1 Also known as or the “Preexistent One” (ϣⲟⲣⲡ̄ ⲛ̄ϣⲟⲟⲡ) and “the One Who Is” (ⲡⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ).

2 1 Apoc. Jas. is classified here as a “dialogue gospel,” as it has the central figure of Jesus speaking with a disciple, along with a narrative frame that provides a realistic historical setting. On this designation, see Sarah Parkhouse, Eschatology and the Saviour: The Gospel of Mary among Early Christian Dialogue Gospels (SNTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019).

3 For the date, see e.g., Wolf-Peter Funk, “Die erste Apokalypse des Jakobus (NHC V,3/CT 2),” in Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, Band I: Evangelien und Verwandtes (ed. Christoph Markschies and Jens Schröter; 2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 2:1152–81, at 1156.

4 The NH recension, which is rough and fragmentary, has not received a lot of scholarly attention. The only published monograph is Armand Veilleux, La Première Apocalypse de Jacques (NH V, 3); La Seconde Apocalypse de Jacques (NH V, 4) (BCNHT 17; Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1986). Codex Tchacos is in better condition but was only published in 2007. The Greek manuscript was recently discovered in Oxford by Geoffrey Smith and Brent Landau and presented for the first time at the 2017 SBL Nag Hammadi and Gnosticism meeting. It has not yet been published. The Coptic texts can be found in William R. Schoedel, “(First) Apocalypse of James,” in Nag Hammadi Codices V,2–5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4 (ed. D. M. Parrott; NHS 11; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 68–103; The Gospel of Judas: Critical Edition (ed. Rodolphe Kasser and Gregor Wurst; Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2007) 120–61.

5 On 1 Apoc. Jas. as a Valentinian text, see e.g., Einar Thomassen, “Notes pour la délimitation d’un corpus valentinien à Nag Hammadi,” in Les Textes de Nag Hammadi et le problème de leur classification (ed. Louis Painchaud and Anne Pasquier; BCNHE 3; Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1995) 243–63. Recently, however, Thomassen has changed his mind about whether 1 Apoc. Jas. is Valentinian and argued that the text uses Valentinian sources (including that which Irenaeus used for his description of the ritual) but did not necessarily ascribe to Valentinian theology itself (Einar Thomassen, “The Valentinian Materials in James [NHC V,3 and CT,2],” in Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels [ed. Eduard Iricinschi et al.; Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity 82; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013] 79–90).

6 Brankaer and Bethge argue that the implicit reader/hearer must be familiar with the Achamoth-Jesus myth, and James also displays knowledge of the myth by asking about femininity (Johanna Brankaer and Hans-Gebhard Bethge, Codex Tchacos: Texte und Analysen [TU 161; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007] 163–254, at 166).

7 It also shares connections with other “noncanonical” gospels such as Wis. Jes. Chr. and Ap. Jas. An unexplained reference is to the seven female disciples that James asks about and that the reader should presumably know about. Seven female disciples are found in Wis. Jes. Chr., though represented differently, which might suggest a common tradition that predates either writing. See Antti Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved: Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents (NHS 40; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 71. Ap. Jas. refers to another “apocryphon” in which Jesus has taught James (alone) what to say before the archons (8.31–36). Hartenstein argues that the only way to make sense of these statements in Ap. Jas. is as a reference to 1 Apoc. Jas. (Judith Hartenstein, Die zweite Lehre [TUGAL 146; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000] 229–32).

8 Luke 23:34 is missing in a number of important early manuscripts, which raises the question of which version of Luke 1 Apoc. Jas. had available. On Luke 23:34a in early Christian literature, see Nathan Eubank, “A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a,” JBL 129 (2010) 521–36.

9 Wolf-Peter Funk, “The Significance of the Tchacos Codex for Understanding the First Apocalypse of James,” in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008 (ed. April DeConick; NHMS 71; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 509–33, at 527. Petersen does not make this connection but does raise the point that 1 Apoc. Jas. uses “normal human beings” from the NT in connection with the cosmological process (Silke Petersen, “ ‘Die sieben Frauen—sieben Geistkräfte sind sie’. Frauen und Weiblichkeit in der Schrift ‘Jakobus’ [CT 2] und der [ersten] Apokalypse des Jakobus [NHC V,3],” in Judasevangelium und Codex Tchacos. Studien zur religionsgeschichtlichen Verortung einer gnostischen Schriftensammlung [ed. Enno Edzard Popkes and Gregor Wurst; WUNT 297; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012] 189–211, at 205–6). For other interpretations of the number seventy-two in 1 Apoc. Jas., see Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 181 n. 78.

