Christian Egypt's first runs at forgery

Even if the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" does turn out to belong to the late first century, as I doubt; I will not mock the scholars who pin it after Tatian. There's too much record of forgery and other textual shenanigans in the whole Egyptian-apocryphal corpus. So now, let's talk about the "Gospel of Judas". Rather, about the codex it's in: the Tchacos.

"Judas" sits alongside several other Coptic concoctions which haven't enjoyed the same press, because - their text exists elsewhere. Those pique the interest of scholars looking at reception-history, of the works now known to have spread outside a single volume. As it happens Nag Hammadi is rife with one-shot texts like the "Apocryphon of James". Tchacos thus corroborates the "Apocalypse of James" (which is all over the 'web) and the "Letter of Peter to Philip".

It turns out, that the texts diverge. They're not even in the same dialect. Lance Jenott is looking at "James".

Jenott was unaware in 2017 of the contemporary Greek discovery: Sackler Library at Oxford University, recovered from Oxy 1904/05. That's -Rhynchos, not -Contin... allegedly. Geoffrey Smith and Brent Landau were promising to publish this via the Egypt Exploration Society, Greco Roman Memoirs; so, LXXXI or later. I can't find it online so - maybe LXXXIII.

And THERE's a rabbit hole. The fragments were re(?)discovered... in Dr Dirk Obbink's office. There's a question on that; nobody much trusts the Sacklers, for a start. Obbink himself parted from Oxford last year, the Exploration Society heaved him out, and he's even been fitted for an orange suit. Last I heard, last month, the man got sued (by Hobby Lobby *sigh*). Anyway Obbink, convicted fraudster, wanted to call this "the Gospel of James". We may doubt it will be easing his way past his final court date . . .

Back to Tchacos. This didn't even label "James", so we do not know if its editor cast it as an apocalypse (as Nag Hammadi did). It could be another secret booke like that apocryphon from Nag Hammadi. Although unlike that "James", our [two] "James" is/aren't laundered through ahadith about ancient homilies.

Neither text of "James" has anti-Chalcedonian nor even pro-Ephesus jargon so they're considered antenicene. Jenott ponders, however, a parallel with Arius' subordinationist Christology. I don't see anti-Nicaea here. However, instead, later on in the Nag Hammadi translation (for what that's worth), I do see some hints at persecution, which might be a lingering bruise from Diocletian's heavy hand, which he'd laid upon Egypt in particular. Is all this scribal activity under Emperor Constantius? In his reign Nicaea was a dead letter. Those Christians loyal to Constantius would have considered Nicaea a false council - like Second Ephesus. How many Christians today know about Second Ephesus?

So let's compare. Nag Hammadi: Nothing existed except He Who Is. He is unnamable and ineffable. I too, I am unnamable, from He Who Is. Tchacos: Nothing existed except He Who Is. He is [un]nameble (ⲡⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲟ[ⲩⲁⲧϯ]ⲣⲁⲛ) and he is ineffable[among those that] are or will be. Now I, I am from He Who Is, and he is unnamable (ⲡⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲁⲧϯⲣⲁⲛ). Tchacos is more prolix, so perhaps shows intertextual strain. But maybe that's just the English.

Both versions share ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ, I am from He Who Is; also, Jesus is an "image" of He Who Is. In this respect, Tchacos-James adheres consistently to subordinationism. The Nag Hammadi version has Jesus claim himself as unnameable just like the Father (Jenott, 70).

Even if we didn't have the Greek (Jenott didn't have the Greek, and I didn't either until I looked around for it); I'd suspect Tchacos has the true, Mesokemic Eunomian text. At Nag Hammadi, this got adapted to Ephesian Miaphysitism (and not third-century "Monarchianism"). Tchachos, then, isn't just the sole outing of "Judas"; it is the sole outing of the real translation of "James". It's been noted that the Greek has made its own evolution, "holy seed" > "holy spirit", tho' otherwise closer to Tchacos. Does seem that Jenott was overcautious.