⲛⲧⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ = αὐθεντικὸς λόγος (subscription; edition: MacRae 1979b, p. 288); [3] NHC VII,2 70,11–12: “Second Tractate of the Great Seth”, ⲇⲉⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲧⲟⲩ ⲙⲉⲅⲁⲗⲟⲩ ⲥⲏⲑ = δεύτερος λόγος τοῦ μεγάλου Σήθ (subscription; edition: Riley 1996, p. 198); [4] NHC VII,3 70,13; 84,14: “Apocalypse of Peter”, ⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲩⲯⲓⲥ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲩ = ἀποκάλυψσις Πέτρου (inscription and subscription; edition: Brashler 1996, pp. 218, 246); [5] NHC XIII,1 50,22–24 (subscription and colophon), “Trimorphic Protennoia Book 3, holy writing, fatherly written in perfect knowledge”, ⲡⲣⲱⲧⲉⲛⲛⲟⲓⲁ ⲧⲣⲓⲙⲟⲣⲫⲟⲥ ⲅ̄ ⲁⲅⲓⲁⲅⲣⲁⲫⲏ ⲡⲁⲧⲣⲟⲅⲣⲁⲫⲟⲥ ⲉⲛ ⲅⲛⲱⲥⲉⲓ ⲧⲉⲗⲉⲓⲁ = πρωτέννοια τρίμορφος γ, ἁγία γραφὴ πατρόγραφος ἐν γνώσει τελείᾳ (edition: Turner 1990, p. 432). Poirier also includes the title of Ap. John from Codex II (ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲛ ⲛ̄ⲁⲡⲟⲕⲣⲩⲫⲟⲛ), which I would hesitate to include, owing to the occurrence of the Coptic letter ϩ and the Coptic attributive ⲛ̄-.

13. The only other example of an apocryphal gospel in Coptic of a similar abbreviated form of the title, know to me, is ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ϩⲉⲃⲣⲁⲓⲟⲥ (“The Gospel According to the Hebrews”), mentioned by Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem; cf. also nn. 1 and 41.

14. The first who came up with this interpretation was Hans-Martin Schenke: “Möglicherweise ist ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲛ als Kurzfassung für ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲛ zu verstehen—dann ist der Titel als das „geheime (Evangelium) nach Johannes“ gemeint!” (Schenke 2000, p. 64; cf. also Nagel 2004, pp. 690–92).

15. Coptic text from edition of Waldstein and Wisse (1995, p. 177).

16. ⲧⲉⲥⲃⲱ [ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⲁⲩⲱ] ⲡ̣ϭ̣[ⲱⲗ]ⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲙ̣̄ⲙ̣ⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ … ⲛ̣ⲧ̣ⲁ̣ϥⲧⲥⲉⲃⲟⲟⲩ ⲁïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛ[ⲏⲥ ⲡⲉϥⲙⲁ]ⲑ̣ⲏⲧⲏⲥ (Edition: Ibid., p. 13).

17. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁϥϯ ⲛⲁⲉⲓ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲥ︤ⲱ︦ⲣ̄ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲥⲁϩⲟⲩ (Edition: Ibid., p. 175).

18. Coptic text from edition of Layton (1989a, p. 92).

19. ⲛⲁⲉⲓ ⲛⲉ ⲛ̄ϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲑⲏⲡ⳿ ⲉⲛⲧⲁ ⲓ︤ⲥ̄︥ ⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ ϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁϥⲥϩⲁïϩⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲇⲓⲇⲩⲙⲟⲥ ïⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ ⲑⲱⲙⲁⲥ (Edition: Ibid., p. 52).

20. The Greek standard rendering of the prologue (P.Oxy. 654,1–3; edition and translation: Attridge 1989, pp. 113, 126) goes like this:

οἷτοι οἱ {οι} λόγοι οἱ [ἀπόκρυφοι οὓς ἐλά]λησεν ᾽Ιη(σοῦ)ς ὁ ζῶν κ[αὶ ἔγραψεν ᾽Ιούδα ὁ] καὶ Θωμᾶ

“These are the [secret] sayings [which] the living Jesus [spoke and which Judas, who is] also Thomas, [wrote down] …”.

The problem here is the name Θωμᾶ (manuscript: ΘⲰΜA) in the nominative case, which the editor takes as a defective form of Θωμᾶς to make it fit the restoration of [ἔγραψεν] (“[wrote down]”), thus being in line with the Coptic parallel’s ⲁϥⲥϩⲁïϩⲟⲩ. However, since such a defective form of the name is not attested elsewhere, the reading that comes naturally would be Θωμᾷ (dative), but then we need a new restoration, which is skillfully provided by Peter Nagel (2010, p. 293):

ο<ὗ>τοι οἱ {οι} λόγοι οἱ [ἀπόκρυφοι οὓς ἐλά]λησεν ᾽Ιη(σοῦ)ς ὁ ζῶν κ[αὶ ἔδωκεν ᾽Ιούδᾳ τῷ] καὶ Θωμᾷ

“These are the [secret] words [which] the living Jesus spoke [and gave Judas, who is] also Thomas …”

While Nagel here solves an annoying textual problem, the scribal activity applied to Thomas in the Coptic text (‘he wrote down’) is unfortunately lost in the Greek (‘words Jesus gave Thomas’).

