The Apocryphon of James (1st - mid-2nd century) Questions.

Rakovsky · Jan 28, 2019

Recently, I read all the books that scholars think might have been written in the first century on Christianity, including several gnostic Christian works. In the course of reading the gnostic texts some questions came up and I would like to ask them in the gnostic section of the forum.

The Apocryphon (or "Secret Book") of James is estimated by some scholars to have been written in c. 100-150 AD. It was found at Nag Hammadi. The text supports James & Peter but dissents from Jesus' other disciples. I think that it was likely written by Cerinthus, a gnostic of Jewish background from Alexandria, Egypt. Cerinthus required Torah observance and, according to the early Church writers, he was in conflict with the disciple John, who lived into old age (eg. up to 90-100 AD). The conflict is worth noting because Paul had written that Peter, James, and John were three main pillars of the early church. By just mentioning James and Peter while not mentioning John, the Apocryphon brings to mind the conflict that Cerinthus was said to have had with the apostle John.
Here is Francis Williams' translation: The Apocryphon of James (Williams Translation) -- The Nag Hammadi Library
Here is Marvin Meyer's translation: The Secret Book of James (Meyer Translation) - The Nag Hammadi Library

(Question 1) What did the illegible part of the manuscript where the addressee is named look like? Maybe there are some photos? Wikipedia notes:

Cerinthus may be the alleged recipient of the Apocryphon of James (codex I, text 2 of the Nag Hammadi library), although the name written is largely illegible.

Cerinthus - Wikipedia

Maybe the name was made to be illegible, because Cerinthus was considered a heretic? If Cerinthus flourished in c. 100, he could be born in 40-70 AD, making him perhaps old enough to know James and Peter, but only as a young man (eg. He could know James when he (Cerinthus) was 23 years old if he was born in 40 AD and visited Jerusalem, since James was killed there in c.63 AD).

Richard Bauckham writes in "The Jewish World Around the New Testament" (p.138):

the recipient's name, given in the parties formula (1:2), has been lost in the manuscript except fot hte last syllable (-thos); a very plausible suggestion is Cerinthus.

I agree with Bauckham that since the ending is -thos, the recipent's (and author's) name is probably Cerinthos.

(Question 2) In the beginning of the Apocryphon of James from Nag Hammadi, when it talks about another secret book that James sent, could that other book be the two Apocalypses of James also found at Nag Hammadi?
In the Introduction of the Apocryphon, it says:

Now I sent you ten months ago another secret book with the Savior revealed to me. But that one you are to regard in this manner, as revealed to me, James.

Here are the two Apocalypses of James from Nag Hammadi:
The (First) Apocalypse of James -- The Nag Hammadi Library
The (Second) Apocalypse of James -- The Nag Hammadi Library

(Question 3) Is this quote below from the Apocryphon a reference to gnosticism (gnosis)?:

Thus it is also possible for you all to receive the Kingdom of Heaven: unless you receive it through knowledge, you will not be able to find it. ... Pay attention to the Word. Understand Knowledge. Love Life.

(Question 4) How do you understand the statement in bold below?

Make yourselves like strangers; of what sort are they in the estimation of your city? Why are you troubled when you oust yourselves of your own accord and depart from your city? Why do you abandon your dwelling place of your own accord, readying it for those who desire to dwell in it? O you exiles and fugitives! Woe to you, because you will be caught! Or perhaps you imagine that the Father is a lover of humanity? Or that he is persuaded by prayers? Or that he is gracious to one on behalf of another? Or that he bears with one who seeks? For he knows the desire and also that which the flesh needs. Because it is not the flesh which yearns for the soul. For without the soul the body does not sin, just as the soul is not saved without the Spirit. But if the soul is saved when it is without evil, and if the spirit also is saved, then the body becomes sinless. For it is the spirit which animates the soul, but it is the body which kills it - that is, it is the soul which kills itself. Truly I say to you, the Father will not forgive the sin of the soul at all, nor the guilt of the flesh. For none of those who have worn the flesh will be saved. For do you imagine that many have found the Kingdom of Heaven? Blessed is the one who has seen himself as a fourth one in Heaven."

Let me try to analyze this passage piece by piece. When it talks about leaving the dwelling place or city, I think that it's referring to the body, because of the rest of the paragraph. It's true that in the NT Jesus says "The Spirit is Willing, but the Flesh is Weak". But here it seems to go further when it says without the soul the body does not sin. A Platonic-based opposition to the body was a feature often found in Gnosticism, which could help explain the passages phrase "none of those who have worn the flesh will be saved". Since after all even Cerinthus and the gnostics had worn flesh, it sounds far too extreme unless there is some way to address the passage's meaning and give it another shade. For example, maybe it really means they wouldn't be saved by default, and this is why they need some intervening salvific action (like the Savior's intervention into the Cosmos). Such an idea where a person wearing flesh wouldn't be saved by default would relate to the idea of the flesh being in sin. Wouldn't that be like the Augustinian idea of everyone who is born on earth automatically bearing the guilt for Original Sin due to their biological descent from Adam? The Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't accept Augustine's theory of the guilt of Original Sin being passed down biologically.
The "fourth one in heaven" sounds like it refers to someone being after or below the Trinity.

(Question 5) What other writings from that period have claimed that Jesus spent over a year on earth between his Resurrection and Ascension comparable to how the Apocryphon of James claims that the resurrected Jesus spent about 18 months on earth before the Ascension (The text gives "550 days". 549 days is 30.5 days/month x 18 months.)?
The Apocryphon might be emphasizing the number of 18 twice when it says:

... the twelve disciples were all sitting together and recalling what the Savior had said to each one of them, whether in secret or openly, and putting it in books - But I was writing that which was in my book - lo, the Savior appeared, after departing from us while we gazed after him. And five hundred and fifty days since he had risen from the dead, we said to him, "Have you departed and removed yourself from us?" But Jesus said, "No, but I shall go to the place from whence I came. If you wish to come with me, come!"
...
[Jesus says;]"Since I have already been glorified in this fashion, why do you hold me back in my eagerness to go? For after the labor, you have compelled me to stay with you another eighteen days for the sake of the parables. It was enough for some <to listen> to the teaching and understand 'The Shepherds' and 'The Seed' and 'The Building' and 'The Lamps of the Virgins' and 'The Wage of the Workmen' and the 'Didrachmae' and 'The Woman.'"

The second century Church father Irenaeus in "Against Heresies"(I.3) says that students of the gnostic leader Valentinus find cryptic references to the number of 18 Aeons in their version of Jesus' story. Irenaeus writes:

The other eighteen Æons are made manifest in this way: that the Lord, [according to them,] conversed with His disciples for eighteen months after His resurrection from the dead. They also affirm that these eighteen Æons are strikingly indicated by the first two letters of His name [᾿Ιησοῦς], namely Iota and Eta.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, I.3 (St. Irenaeus)

Iota and Eta have the numbering of 10 and 8 in the Greek system of letters and numbers.

(Question 6) Why in the passage below from the Apocryphon do Jesus' disciples get angry when hearing about future followers? In it, James and Peter are in a meditative ("ascended") state and the other disciples ask what they saw and James and Peter reply that they have future followers, and the disciples for some unknown reason get angry at the future followers.

when we ascended, we were permitted neither to see nor to hear anything. For the rest of the disciples called to us and questioned us: "What is it that you have heard from the Master?" And, "What has he said to you?" And, "Where has he gone?"

And we answered them: "He has ascended." And, "He has given us a pledge and has promised us all life and disclosed to us children who are to come after us, since he has bid us to love them, inasmuch as we will be saved for their sake."

And when they heard, they believed the revelation, but were angry about those who would be born. Then I, not desiring to entice them to scandal, sent each one to another place. But I myself went up to Jerusalem, praying that I may obtain a portion with the beloved who are to be revealed.

And I pray that the beginning may come from you, for thus I can be saved. Because they will be enlightened through me, through my faith and through another's which is better than mine, for I desire that mine become the lesser. Endeavor earnestly, therefore, to make yourself like them, and pray that you may obtain a portion with them. For apart from what I have recounted, the Savior did not disclose revelation to us. For their sake we proclaim, indeed, a portion with those for whom it was proclaimed, those whom the Lord has made his children.

The disciples' anger makes little sense to me when the story is taken at face value, because followers are a needed part of a religious movement. It sounds like the writer is creating a justification for being part of a sect separate from the other disciples. It also sounds like James is sending them on their journeys to avoid scandal, rather than in order to evangelize the world.

Rakovsky · Jan 25, 2020

For Question 5, another book that may have included the idea of Jesus staying on earth months after the resurrection could be the Ascension of Isaiah, in which Chapter 9:16 says:

And when He hath plundered the angel of death, He will ascend on the third day, [and he will remain in that world five hundred and forty-five days].

CHARLES' FOOTNOTE: This clause is wanting in Slavonic and Latin manuscripts. [But it's in Ethiopic]. It is of course no creation of Ethiopic scribes. The Ethiopic translator found it already in his Greek text. The idea is a Gnostic one. It was held by the Valentinians and the Ophites (See Irenaeus adv. Haer i.3)... It was nevertheless an intrusion in the Greek text; for the many righteous mentioned in verse 17 are none other than the souls delivered from Hades, and the ascent mentioned in that verse is the ascent from Hades. This is clear from Slavonic and Latin manuscripts, which bring the resurrection of Christ and the deliverance of the souls from Hades together. "And then many of the righteous will ascend with Him, ie. from Hades, as I have shown in the preceding note. Yet the present form of the Ethiopic implies that the ascension here designed is not from Hades, but from earth to heaven after the resurrection.

Evan T's Footnote: Probably an addition to the text, since the belief remained on Earth for 545 days is a known doctrine of the Ophites and Valentinians.

Chapter 11 of the Ascension of Isaiah says:

20. In Jerusalem indeed I saw Him being crucified on a tree:
21. And likewise after the third day rise again and remain [fourty] days. [17]
22. And the angel who conducted me said: “Understand, Isaiah” and I saw when He sent out the Twelve Apostles and ascended.

Charles' footnote: Manuscripts ab have simply 'days', c has 'forty days.' Dillmann is of opinion that originally the number 545 stood here, as in ix.16 (see note). The phraseology at all events is the same.

EVAN T's footnote: Some manuscripts here have simply “days”, one has “40 days” and some believe that initially this part read “545 days”

Rakovsky · Feb 18, 2020

For Question 2, it's hard to consider the two apocalypses of James to be the secret book by James that James promised in the Apocryphon. And the possibility is made very unlikely by the First Apocalypse's instructions for James to be silent about it, to tell it to Addai, and to have Addai write it down ten years later, in contrast with the Apocryphon's description of James already writing a book of Jesus' secret or open sayings himself 550 days after the resurrection when Jesus showed up and gave him the revelation in the Apocryphon.

The Second Apocalypse of James is considered a 2nd century text, so it was written within about a century of the Apocryphon. But the Second Apocalypse is written about James in the third person. It describes him teaching an audience. So it is not presented as a secret book by James.

The First Apocalypse of James is considered to be written in the early 3rd century, which is long after the time of Cerinthus, the late first century Gnostic. However, the First Apocalypse of James is a vision that James relates of Jesus, so it would fit the content of a secret book by James. One issue with associating it with the Apocryphon of James's mention of another "secret book" is that perhaps it isnt real clear when the Apocryphon was written. If it was written in the same period as the First Apocalypse, then that wouldn't bar the latter from being the secret book.

Charles Hill, in The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, refers to

the opening scene of the apocryphon, which relates an occasion 550 days after the resurrection, when the disciples were gathered and Jesus appeared to them: 'Now the twelve disciples [were] sitting all together at [the same time] and remembering what the Savior had said to each one of them, whether secretly or openly, they were setting it down in books. [And] I was writing what was in [my book]178 ...'(2. 7-16).