21. “Mit dieser aus der Titelnachschrift übernommenen Gattungsbezeichnung [i.e., “gospel”] geraten Übersetzer und Interpreten des EvPhil freilich immer wieder in Erklärungsnot” (Nagel 2008, p. 99).

22. Coptic text from edition of Lundhaug (2010, p. 538).

23. Coptic edition: Ibid., 512; Greek edition: Nestle-Aland.

24. In fact, ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ/ⲡϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲫⲓⲗⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ (“The Tractate/Book of Philip”) is suggested as more appropriate titles by Nagel (2008, pp. 104–11).

25. Related vocabulary: “Heaven”: Logia 6, 11, 12, 44; “kingdom of heaven”: Logia 20, 54, 114: “kingdom”: Logia 3, 22, 27, 46, 49, 82, 107, 109, 113; “kingdom of the father”: Logia 57, 76, 96–99.

26. Perhaps the title of Gos. Phil. was even added by the scribe of Codex II.

27. Despite the lengthily protestations of Stephen J. Shoemaker (2016).

28. Coptic text from edition of Parkhouse (2019, p. 255).

29. ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲙⲙⲁⲣⲓϩⲁⲙ ϫⲉ … ϫⲱ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲛⲛ̄ϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲥⲱ︥̅ⲣ︥ ⲉⲧⲉⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲩⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲛⲁï ⲉⲧⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ⲛⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲙⲡⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲧⲙ‵ⲟ′ⲩ (Edition: Ibid., p. 250).

30. ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉⲙⲁⲣⲓϩⲁⲙ ϫⲉ ⲛⲁï ⲁⲥⲕⲁⲣⲱⲥ ϩⲱⲥⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲡⲥⲱ︥̅ⲣ︥ ϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲥ ϣⲁ ⲡⲉⲉⲓⲙⲁ (Edition: Ibid., p. 253).

31. Codex Tchacos, where Gos. Judas occurs, was almost certainly exported from Egypt illegally. For discussion of the book’s problematic provenance history, (cf. Brodie 2006).

32. Coptic text from edition of Jenott (2011, p. 186).

33. ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟ[ⲥ] ⲉⲧϩⲏ̣ⲡ⳿ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲡⲟⲫⲁⲥ̣ⲓⲥ ⲛ̄[ⲧⲁ ï]ⲏ̣̅ⲥ︥ ϣ̣ⲁϫⲉ ⲙ︤ⲛ︥ ïⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ [ⲡⲓⲥ]ⲕ̣ⲁⲣⲓⲱⲧ[ⲏⲥ] (Edition: Ibid., p. 136).

34. Latin and Greek text from editions of Brox (1993, p. 350) and Holl (1922, p. 63).

35. Additionally, in Greek witnesses, canonical gospel titles without κατὰ are a rarity, but examples from 𝔓³ (6th–7th century; thus, a bit later than our timeframe) are highlighted by Garrick V. Allen (2022, pp. 158–60). Relevant for the current interpretation of Judas as the protagonist in Gos. Judas is Allen’s example of a possible inscription, where the evangelist’s name occurs in the genitive case: [εὐαγγέλιο]ν̣ τοῦ ἁγίου Λουκά, “[The Gospel] of Saint Luke”.

36. ⲡϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧϩ̣[ⲓⲉ]ⲣ̣[ⲁ …] ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲟϭ ⲛⲁⲧⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣ̣[ⲟϥ ⲙ̄ⲡ̄︤ⲛ︥̅ⲁ︥] (Edition: Böhlig et al. 1975, p. 52). However, the editors’ restoration of the first lacuna (ⲡϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲛ̄{ⲧ}ϩ̣[ⲓⲉ]ⲣ̣[ⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲣ̄ⲙ︥ⲛ̄ⲕⲏⲙⲉ], “The [holy] book [of the Egyptians]”) seems a bit too speculative and is therefore not followed here. Compared with the other titles of the text, this title in the incipit is not a perfect match, since “the [holy] (ⲧϩ̣[ⲓⲉ]ⲣ̣[ⲁ)” appears with the feminine determination; however, it clearly seems to be an elaboration that depends on the text’s title.

37. ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅ⳿ⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲣ︤ⲙ︥ⲛ̄ⲕⲏⲙⲉ ⲧⲃⲓⲃⲗⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲥϩⲁï ⲛ̄ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲧϩⲓⲉⲣⲁ ⲉⲧϩⲏⲡ⳿ … ⲓ︤ⲥ︥ ⲡⲉⲭ︤ⲥ︥ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⲓ︤ⲭ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅ⲥ︥ ⲑⲉⲟⲅⲣⲁⲫⲟⲥ ⲧⲃⲓⲃⲗⲟⲥ ⲧϩⲓⲉⲣⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟϭ ⲛ̄ⲁϩⲟⲣⲁⲧⲟⲛ ⲡ︤ⲛ̅ⲁ︥ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ (Edition: Ibid., p. 166).

38. ⲧⲃⲓⲃⲗⲟⲥ ⲧϩⲓⲉⲣⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟϭ ⲛ̄ⲁϩⲟⲣⲁⲧⲟⲛ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ (Edition: Ibid., p. 166).

39. ⲧⲁï ⲧⲉ ⲧⲃⲓⲃⲗⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲥⲁϩⲥ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲛⲟϭ ⲛ̄ⲥ︤ⲏ̅ⲑ︥ … ⲧⲁⲉⲓ ⲧⲃⲓⲃⲗⲟⲥ ⲁϥⲥⲁϩ︤ⲥ︥ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲛⲟϭ ⲛ̄ⲥ︤ⲏ̅ⲑ︥· … ϩⲓⲧ︤ⲙ︥ ⲡϯ ⲛ̄ⲡⲟⲩⲱϣⲉ ⲛ̄ⲁⲧ︤ⲛ︥ ⲣⲁⲧ︤ϥ︥· ⲛ̄ⲁⲧ⳿ⲙⲉⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲛ̄ⲉⲓⲱⲧ⳿ (Edition: Ibid., pp. 162, 164).

40. NHC III,3 64,1–3: “Jesus the living, in whom even the great Seth clothed himself”, ⲓⲏ︥︤ⲥ︥ ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ ⲙ︤ⲛ︥ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϯ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ ϩⲓⲱⲱϥ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲛⲟϭ ⲛ̄ⲥⲏⲑ (Edition: Ibid., p. 146). On the complexity of Jesus’ names in relation to Seth in this tractate, (cf. Gathercole 2017, pp. 206–9).

41. One other apocryphal gospel in Coptic attests a similar ethnic title, namely the Gospel According to the Hebrews. This text is also mentioned in nn. 1 and 13 above.

42. ⲡⲉⲣ̄ⲥϩⲏⲧ︤ⲥ︥· ⲉⲩⲅⲛⲱⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏⲧⲓⲕⲟⲥ ϩ︤ⲙ︥ ⲡⲉⲡ︤ⲛ̅ⲁ︥ ϩ︤ⲛ︥ ⲧⲥⲁⲣⲝ⳿ ⲡⲁⲣⲉⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲅⲟⲅ⳿ⲅⲉⲥ‵ⲥ′ⲟⲥ (Edition: Ibid., p. 166).

43. Usually we would expect to find the ‘real’ scribe of NHC III in this colophon, but even here, the scribe is quite probably a construction used for the purpose of the whole text design of Codex III; (cf. Falkenberg 2017, pp. 120–23).

44. Parts of the content of Gos. Mani are preserved in the Greek, Middle Persian, and Sogdian languages; (cf. Gardner and Lieu 2004, pp. 156–59). We have the incipit of Gos. Mani in the Greek: “I am Mani, apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God (ἐγὼ Μαννιχαῖος ἀπόστολος Ἰη(σο)ῦ Χρ(ιστο)ῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ) …” (Cologne Mani Codex 66,4–6; edition: Koenen and Römer 1988, p. 44). This is almost a quotation of 2 Cor 1:1, thus attesting how stong a tie Mani himself has to the New Testament texts, which also includes his and his followers’ use of the canonical gospels (cf. Pedersen et al. 2020).

45. [ⲡⲉⲩ]ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲙ︤ⲛ︥ ⲡⲑⲏⲥⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲱⲛϩ̣ [:] ⲧⲡⲣⲁ̣[ⲅ]ⲙ̣ⲁ̣ⲧⲉⲓⲁ ⲙ︤ⲛ︥ ⲡϫⲱⲙⲉ ⲛ̄ⲙ̄ⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ: ⲡϫⲱⲙ̣[ⲉ ⲛ̄]ⲛ̄ⲅⲓⲅⲁⲥ ⲙ︤ⲛ︥ ⲛ̄ⲉⲡⲓⲥⲧⲟⲗⲁⲩⲉ · ⲙ̄ⲯⲁⲗⲙⲟⲥ ⲙ[ⲛ̄ ⲛ̄]ϣⲗⲏⲗ ⲙ̄ⲡⲁϫⲁïⲥ⳿ (Edition: Pedersen 2006, p. 25).