178 Assuming the correctness of this restoration of the text, this reference to another book by
James perhaps is to be connected to his mention of another 'secret book' sent to the addressee
'ten months ago' in 1. 30.
F. E . Williams, 'The Apocryphon of James: I, 2: 1.1-16.30' in H. W. Attridge (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex): Introductions, Texts, Translations, Indices, Nag Hammadi Studies, 22 (Leiden, 1985) (hereafter, Williams, NHS 22), 13-53, at 20, thinks the mention of a previous book is a fictitious detail 'added for the sake of atmosphere'.

So in its opening, the Apocryphon refers to the apostles, including James, writing books 550 days after the resurrection on what the Savior had said to them secretly or openly. The opening says:

I also sent you, ten months ago, another secret book which the Savior had revealed to me. Under the circumstances, however, regard that one as revealed to me, James; but this one .... [untranslatable fragments]
...the twelve disciples were all sitting together and recalling what the Savior had said to each one of them, whether in secret or openly, and putting it in books - But I was writing that which was in my book - lo, the Savior appeared, after departing from us while we gazed after him. And five hundred and fifty days since he had risen from the dead, we said to him...

So the opening says that James was writing down secret or open statements by Jesus 550 days after the resurrection and then Jesus appeared and gave James more teachings. And James also notes that he had sent the addressee (apparently Cerinthus] a secret book 10 months earlier.
So the "secret book" apparently was one about Jesus' secret teachings that Jesus gave to James before the teachings of the Apocryphon of James. This is because James was already working on one book before Jesus showed up 550 days after the resurrection with new statements, and it makes sense that James would finish the first book that he was working on before moving on to the next one composed of the statements in the Apocryphon.

I think that Apocryphon of James was likely written in the late 1st to mid-2nd century because of its apparent reference to Cerinthus as the addressee, the Gnostic who lived at the same time as the Evangelist John (late 1st century). It could theoretically have been written anytime up to the mid-4th century when the Nag Hammadi codices were put together, but it was likely written before then, since the codices were written in Coptic and the Apocryphon was written in Greek.

A 5th to 6th century copy of the First Apocalypse of James was found in 2017 that apparently matched the Coptic text well since its discoverers called the Greek text a rather complete copy (UT Austin Professors Discover Copy of Jesus’ Secret Revelations to His Brother - UT News)
So it's not as if the Coptic version is a major revision on the earlier Greek version.

Commonality #1 between the Apocryphon and the First Apocalypse shows up when James in the Apocryphon says: "I also sent you, ten months ago, another secret book which the Savior had revealed to me. Under the circumstances, however, regard that one as revealed to me, James; but this one". The First Apocalypse reads as a private revelation where James talks with Jesus alone, whereas the Apocryphon is a vision where Jesus speaks to the apostles at length.

Commonality #2 is how the Apocryphon fits into a thematic chronology with the two apocalypses of James. The First Apocalypse opens in the first person with James as the speaker, then it switches to dialogues between James and Jesus before the Passion, then it narrates Jesus appearing to James a few days after the resurrection and giving repeated teachings to James, with an ending where a different narrator than James apparently refers to James' martyrdom ("James departed so that [...] look [...] for we [...] him."). Next, the Apocryphon gives Jesus' teachings to the apostles 550 days after the resurrection and James mentions an earlier, other "secret book", which would fit with the Apocalypse being that book. Then, the Second Apocalypse is basically a narrative of James teaching an audience about visions of Jesus and then James being martyred. So chronologically, the other "secret book" being the First Apocalypse fits into this scheme.

Potential problem #1 is that whereas the Apocryphon seems to be from the late 1st to mid-2nd century due to the mention of Cerinthus, the First Apocalypse seems to be from the late 2nd to mid 3rd century due to its involved Gnostic system. Funk writes:

The Valentinian theologoumena utilised in it (cf. especially the doctrines of an upper and a lower Sophia, or of 'Sophia' proper and 'Achamoth', which also occur in the text outside the mystery formulae quoted: p. 36.5, 8) seem to presuppose the fully-developed Valentinian system, and therefore suggest the composition of the document at the earliest towards the end of the 2nd century.
(New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, p. 315)

However, we don't really know for sure when these texts were written except that they were written before they showed up in the 4th century Nag Hammadi codices.

Potential problem #2 is stylistic differences like how in the Apocryphon James repeatedly calls Jesus Lord, whereas in the Apocalypse James calls him "rabbi and Jesus gives a Gnostic system of ideology that isn't mentioned in the Apocryphon, although I suppose that the author could be implying that the Gnostic system is a secret given to James but not to the apostles. In that case, this would actually make the First Apocalypse fit better with it being a "secret book", particularly one given in private revelation like the Apocryphon mentioned.

Potential problem #3 is that the First Apocalypse ends with James' death, although it's not really clear, due to missing text. The narrator's voice apparently shifts to make the narrator someone else than James as I mentioned above. This would be in conflict with the First Apocalypse as a whole being a "secret book" by James, but one could resolve the problem by suggesting that the ending was a narrative note added by someone other than James onto this book that was nonetheless James' other "secret book".

Problem #4 is that in the First Apocalypse, Jesus tells James that he is to keep the contents of the revelation secret to himself, keep silence about them, reveal them to Addai, and then in the tenth year Addai is to write them down:

"You are to hide <these things> within you, and you are to keep silence. But you are to reveal them to Addai. When you depart, immediately war will be made with this land. Weep, then, for him who dwells in Jerusalem. But let Addai take these things to heart. In the tenth year let Addai sit and write them down. And when he writes them down [...] and they are to give them [...] he has the [...] he is called Levi. Then he is to bring [...] word [...] from what I said earlier [...] a woman [...] Jerusalem in her [...] and he begets two sons through her. They are to inherit these things and the understanding of him who [...] exalts. And they are to receive [...] through him from his intellect. Now, the younger of them is greater. And may these things remain hidden in him until he comes to the age of seventeen years [...] beginning [...] through them. They will pursue him exceedingly, since they are from his [...] companions. He will be proclaimed through them, and they will proclaim this word. Then he will become a seed of [...]."

So we might expect the First Apocalypse to present itself as Addai writing down the revelation that James had given him years earlier (hence the ending about James departing which in the paragraph above refers to his martyrdom), but not as James directly writing down this book. Still, the time of the tenth year is not clear. It could refer to ten years after the revelation, ie. to about 43 AD, ten years after Jesus' c. 33 AD resurrection. In that case, the First Apocalypse could still be the other "secret book." In the Apocryphon, James says that he sent Cerinthos another secret book 10 months earlier, but he didn't say that he himself (James) wrote down that earlier book. In fact, the reference to 10 months earlier could be a cryptic allusion to the 10 years' timeline for Addai to write down what James had told him. And the way that the quoted paragraph about the text's transmission ends above with a reference to a 17 year old could be a hint about the real author, who presumably would be young in the mid or late 1st century if this text was a 2nd century text.

Rakovsky · Feb 18, 2020

For Question 3, whether knowledge here refers to gnosticism (gnosis), the text is in Coptic, but the original was in Greek. Knowledge in Greek is gnosis, which would have been the text's original Greek term.

The statement's requirement of knowledge for the kingdom of heaven goes along with the Gnostic association between knowledge and salvation: "...receive the Kingdom of Heaven: unless you receive it through knowledge, you will not be able to find it."
The following statement associates knowledge with the Word and life: "Pay attention to the Word. Understand Knowledge. Love Life." This association also goes along with Christian Gnosticism, as Christianity sees Christ the Savior as God's Word and sees knowledge as salvific and the tool for attaining eternal life.

The Wikipedia article on Apocryphon notes that post resurrection visions of Jesus imparted secret knowledge in the NT and in apocryphal writings:

Apocryphon ("secret writing"), plural apocrypha, was a Greek term for a genre of Jewish and Early Christian writings that were meant to impart "secret teachings" or gnosis(knowledge) that could not be publicly taught. Such private instruction to the apostles figures in the canonical Gospels of the New Testament [1] and furnishes the material of the "sayings" Gospel of Thomas and part of the material of the Gospel of Mary.

But I don't know that the NT labeled such information from the visions as saving "knowledge" like Gnosticism and the Apocryphon of James does. At most its use in the NT would mean that the concept of knowledge needed for salvation is not necessarily Gnostic.

The following two verses use knowledge in connection with salvation:
Luke 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation to His people By the remission of their sins,
Luke 11:52 “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

But it does not really emphasize a concept that Gnostic knowledge is a necessary prerequisite for salvation. Luke 11:52 is talking about how the rabbis of the Torah (law) deflected their audience from a true understanding of the scriptures, but the verse doesn't say that for anyone to be saved, a key of knowledge is required. After all, conceivably God could still open a "door" to someone without such a "key".
In contrast, Paul considers "knowledge" not to be a necessary prerequisite for salvation:
1 Corinthians 8:1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.
1 Corinthians 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
1 Corinthians 13:8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.

However, if the work is Gnostic and teaches Gnosticism, it follows that its treatment of necessary saving knowledge is Gnostic too, as when the New World Encyclopedia says, quoting it:

Other typical Gnostic themes are also emphasized, such as: "Unless you receive it (the Kingdom of Heaven) through knowledge, you will not be able to find it... Understand what the Great Light is." Likewise, true disciples must avoid "wearing" flesh, that is, identifying themselves with their bodies: "None of those who have worn the flesh will be saved... Do not become arrogant on account of the light which illumines. Rather, become to yourselves in this manner—as I am to you. For I have placed myself under the curse (taking on a body), in order that you may be saved."
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Apocryphon_of_James

Certainly it is taking a very strong anti-body stance that points to Gnosticism.

Katie Kreutter writes in her essay "A Consideration of the “Apocryphon of James”:

the Gnostic undertones in the Apocryphon of James are readily apparent. Gnostics believed that there were “secret” elements and sources of deeper knowledge within the Christian religion that only certain individuals were permitted to access and understand.
...
[In Gnosticism,] God is portrayed as highly selective and restrictive in whom he allows to come to Him and truly know and understand Him. ... In contrast, Christianity proclaims that by coming to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ, God established that all humankind could experience salvation in response to His Son. ...

James urges the recipient of this letter, whose name could not be distinguished in translation, to refrain from distributing the text on a widespread level. ...
According to James, Jesus stressed the importance of being filled with what was presumably his knowledge, and included it as a prerequisite for entering the kingdom of heaven. For instance, this aforementioned reference to the necessity of being filled in order to enter the kingdom could arguably be paralleled to the frequent occasions within the New Testament when Jesus warns against the behaviors that might inhibit an individual from entering the kingdom of God. Both passages describe the kingdom as a state that necessitates a certain condition of living in order to be experienced by a person. However, the two passages vary rather significantly in their central message. The verses in the Apocryphon of James reflect a Gnostic perspective in terms of their focus on acquiring secret knowledge, and discuss a state of being. Contrastingly, the verses in the synoptic gospels discuss a way of living.

Certainly, a ban in the text on distributing the information would match Gnosticism and contradict the Christian idea of proclaiming the saving gospel to the world.
The opening of the text says,

But since you are a minister of the salvation of the saints, endeavor earnestly and take care not to rehearse this text to many - this that the Savior did not wish to tell to all of us, his twelve disciples. But blessed will they be who will be saved through the faith of this discourse.

This instruction not to rehearse the text and that the Savior didn't wish to tell the information to all of them reflects the concept of secret spiritual Gnostic knowledge.
This limitation on sharing the information, as well as the observations above, prove that the text treats "knowledge" in a secretive, Gnostic way.

Rakovsky · Feb 18, 2020

Regarding Question 1 (the addressee), the letter opens:

Translated by Marvin Meyer and Willis Barnstone
James writes to (…)thos.
Peace be with you from peace,
love from love,
grace from grace,
faith from faith,
life from holy life.