46. ⲛⲓⲛⲁϭ ⲛ̄ⲅⲣⲁⲫⲁⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲁïⲥⲁϩⲟⲩ ⲛⲏⲧⲛⲉ [ϩⲛϩ]ⲙⲁⲧ ⲛⲉ ⲉⲁⲩⲭⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲩ ⲛⲏⲧⲛⲉ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲛ̄ⲛïⲁ̣[ⲧⲉ] ⲙ̄ⲡⲟⲩⲁïⲛⲉ Ⲡ̣ⲛⲁϭ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲛ̄ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲁⲛϩ ⲡϩⲙⲁ[ⲧ] ⲡⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡ̀ⲡⲣⲉⲥⲃⲉⲩⲧⲏⲥ Ⲡⲑⲏⲥⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲱⲛϩ̄ ⲡϩⲙⲁⲧ ⲡⲉ̣ ⲙ̄ⲡⲥ[ⲧⲩ]ⲗⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲁⲩ (Edition: Funk 1999, p. 355). A third canon list is preserved earlier in Kephalaia (5,22–24), where Mani himself is quoted again: “I wrote [them] down [in my] books of light: In (1) the Great Gospel and (2) the Treasury of Life (etc.)”, ⲁïⲥⲁϩ[ⲟⲩ ϩ︤ⲛ︥ ⲛⲁϫ]ⲙⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲁⲓⲛ̣[ⲉ ϩ]ⲙ̣ ⲡⲛⲁϭ ⲛⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲙⲛ ⲑⲏⲥⲁⲩ[ⲣⲟⲥ] ⲙⲡⲱⲛϩ (Edition: Polotsky and Böhlig 1940, p. 5). Other canon lists exist in the Arabic and Chinese languages too; (cf. Gardner and Lieu 2004, pp. 153–56).

47. On this god, usually called the Third Messenger in Manichaean myth, (cf. Baker-Brian 2011, pp. 113–16).

48. The Gos. Lots Mary may have a problematic provenance, since we only know its discovery history from the time it was donated by a wife of an antiquities dealer to Harvard University Art Museum in 1984 (cf. Luijendijk 2014, p. 47); cf. also n. 31 above.

49. ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲧⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲙⲡϫⲟïⲥ ⲓ︤ⲥ︥ ⲡⲉⲭ︤ⲥ︥· ⲧⲉⲛⲧⲁ ⲅⲁⲃⲣⲓⲏⲗ ⲡⲁⲣⲭⲏⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛⲁⲥ ⲙⲡϣⲉⲛⲟⲩϥⲉ (Edition: Luijendijk 2014, p. 98).

50. “The word ”gospel” immediately legitimized the use of the text and method of divination, while the presence of Mary, Jesus Christ and Gabriel created an atmosphere of awe and trustworthiness” (Ibid., p. 25).

51. ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲧⲙⲏⲉ ⲟⲩⲧⲉⲗⲏⲗ ⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲛⲧⲁϩϫⲓ ⲡⲓϩⲙⲁⲧ· ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩïⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ̄ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲧⲙⲏⲉ· ⲁⲧⲣⲟⲩⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛϥ̄ ϩⲛ̄ ⲧϭⲁⲙ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓϣⲉϫⲉ (Edition: Attridge and MacRae 1985, p. 82).

52. ⲡⲉⲉⲓ ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅ·ⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱϥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲟⲩⲁⲛϩϥ̄ ⲛⲛⲉⲧϫⲏⲕ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ· ϩïⲧⲛ̄ ⲛⲓⲙⲛ̄ⲧϣⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲱⲧ· (Edition: Ibid., p. 84).

53. Latin: veritatis evangelium (Edition: Brox 1995, p. 118).

54. Cf. Rom 1:1 (εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ), Gal 2:5 (ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου), Col 1:5 (ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου), and the other examples given in Nagel (2014, p. 31).

55. Cf. the facsimile edition of Robinson (1977, pp. 3–5 [codex pages: A, B, 1], 20 [16], 47 [43], 54–55 [50–51], 142 [138]).

56. NHC I,1 B,8–9: ⲡⲣⲟⲥⲉⲩⲭⲏ ⲡⲁ[ⲩⲗⲟⲩ] ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲩ (Edition: Mueller 1985, p. 10).

57. NHC I,4 50,17–18: ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲧⲁⲛⲁⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ (Edition: Peel 1985, p. 156).

58. At least the title of the Apocryphon of James is securely based on self-references within the text, whereas the Tripartite Tractate in the running text of the manuscript is divided into three sections, thus entitled by scholars as the Tractate in Three Parts.