You have asked me to send you a secret book revealed to Peter and me by the master, and I could not turn you down, nor could I speak to you, so I have written it in Hebrew and have sent it to you, and to you alone. But since you are a minister of the salvation of the saints, try to be careful not to reveal to many people this book that the savior did not want to reveal even to all of us, his twelve students.
(The Secret Book of James (Meyer Translation) - The Nag Hammadi Library)

Matti Myllykoski notes in "James the Just in History and Tradition" that the addressee ends in -thos, that the text calls him a "minister of the salvation of the saints" - a term suggesting a religious leader who accepts the ideology of "salvation" that is in Christianity and in Gnosticism. He notes that Irenaeus considered Cerinthus (also spelled "Kerinthos") a Gnostic, which would fit with the apparent ideology in the text as well as the text's inclusion in the generally Gnostic Nag Hammadi codices. Myllyloski writes:

In the beginning of his discourse, James the author says that he has written the text ‘in the Hebrew alphabet’ (1.15-16) and sent it to one particular person, ‘a minister of the salvation of the saints’ (1.17-20) whose name ends with the letters thos (1.2). Schenke (1971: 119) suggests that the letter
is addressed ‘to the brother, Cerinthus’, and some scholars have embraced
this hypothesis (Kirchner 1989: 59-64 [‘durchaus möglich’—thoroughly
possible]; Pratscher 1988: 197 [‘wahrscheinlich’—probable]); Helderman
1978) would fill the gap with the words 'Cerinthus the son'. Considering the number of all possible Greek names ending in thos, the likelihood of this suggestion has also been questioned (van der Vliet 1990: 44 n. 3). Be that as it may, in third-century Egypt, Cerinthus was known as an earthly chiliast (Dionysius, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. hist. 3.28.3-5), while it was Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 1.26) who first presented him as a Gnostic teacher from Asia Minor.
(https://www.researchgate.net/public...tives_of_Past_and_Present_Scholarship_Part_II)

Since the text presents itself as a letter from James to -thos, they would have lived in the same period, around the 1st century, like Cerinthus did. The letter relates Jesus' disciples' ("the twelve students") collective reactions to James' vision and refers to the disciples - including Peter, James, and John by name - in the third person, suggesting that Cerinthus was not among Jesus' disciples.
The text presents itself as written in Hebrew, implying that the addressee knew Hebrew. Cerinthus may have known Hebrew, since he tried to talk to John in a bathhouse, although John ran out of the bathhouse because he didn't want to talk to Cerinthus. Cerinthus' knowledge of Hebrew would go along with Wikipedia's entry on Cerinthus, where it said that he demanded gentile converts undergo circumcision, suggesting conversion into Judaism:

Publication of surviving fragments of Hippolytus of Rome's (c. 170-235) Capita Adversus Caium[9] demonstrate Epiphanius drew heavily from Hippolytus' Refutation of the Thirty-two Heresies.[10]
Irenaeus writes that Cerinthus was educated in the Gnosis of the Egyptians.[11] According to Epiphanius, Cerinthus was the instigator of trouble against the Apostles Paul and Peter at Jerusalem, and had sent out men to Antioch commanding that gentile converts must be circumcised and keep the Law, prompting the convention of the Jerusalem Council (c. 50).[12] After these things, Epiphanius says that Cerinthus founded a school in the Roman province of Asia Minor, which at its height spread into the province of Galatia. According to Galatian tradition, Paul wrote his epistle to the Galatians against Cerinthus' followers who were troubling the church. ...
According to Irenaeus, his teacher Polycarp (a disciple of the Apostle John) told the story that John the Apostle rushed out of a bathhouse at Ephesus without bathing when he found out Cerinthus was inside, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is inside!"[14][15] Irenaeus also relates that John sought by proclamation of his gospel "to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men". ...
Unlike Marcion of Sinope, a 2nd-century Gnostic who was hostile to the God of the Hebrews proclaimed in the Law and prophets,[21] Cerinthus recognized Jewish scripture and professed to follow the God of the Hebrews, though Cerinthus denied that he made the world.

Like the known Cerinthus whom the evangelist John rejected, the text opposes the disciple John.
The author's choice of James as the apparent author would go along with Cerinthus as the text's real author, in that Cerinthus demanded adherence to the Torah, whereas in Galatians, Paul noted that James' party forbade Peter from eating with gentiles. Cerinthus would be naturally sympathetic to James over other apostles.

There are no other known Gnostic leaders of around the 1st century who match the elements of the text's addressee's description, the text's qualities, and the name ending (-thos), so the answer to Question 1 is that this Gnostic text must be referring to Cerinthus.

Rakovsky · Feb 18, 2020

For Question 5, in Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles, Arie W. Zwiep writes that,

according to the testimony of Irenaeus, Gnostic groupings such as the Valentinians, the Ophites and the Sethians believed that after his resurrection Jesus had conversed with his disciples for eighteen months (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 1.3.2; Cf. also Adversus haereses 1.30.14) In Ephrem's Commentary on Acts, Luke is expressly said to have written Acts against "certain imposters", who wrote out of their heads a gospel... in which they say that after the resurrection is was after eighteen months he ascended, the Firstborn, of whom his apostles write that it was after forty days exactly that he ascended into heaven". In the Ethiopic version of the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (second century C.E.) the ascension of Christ occurs 545 days (roughly equivalent with eighteen months) after his resurrection on the third day: "And when he has plundered the angel of death, he will rise on the third day and will remain in that world for five hundred and forty-five days..." In the Apocryphon of James (third century C.E.) Jesus departs after 550 days... According to the Pistis Sophia (second century C.E.?) Jesus remained in the company of his disciples eleven years after the resurrection, before (in the twelfth year) he ascended to heaven.

Zwiep does not mention other early writings having a post-resurrection time of Christ on earth being over a year, and a search online did not turn up other early documents specifying such a time period of over a year. This answers Question 5.

According to the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary (By J. D. Douglas, Merrill C. Tenney), in its section on the Gnostic texts,

A common feature of these is their presentation of revelations given to the disciples by the risen Christ in the period between the resurrection and the ascension, a period extended by the Gnostics from 40 to 550 days (or 18 months).

ie. such a period is a common feature of the Gnostic documents.