59. NHC II,4 86,20: ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲑⲩⲡⲟⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲉⲝⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ; 97,22–23: ⲧⲑⲩⲡⲟⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲁⲣⲭⲱⲛ (Edition: Layton 1989b, pp. 234, 258).

60. NHC III,2 40,12–13: ⲡϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧϩ[ⲓⲉ]ⲣ̣[ⲁ …] ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲟϭ ⲛⲁⲧⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣ̣[ⲟϥ ⲙ̄ⲡ̄︤ⲛ︥̅ⲁ︥]; 69,16–20: ⲧⲃⲓⲃⲗⲟⲥ ⲧϩⲓⲉⲣⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟϭ ⲛ̄ⲁϩⲟⲣⲁⲧⲟⲛ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ (Edition, modified [cf. n. 36 above]: Böhlig et al. 1975, pp. 52, 166).

61. NHC III,3 70,1–3: ⲉⲩⲅⲛⲱⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲡⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩϥ ⲛⲉ; 90,12–13: ⲉⲩⲅⲛⲱⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲡⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ (Edition: Parrott 1991, pp. 40, 166).

62. NHC III,4 90,14–16: ⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ ⲛ̄ⲓ̄ⲏ︦ⲥ︥ ⲡⲉⲭ̄ⲣ︦︥ⲥ︥ ⲙⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲥⲁ ⲧⲣⲉϥⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ̄ ⲛⲉⲧⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧ; 119,18: ⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ ⲛ̄ⲓ̄ⲏ︦ⲥ︥ (Edition: Ibid., pp. 37, 179).

63. NHC V,5 64,2–3: ϯⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲩⲯⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲁⲁⲇⲁ[ⲙ ⲧ]ⲁ̣ⲙⲉ ⲡⲉϥϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲥ︤ⲏ︥︤ⲑ︥ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ; 64,1 (inscription): ⲧⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲩⲯⲓⲥ ⲛ̄ⲁⲇⲁⲙ; 85,32 (subscription): ⲧⲁⲡ̣ⲟ̣[ⲕⲁⲗⲩ]ⲯ̣ⲓ̣ⲥ ⲛ̣̄ⲁ̣ⲇ̣[ⲁⲙ] (Edition: MacRae 1979a, pp. 154, 194).

64. NHC VII,5 118,10–12: ⲡⲟⲩⲱⲛ︤ϩ︥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲇⲱⲥⲓⲑⲉⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ϯϣⲟⲙⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲥⲧⲏⲗⲏ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲥ︤ⲏ︦ⲑ︥·; 127,27: ϯϣⲟⲙⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲥⲧⲏⲗⲏ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ⲥ︤ⲏ︦ⲑ︥· (Edition: Robinson and Goering 1996, pp. 386, 420).

65. NHC VIII,2 132,12–13: ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲓ[ⲥ̄] ⲡⲉⲭ︤ⲥ︥ ⲙⲫⲓⲗⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ·; 132,10–11: ⲧⲉⲡⲓⲥⲧⲟⲗⲏ ⲙⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁϥϫⲟⲟⲩⲥ ⲙⲫⲓⲗⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ (Edition: Wisse 1991, p. 234).

66. Coptic text translated from editions of Parrott (1991, p. 103) and Peel (1985, p. 154).

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Tables

Table 1

Meaning of the Gospel Title: Its Text, Source of Authority, and Author.

εὐαγγέλιον	→	Text (“The Gospel”)
(Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)	→	Source of Authority	→	Supernatural being: Text ultimately stemsfrom a divine figure (here, “Jesus Christ”)
κατὰ Ἰωάννην	→	Author	→	Human being: Text written by (“Accordingto”) a person (here, “John”) related to Jesus

Table 2

Canonical Gospel Titles in Coptic until c. 500 ce.

P.Osl. 1661a	[(ⲡ)]ⲉⲩⲁ[ⲅ]ⲅ̣ⲉⲗ[ⲓ]ⲟⲛ [(ⲡ)ⲕⲁ]ⲧ̣ⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲁⲓⲟⲥ	Inscription
P.Bodmer III	ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ	Subscription
Codex Schøyen	ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲉⲟⲥ	Subscription
Codex Scheide	ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑ⳿ⲑⲁⲓⲟⲥ ϩⲛ̄ ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ (“In peace”)	Subscription with a wishing of peace
P.Bodmer XIX	ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲑⲁⲓⲟⲥ	Subscription
P.Palau Rib. 181–183	ⲙⲁⲣⲕⲟⲥⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲣⲕⲟⲥⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲗⲟⲩⲕⲁⲥⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲗⲟⲩⲕⲁⲥⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛⲕⲁⲧⲁ ïⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ	InscriptionSubscriptionInscription SubscriptionSubscription
Vienna K 2591	ⲡϩⲁⲉ ⲛ̄ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲑⲁⲓⲟⲥ (“The end of the Gospel According to Matthew”)	Subscription as explicit
P.Mich. 3992	ⲕ̄[ⲁⲧⲁ ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ]or ⲕ̄[?] (“Twenty-[?]”)	Running headeror page number

Table 3

Titles in Nag Hammadi Codex I.