Rakovsky · Feb 18, 2020

For Question 4's part about Augustine's idea, supposing that the author sees wearing the flesh as bringing on a curse, this is different than Augustine's idea. In Augustine's theory, it is descent from Adam that brings on the curse. If wearing the flesh brought on a curse, then if a person, regardless of descent, didn't wear flesh, then the person wouldn't get the curse. In Augustine's system, one would have the inherited curse due to the inheritance regardless of wearing flesh. In Genesis, it was after Adam and Eve sinned that God made garments of skin (ie flesh) for Adam and Eve to wear. So even before the garments were made, the curse came into effect according to the Augustinian system.
Here in Genesis 3 you can see that God imposed conflict on Eve's seed and put curses on Adam and Eve before giving them garments of skin:

15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

20. And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

21. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Rakovsky · Feb 19, 2020

On a sidenote, for Question 2, it would be neat and helpful to get copies of the Greek and second Coptic copies of the First Apocalypse of James. Smith and Landau found the Greek text in 2017, but haven't translated it, and in The Woman Jesus Loved (1996) A. S. Marjanen writes that:

At present, the text is known through a single Coptic' manuscript belonging to the fifth codex of the Nag Hammadi Library. There is another Coptic version of the First Apocalypse of James which, for the time being, is neither published nor available for study. (6) This is unfortunate since the Nag Hammadi version is in some places very fragmentary, and comparison with another manuscript would be of great help in producing a more complete critical edition of the text.
Footnotes: (6) J. M. Robinson 1972-1984. That version of First Apocalypse of James is part of a manuscript which contains a copy of the Letter of Peter to Philip as well as a previously unknown dialogue between Jesus and his disciples.

In any case, it doesn't make much sense for the First Apocalypse to be the other "secret book" that James was talking about, because in the Apocryphon, James says that he himself is writing the secret book, whereas in the First Apocalypse, Jesus instructs James to be silent about the revelation but to tell Addai about it and have Addai write it down. This would contradict the idea of James writing down the First Apocalypse as the other "secret book" that the Apocryphon said that James wrote.

The beginning of the Apocryphon says:

I also sent you, ten months ago, another secret book which the Savior had revealed to me. Under the circumstances, however, regard that one as revealed to me, James; but this one .... [untranslatable fragments] ...the twelve disciples were all sitting together and recalling what the Savior had said to each one of them, whether in secret or openly, and putting it in books - But I was writing that which was in my book - lo, the Savior appeared, after departing from us while we gazed after him. And five hundred and fifty days since he had risen from the dead, we said to him...

James writing down and sending Cerinthus the First Apocalypse would contradict Jesus' order to James to be silent about it, to tell it to Addai, and to have Addai write it down ten years later.
You could theorize that the other "secret book" was written down by Addai and that James was writing a different book than that one when Jesus appeared, or you could theorize that the works were written by the same author and the author made a mistake on this point. But still, the conflict makes it unlikely that the Apocryphon is talking about this work.

I feel I answered Questions 1-3 and 5 enough.

Rakovsky · Feb 21, 2020

For Question 4, I don't think that the dwelling place or city refers to the body, because (1) the spiritual meaning of the believers' city in the NT is the Christian community, AKA the spiritual New Jerusalem. Also, (2), the Apocryphon encourages people to remain in their dwelling place or city in this passage, whereas the Apocryphon encourages believers to give up their attachment to the physical flesh.

Further, the Gnostics, being based in Egypt or perhaps even Palestine, would be unlikely to take on the later Roman Christian Augustine's theory of Adam's guilt of the original sin being passed down biologically. They would be more likely to take on the general idea that as a result of Adam's sin, sin entered the world, and hence death entered the world, as Paul stated it. Romans 5 runs:

12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13. (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 .Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

That is, sin entered into the world by Adam's sin, and sin had reign over even people who hadn't committed Adam's sin. The declaration about people who hadn't committed Adam's sin implies that they didn't actually bear personal guilt for his sin in the way that Augustine interpreted Romans 5. Augustine took it to mean that all sinned "in Adam", thereby bearing personal guilt for Adam's sin.
So the Biblical idea is that all have sinned, but not that all have sinned in Adam's way.

I don't see a clear explanation in the Apocryphon as to how exactly all have sinned, in order to compare it to Augustine's theory.
In the text, Jesus complains: " O you sinners against the spirit!" The theory could be that the soul is connected to the spirit and to the body and that it should do what the spirit wants instead of the carnal desires, and that by choosing the latter over the former, the soul sins.

But it doesn't really explicitly get into how it is that everyone is guilty of this, like whether by virtue of connection to the body they have sinned, or whether the body naturally imparts things like fear of dying that the author considers sins, or whether the author is just making a simplistic generalization about people as being sinful.

Rakovsky · Feb 22, 2020

My answer for Question 4 is that the statement "For none of those who have worn the flesh will be saved" is talking about a default condition of those who have been born in flesh. It doesn't literally and categorically mean that no one who ever wore flesh will be saved no matter what. One reason that it is not a categorical declaration is that Jesus tells the apostles in the Apocryphon that they will be saved. And Jesus indicates that He Himself will be saved, despite having worn flesh, when Jesus says before the Ascension, "From this moment on, I shall strip myself that I may clothe myself."
In the text, Jesus makes statements sometimes that people will not be saved, and then adds that there is an exception or condition whereby they will be saved, ie. that they won't be saved unless they fulfill some condition. For instance, in the Apocryphon, after saying that people won't be saved if they have worn flesh, Jesus gave a parable about a grain of wheat and tied it to the kingdom of heaven, ending with a declaration that people won't receive it unless they fulfill a certain condition, ie. gaining it through knowledge:

For the word is like a grain of wheat.when someone sowed it, he believed in it; and when it sprouted, he loved it, because he looked forward to many grains in the place of one; and when he worked it, he was saved, because he prepared it for food. Again he left some grains to sow. Thus it is also possible for you all to receive the Kingdom of Heaven: unless you receive it through knowledge, you will not be able to find it.