Codex	Title	Inscription	Incipit	Subscription
NHC I,1	“Prayer of Paul the Apostle”56	Damaged	Damaged	Yes
NHC I,2	Apocryphon of James	Damaged	Damaged	No
NHC I,3	Gospel of Truth	No	?	No
NHC I,4	“Tractate on the Resurrection”57	No	No	Yes
NHC I,5	Tripartite Tractate	No	No	Damaged

Table 4

Titles in Incipit from All Nag Hammadi Codices.

Incipit	Title	Title Location
“The gospel of truth is a joy forthose who received the gift …”	No	—
“On the hypostasisof the authorities …”	“The Hypostasisof the Archons”.59	Subscription
“The book of the [holy …] of thegreat invisible [spirit] …”	“The Holy Book of theGreat Invisible Spirit”.60	Colophon andsubscription
“Eugnostos the blessed,to those who are his”.	“Eugnostos the Blessed”.61	Subscription
“The wisdom of Jesus Christafter he arose from the dead …”	“The Wisdom of Jesus”.62	Subscription
“The apocalypse, whichAdam taught his son, Seth …”	“The Apocalypseof Adam”.63	Inscription andsubscription
“Dositheos’ revelation ofthe three steles of Seth …”	“The Three Stelesof Seth”.64	Subscription
“Peter, the apostle of Jesus Christ,to Philip”.	“The Letter of Peter,which he sent to Philip”.65	Inscription

Table 5

Apocryphal Gospels, their Title, Source of Authority, and Author.

Gospel Text	ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅ-ⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ	ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲣⲱⲙⲉ	Title Location	Source of Authority	Author
Ap. John	(X)	X	Subscription	Jesus	John
Gos. Thom.	X	X	Subscription	Jesus	Thomas
Gos. Phil.	X	X	Subscription	Philip
Gos. Mary	X	X	Subscription	Jesus	Mary
Gos. Judas	X	—	Subscription	Jesus	Judas?
Gos. Egyp.	X	—	Incipit, colophon,and subscription	God	Seth
Gos. Mani	X	—	Canon lists	Messenger	Mani
Gos. Lots Mary	X	—	Incipit	Gabriel	—
Gos. Truth	—	—	—	—	—

References

Allen, Garrick V. Titles in the New Testament Papyri. NTS; 2022; 68, pp. 156-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688521000370]

Attridge, Harold A. The Greek Fragments. Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1), and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655, with Contributions from Many Scholars. Volume One: Gospel According to Thomas, Gospel According to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons, and Indexes; Layton, Bentley. NHS 20 E.J. Brill: Leiden, 1989; pp. 95-128.

Attridge, Harold A.; MacRae, George W. The Gospel of Truth. Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex): Intoductions, Texts, Translations, Indices; W. Attridge, Harold. NHS 22 E.J. Brill: Leiden, 1985; pp. 55-122.

Baker-Brian, Nicholas J. Manichaeism: An Ancient Faith Rediscovered; T&T Clark: London and New York, 2011.

Böhlig, Alexander; Wisse, Frederik; Labib, Pahor. Nag Hammadi Codices III,2 and IV,2: The Gospel of the Egyptians (The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit); NHS 4 E.J. Brill: Leiden, 1975.

Bombeck, Stefan. Pseudo-Kyrillos In Mariam virginem: Text und Übersetzung von Pierpont Morgan M 597 fols. 46-74. Orientalia; 2001; 70, pp. 40-88.

Brashler, James. Apocalypse of Peter. Nag Hammadi Codex VII; A. Pearson, Birger. NHMS 30 E.J. Brill: Leiden, New York and Köln, 1996; pp. 201-47.

Brodie, Neil. The lost, found, lost again and found again Gospel of Judas. Culture Without Context: The Newsletter of the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre; 2006; 19, pp. 17-27.

Brox, Norbert. Irenäus von Lyon: Adversus haereses, Gegen die Häresien I. Übersetzt und eingeleitet; FC 8/1 Herder: Freiburg, Basel, Wien, Barcelona, Rom and New York, 1993.

Brox, Norbert. Irenäus von Lyon: Adversus haereses, Gegen die Häresien III. Übersetzt und eingeleitet; FC 8/3 Herder: Freiburg, Basel, Wien, Barcelona, Rom and New York, 1995.