The concept that one cannot be saved having worn flesh unless another conditon is fulfilled, along with a parable of a grain being sown and sprouting and being among much fruit brings to mind Jesus' parable about the grain of wheat and Jesus' comparison with gaining eternal life in John 12:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

The idea is that the default condition of the grain is to abide alone, but if it dies, then it bringeth forth much fruit, which is like how in the Apocryphon the seed's sprouting is part of producing much fruit (ie. the sower "looked forward to many grains in the place of one"). And in John 12, this phenomenon is compared to gaining eternal life. Loving life in the flesh leads to death, whereas hating life in this physical world leads to keeping eternal life.

Paul apparently refers to this parable and its connection to the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:

35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Paul's analogy is even more on point with the Apocryphon. He says that the default condition is that the seed that is sown is not quickened or enlivened unless it dies. And Paul compares this to the resurrection. He writes that people have natural bodies, but the body that is raised is a spiritual body. He concludes by saying that flesh doesn't inherit the kingdom of God, but that we all shall be changed, implying that God will give us spiritual bodies in the resurrection.

So in light of these sentiments in the parables, the idea in the Apocryphon is that the default condition of a fleshly person is to die, whereas a person who exchanges their fleshly body for a spiritual body can be saved, in accordance with Jesus' declaration before the Ascension in the Apocryphon: "From this moment on, I shall strip myself that I may clothe myself."

The underlying reasoning on why being in the flesh prevents one from being saved or ascending has to do with the condition of temptation and sin in this physical world.
Darrell Bock writes in The Missing Gospels:

In Apocryphon, the soul is like a force choosing between following the spirit or the flesh. It has responsibility for the person's spiritual welfare. ... Loving the flesh involves self-protection from suffering... In 6:15-18, Jesus teaches that those who fear death will not be saved. ...in the case of the Apocryphon of James, the soul is like a judge, capable of going either way in choosing between good and evil.

Jesus' complaint in the Apocryphon, "O you sinners against the spirit! Do you even now dare to listen, when it behooved you to speak from the beginning?" is in line with the dualist understanding of the soul-body-spirit connection wherein the spirit leads to salvation whereas following the temptations of the flesh prevents it.

This dualism of spirit vs. fleshly body is more clear in the sentences surrounding the statement about none who are in the flesh being saved:

For he [God the Father] knows the desire and also that which the flesh needs. Because it is not the flesh which yearns for the soul. For without the soul the body does not sin, just as the soul is not saved without the Spirit. But if the soul is saved when it is without evil, and if the spirit also is saved, then the body becomes sinless. For it is the spirit which animates the soul, but it is the body which kills it - that is, it is the soul which kills itself. Truly I say to you, the Father will not forgive the sin of the soul at all, nor the guilt of the flesh. For none of those who have worn the flesh will be saved. For do you imagine that many have found the Kingdom of Heaven?

So: 1. The declaration "For none of those who have worn the flesh will be saved" is a statement that having been in flesh limits or prevents one from salvation.
2. It is a statement about people's default condition resulting from being in the flesh. It doesn't mean categorically that no one will be saved.
3. The underlying logic must be based on the state of the flesh in its separation from the heavenly realm. This makes sense because Jesus in the Apocryphon calls the flesh an encircling wall for the soul. ("Do you dare to spare the flesh, you for whom the spirit is an encircling wall? If you contemplate the world, how long it is before you and also how long it is after you, you will find that your life is one single day and your sufferings, one single hour.")
Plus, Paul's passage in 1 Cor 15. contrasts the earthly with the heavenly and talks about how like matches like, giving examples of corruption vs. incorruption, mortality vs. immortality.
In the passage in the Apocryphon, the saving knowledge leads to salvation and the kingdom of heaven. Also in the Apocryphon, sinfulness, fear of death, and having worn the flesh are conditions that prevent salvation. Wearing the flesh is a condition for committing sin, according to the Apocryphon, and wearing the flesh leads to death, which makes sense because physical bodies die.

Rakovsky · Feb 22, 2020

For Question 6, the reason for the apostles' anger at those who would be born is apparently jealousy. The Apocryphon ends with James and Peter having an ascent to heaven separately from the apostles, and James returning to tell the other apostles that the Lord disclosed to him and Peter about these future children:

Cameron's Translation
For the rest of the disciples called to us and questioned us: "What is it that you have heard from the Master?" And, "What has he said to you?" And, "Where has he gone?"

And we answered them: "He has ascended." And, "He has given us a pledge and has promised us all life and disclosed to us children who are to come after us, since he has bid us to love them, inasmuch as we will be saved for their sake."

And when they heard, they believed the revelation, but were angry about those who would be born. Then I, not desiring to entice them to scandal, sent each one to another place. But I myself went up to Jerusalem, praying that I may obtain a portion with the beloved who are to be revealed.

And I pray that the beginning may come from you, for thus I can be saved. Because they will be enlightened through me, through my faith and through another's which is better than mine, for I desire that mine become the lesser. Endeavor earnestly, therefore, to make yourself like them, and pray that you may obtain a portion with them. For apart from what I have recounted, the Savior did not disclose revelation to us. For their sake we proclaim, indeed, a portion with those for whom it was proclaimed, those whom the Lord has made his children.

Meyer's Translation
We answered them, “He ascended. He gave us his right hand, and promised all of us life. He showed us children coming after us, having commanded us to love them, since we are to be saved for their sakes.”

When they heard this, they believed the revelation, but they were angry about those who would be born. Not wishing to give them reason to take offense, I sent each of them to a different location. I myself went up to Jerusalem, praying that I might acquire a share with the loved ones who are to come.

I pray that the beginning may come from you. This is how I can be saved. They will be enlightened through me, by my faith, and through another’s that is better than mine. I wish mine to be the lesser.

Do your best to be like them, and pray that you may acquire a share with them. Beyond what I have said, the savior did not disclose any revelation to us on their behalf. We proclaim a share with those for whom the message was proclaimed, those whom the lord has made his children.

James says about the children who will come after the apostles:
1. James and Peter will be saved for the sake of those children.
2. The children will be enlightened through James, which brings him salvation.
3. The children will also be saved through another, whose faith enlightens them and whose faith is better than James'.
4. James tells his reader to become like the children.
5. The children will have a special portion that the reader should desire and that God proclaimed for them.
6. In Cameron's translation, the portion is apparently special because (ie. "for") the Savior didn't disclose more revelation than what James said.
7. James' desire that he wishes his own faith to be lesser than the faith of the other one recalls John the Baptist's statement that he (John) would decrease whereas Christ would increase.