Buzi, Paola. Titles in the Coptic Manuscript Tradition: Complex Structure Titles and Extended Complex Structure Titles. Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium I: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptie Studies, Leiden, 27 August–2 September 2000; Immerzeel, Mat; van der Vliet, Jacques; Kersten, Maarten; van Zoest, Carolien. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 133 Peeters: Leuven, Paris and Dudley, 2004; pp. 309-16.

Cristea, Hans-Joachim. Schenute von Atripe: Contra Origenistas. Edition des koptischen Textes mit annotierter Übersetzung und Indizes einschließlich einer Übersetzung des 16. Osterfestbriefs des Theophilus in der Fassung des Hieronymus (ep. 96); STAC 60 Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2011.

Falkenberg, René. The Making of a Secret Book of John: Nag Hammadi Codex III in Light of New Philology. Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology; Lied, Liv Ingeborg; Lundhaug, Hugo. TU 175 De Gruyter: Göttingen, 2017; pp. 85-125.

Funk, Wolf-Peter. Kephalaia I: Zweite Hälfte, Lieferung 13/14; Manichäische Handschriften der staatlichen Museen zu Berlin W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart, 1999.

Gardner, Iain; Lieu, Samuel N. C. Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2004.

Gathercole, Simon. The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. ZNW; 2013; 104, pp. 33-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/znw-2013-0002]

Gathercole, Simon. The Nag Hammadi Gospels. Die Nag-Hammadi-Schriften in der Literatur- und Theologie-geschichte des frühen Christentums; Schröter, Jens; Schwarz, Konrad; Paul, Clarissa. STAC 106 Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2017; pp. 199-218.

Holl, Karl. Epiphanius. Erster Band: Ancoratus und Panarion haer. 1–33; J.C. Hinrichs’sche: Leipzig, 1915.

Holl, Karl. Epiphanius. Zweiter Band: Ancoratus und Panarion haer. 34–64; J.C. Hinrichs’sche: Leipzig, 1922.

Jenott, Lance W. The Gospel of Judas: Coptic Text, Translation, and Historical Interpretation of the ‘Betrayer’s Gospel’; STAC 64 Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2011.

Kasser, Rodolphe; Robinson, James M. The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices: Codex IV; E.J. Brill: Leiden, 1975.

Koenen, Ludwig; Römer, Cornelia. Der Kölner Mani-Kodex: Über das Werden seines Leibes. Kritische Edition aufgrund der von A. Henrichs und L. Koenen besorgten Erstedition; Papyrologica Coloniensia 14 Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen, 1988.

Larsen, Matthew D.C. Correcting the gospel: Putting the titles of the gospels in historical context. Rethinking ‘Authority’ in Late Antiquity: Authorship, Law, and Transmission in Jewish and Christian Tradition; Berkovitz, A. J.; Letteney, Mark. Routledge: London, 2018; pp. 78-103.

Layton, Bentley. The Gospel According to Thomas. Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 Together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1), and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655 with Contributions from Many Scholars. Volume One: Gospel According to Thomas, Gospel According to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons, and Indexes; Layton, Bentley. NHS 20 E.J. Brill: Leiden, New York, København and Köln, 1989a; pp. 52-92.

Layton, Bentley. The Hypostasis of the Archons. Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1), and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655 with Contributions from Many Scholars. Volume One: Gospel According to Thomas, Gospel According to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons, and Indexes; Layton, Bentley. NHS 20 E.J. Brill: Leiden, New York, København and Köln, 1989b; pp. 234-58.

Luijendijk, Annemarie. Forbidden Oracles? The Gospel of the Lots of Mary; Mohr Siebeck: STAC 89. Tübingen, 2014.

Lundhaug, Hugo. Images of Rebirth: Cognitive Poetics and Transformational Soteriology in the Gospel of Philip and the Exegesis on the Soul; Brill: NHMS 73. Leiden and Boston, 2010.

MacRae, George W. The Apocalypse of Adam. Nag Hammadi Codices V,2–5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,1 and 4; M. Parrott, Douglas. NHS 11 E.J. Brill: Leiden, 1979a; pp. 151-95.

MacRae, George W. Authoritative Teaching. Nag Hammadi Codices V,2–5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,1 and 4; M. Parrott, Douglas. NHS 11 E.J. Brill: Leiden, 1979b; pp. 257-89.

Mueller, Dieter. Prayer of the Apostle Paul. Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1), and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655 with Contributions from Many Scholars. Volume One: Gospel According to Thomas, Gospel According to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons, and Indexes; Layton, Bentley. NHS 20 E.J. Brill: Leiden, New York, København and Köln, 1985; pp. 5-11.

Nagel, Peter. »Das (Buch) nach Philippus«: Zur Titelnachschrift Nag Hammadi Codex II,3: P. 86,18–19. ZNW; 2008; 99, pp. 99-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ZNTW.2008.006]

Nagel, Peter. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654,1–5 und der Prolog des Thomasevangeliums. ZNW; 2010; 101, pp. 267-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zntw.2010.017]

Nagel, Peter. Codex apocryphus gnosticus Novi Testamenti. Band 1: Evangelien und Apostelgeschichten aus den Schriften von Nag Hammadi und verwandten Kodizes. Koptisch und deutsch; WUNT 326 Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2014.