The reason for the apostles' anger is not that the apostles didn't believe the revelation about the children and thought that the children's special status was false, since they believed the revelation but some quality about the children.
Based on how James described the children and their relation to him, it sounds like the issue was jealousy.
When James says that he sent each one of the apostles in his and Peter's audience to another place to avoid scandalizing them, it sounds like the text is implying that this was the reason for sending the apostles on their journeys abroad, rather than to spread the message to the gentile world.

Earlier in the Apocryphon, Jesus had told the apostles, "Therefore I say to you, for your sake I have descended. You are the beloved; you are those who will become a cause of life for many." This declaration points to Jesus aiming to save the apostles and declare them the beloved, whereas at the end of the Apocryphon, James' special revelation was that the two apostles (Peter and James in the revelation) were to be saved for the sake of the future children. That is, whereas earlier Jesus said that He descended to save the apostles, God now says that the reason for the leading apostles' salvation was to save the special group of future children.
On top of that, James ends the Apocryphon with declarations extolling the children above himself and the other apostles, like saying that the way that he is to be saved is for the other future children to be saved.
Further, the way that the unnamed other's faith is supposedly better than and distinct from James' faith could create a basis of jealousy on the part of the other disciples, since James himself was one of the disciples' main leaders next to Peter. I suppose that the unnamed person could be Peter, but since James distinguishes his faith from that of the other one and wishes that his own faith be lesser, it sounds like he is talking about someone other than Peter, who was comparable to James in leadership and who had the same basis in faith. So James in the Apocryphon could be talking about a future leader like Cerinthus as the unnamed leader.

In the Apocryphon's opening, James had said to Cerinthus,

But since you are a minister of the salvation of the saints, try to be careful not to reveal to many people this book that the savior did not want to reveal even to all of us, his twelve students.

In the opening, James is calling Cerinthus the Gnostic a minister of salvation, and in the ending, James writes,

I pray that the beginning may come from you. This is how I can be saved. They will be enlightened through me, by my faith, and through another’s that is better than mine. I wish mine to be the lesser.

In other words, James is saying that he hopes that the beginning of this process of salvation can come through Cerinthus the Gnostic, and that this can save James, implying that Cerinthus' followers are the "children" (or among them) whom James is talking about. Plus, by immediately saying that the children can be enlightened by himself and through another's, it sounds like he is talking about himself and Cerinthus, because the process of transmission of the information in the book is going from himself to Cerinthus and then on to Cerinthus' followers. As a Gnostic, Cerinthus' faith would have been quite distinct from James'. Granted, the idea of "James' faith" could mean either his doctrine (eg. Orthodoxy vs. Gnosticism) or his own particular personal belief (eg. his vs. Peter's), and if the Apocryphon were referring to the former it would be a strong basis for conflict between those of those two "faiths." But again, the apostles might not like hearing that the Gnostic Cerinthus had better personal faith than their leader, James.

So it sounds like James is referring to Cerinthus' followers because he says that they will be saved through himself and another, and he opens his Apocryphon by addressing it to Cerinthus as special information for the latter as a minister of salvation. And by saying that the apostles were angry about the future children, it sounds like the text is alluding to the conflict between Gnostic followers of Cerinthus and orthodox followers of the apostles like the apostle John, who is known to have been in conflict with Cerinthus.

So the concept of these future children having a separate faith than was better than their leader James' faith, along with the claim that James was to be saved for their sake were bases for conflict and jealously among the apostles who had James as their leader and had his faith.

I think that I've answered all the Questions in the OP well enough.

Rakovsky · Feb 28, 2020

For Question 1, as far as photos of the texts go, you can find photos of the numbered pages of the codices on the Claremont Colleges website:
Nag Hammadi Archive

You can find a typed version of the Coptic texts in:
Nag Hammadi codex I (The Jung codex), Introductions, Texts, Translations, Indices. Edited by Harold W. Attridge. Leiden: Brill.
A preview version is here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=QxGes-DvIsEC
A DJVU downloadable version is here:
Nag Hammadi Studies

You can read Attridge's book of Notes to the Codex, including on the opening to the Apocryphon:
Nag Hammadi Codex I (the Jung Codex): Notes

A Table of Contents for the Jung Codex / Codex 1, including page numbers, can be found here:
Nag Hammadi Codices

The Apocryphon of James starts on page 1 of the Codex, which can be viewed here:
Codex I, papyrus page 1 :: Nag Hammadi Archive
The Coptic text in Attridge's book of Codex I's Texts confirms that this is a photo of the opening page.

The part of the page where the letters would be for the rest of the name "----thus" (---θOC) is physically missing from the rest of the page.

Rakovsky · Mar 1, 2020

Here is a photo of the top of page 1 in Codex 1, showing the end of the addressee's name.

It's very unlikely that the reason that the name is illegible is because the institutional Church considered Cerinthus a heretic. It's unlikely that this is the reason, because: (A) such a large part of the upper left of the page is missing, and (B) The Nag Hammadi Codices include plenty of Gnostic literature that would be heretical in the eyes of the institutional Church, such as the Valentinian Exposition in Codex XI.

When I wrote that the text opposes the apostle John, I was thinking of the part that runs:

The Lord answered and said, "Do you not know that the head of prophecy was cut off with John?"
But I said, "Lord, can it be possible to remove the head of prophecy?"

But in fact this section was likely talking about John the Baptise who was beheaded by Herod.

The Apocryphon of James (1st - mid-2nd century) Questions.

Rakovsky

Active Member

Rakovsky

Active Member

Rakovsky

Active Member

Rakovsky

Active Member

Rakovsky

Active Member

Rakovsky

Active Member

Rakovsky

Active Member

Rakovsky

Active Member

Rakovsky

Active Member

Rakovsky

Active Member

Rakovsky

Active Member

Rakovsky

Active Member

Rakovsky

Active Member

Attachments