Nagel, Titus. Zur Gnostisierung der johanneischen Tradition. Das "Geheime Evangelium nach Johannes" (Apokyphon [sic] Johannis), als gnostische Zusatzoffenbarung zum vierten Evangelium. Kontexte des Johannes-evangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in Religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive; Frey, Jörg; Schnelle, Udo; Schlegel, Juliane. WUNT 175 Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2004; pp. 675-93.

Parkhouse, Sarah. Eschatology and the Saviour: The Gospel of Mary among Early Christian Dialogue Gospels; SNTSMS 176 Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2019.

Parrott, Douglas M. Nag Hammadi Codices III,3–4 and V,1 with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,3 and Oxyrhynchus 1081: Eugnostos and the Sophia of Jesus Christ; NHS 27 E.J. Brill: Leiden, New York, København and Köln, 1991.

Pedersen, Nils Arne. Manichaean Homilies. With a Number of Hitherto Unpublished Fragments; CFM, Series Coptica II Brepols: Turnhout, 2006.

Pedersen, Nils Arne; Falkenberg, René; Larsen, John Møller; Leurini, Claudia. The New Testament Gospels in Manichaean Tradition: The Sources in Syriac, Greek, Coptic, Middle Persian, Parthian, Sogdian, Bactrian, New Persian, and Arabic. With Appendices on the Gospel of Thomas and Diatessaron; CFM, Biblia Manichaica II Brepols: Turnhout, 2020.

Peel, Malcolm L. The Treatise on the Resurrection. Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex): Intoductions, Texts, Translations, Indices; W. Attridge, Harold. NHS 22 E.J. Brill: Leiden, 1985; pp. 123-57.

Petersen, Anders Klostergaard. The Gospel of Judas: A Scriptual Amplification or a Canonical Encroachment?. Judasevangelium und Codex Tchacos: Studien zur religionsgeschichtlichen Verortung einer gnostischen Schriftensammlung; E. Popkes, Enno; Wurst, Gregor. WUNT 297 Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2012; pp. 253-90.

Poirier, Paul-Hubert. Titres et sous-titres, incipit et desinit dans les codices coptes de Nag Hammadi et de Berlin: Description et éléments d’analyse. Titres et articulations du texte dans les æuvres antiques: Actes du Colloque International de Chantilly 13–15 décembre 1994; Fredouille, Jean-Claude; Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile; Hoffmann, Philippe; Petitmengin, Pierre; Deléani, Simone. Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 152 Institut d’Études Augustini-ennes: Paris, 1997; pp. 339-83.

Polotsky, Hans Jakob; Böhlig, Alexander. Kephalaia: 1. Hälfte, Lieferung 1–10, mit einem Beitrag von Hugo Ibscher; Manichäische Handschriften der staatlichen Museen zu Berlin W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart, 1940.

Reed, Annette Yoshiko. ΕΥAΓΓΕΛΙOΝ: Orality, Textuality, and the Christian Truth in Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses. Vigiliae Christianae; 2002; 56, pp. 11-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15700720252984819]

Riley, Gregory J. Second Treatise of the Great Seth. Nag Hammadi Codex VII; A. Pearson, Birger. NHMS 30 E.J. Brill: Leiden, New York and Köln, 1996; pp. 146-99.

Robinson, James M.; Goering, James E. The Three Steles of Seth. Nag Hammadi Codex VII; Pearson, Birger A. NHMS 30 E.J. Brill: Leiden, New York and Köln, 1996; pp. 386-421.

Robinson, James M. The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices: Codex I; E.J. Brill.: Leiden, 1977.

Schenke, Hans-Martin. Oral communication. Die zweite Lehre: Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen als Rahmen-erzählung frühchristlicher Dialoge; Reported by Judith Hartenstein. TU 146 Academie Verlag: Berlin, 2000; 64.

Shoemaker, Stephen J. Mary in Faith and Devotion; Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 2016.

Turner, John D. Trimorphic Protennoia. Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII; Hedrick, Charles W. E.J. Brill: Leiden, New York, København and Köln, 1990; pp. 371-454.

Waldstein, Michael; Wisse, Frederik. The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Hag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; and IV,1 with BG 8502,2; NHC 33 E.J. Brill: Leiden, New York and Köln, 1995.

Wisse, Frederik. The Letter of Peter to Philip. Nag Hammadi Codex VIII; Sieber, John H. NHS 31 E.J. Brill: Leiden, New York, København and Köln, 1991; pp. 234-51.