10 Examples of this include the Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas, the martyrdom of Blandina and the Martyrdom of Montanus and Lucius, which will all be discussed later in this article.

11 On the reception of John in the 2nd and 3rd cents., see e.g., Titus Nagel, Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert. Studien zur vorirenäischen Auslegung des vierten Evangeliums in christlicher und christlisch-gnostischer Literatur (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 2; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstal, 2000); Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel (ed. Tuomas Rasimus; NovTSup 132; Leiden: Brill, 2010).

12 E.g., Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 163–254; Funk, “The Significance of the Tchacos Codex,” 509–33; Lance Jenott, “Reading Variants in James and the Apocalypse of James: A Perspective from New Philology,” in Snapshots of Evolving Traditions (ed. Liv Ingeborg Leid and Hugo Lundhaug; TU 175; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017) 55–84.

13 Possible examples of editing in line with Johannine themes include: “I am second from the One Who Is” (CT 10.18–19) and “[I] am before you” (NH 24.25–26), in which the NH version may suggest redaction in line with John 1:15, 30; and “I am the Son” (CT 20.12) and “I am a Son” (NH 33.16–17), in which the CT version is more Johannine. There do not appear to be consistent signs of one Coptic version amplifying the Johannine language or motifs over the other version; see e.g., nn. 25, 28, 30, 43, 44, 46, 66, 67.

14 See Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett, “Reflections on Method: What Constitutes Use of the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers?,” in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (ed. Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tuckett; The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers 1; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 61–82.

15 This mode of “reception” might be compared to “rewritten Bible.” Brakke argues that many writings of the New Testament and noncanonical gospels were written through “received scriptures [that] provided the materials for the writing of new revelations … often provoked through scriptural study” (David Brakke, “Scriptural Practices in Early Christianity: Towards a New History of the New Testament Canon,” in Invention, Rewriting, Usurpation: Discursive Fights over Religious Traditions in Antiquity [ed. Jörg Ulrich, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, and David Brakke; Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity 11; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012] 263–80, at 274). On a free use of sources in antiquity, see e.g., John Whittaker, “The Value of Indirect Tradition in the Establishment of Greek Philosophical Texts, or the Art of Misquotation,” in Editing Greek and Latin Texts: Papers given at the Twenty-Third Annual Conference on Editorial Problems; University of Toronto 6–7 November 1987 (ed. John N. Grant; New York: AMS, 1989) 63–95.

16 Brankaer and Bethge have also noted similarities between John and the CT version of 1 Apoc. Jas., such as the departure of Jesus, his death (or his “lot”) enabling his ascension, James as “the other Paraclete,” and Jesus’s dignified death as comparable to Jesus’s in John 18:1–8 (Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 196, 199, 208, 253).

17 Although there are “no clear quotations or allusions,” knowledge of the canonical gospels is likely due to the presumed time of composition and the references to the basic story (e.g., James, disciples, passion) (Hartenstein, Die zweite Lehre, 211).

18 Ibid., 212. Other connections to John 20:14–18 include: 1) the use of the name “Rabbi”; 2) James embracing Jesus, which contrasts to the “do not touch me” of John 20:17; and 3) Jesus calling James “the one who saw (ⲛⲁⲩ) me” (NH 32.4) and Mary saying “I saw (ⲛⲁⲩ) the Lord” (John 20:18). Hartenstein also notes connections to themes in the farewell discourse, such as the “comforter” of 1 Apoc. Jas. being reminiscent of the Johannine παράκλητοζ, as well as Jesus originating from and returning to the Preexistent Father, and the preparation of the way through Jesus. For the Coptic version of John, see G. W. Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Otherwise Called Sahidic and Thebaic, vol. III (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911).

19 Hartenstein., 214.

20 Mikael Haxby, “The First Apocalypse of James: Martyrdom and Sexual Difference” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2013) 67–71. The reception of John extends beyond chs. 7–8, as 1 Apoc. Jas. uses the distinctively Johannine terminology of “the ones who are mine and not mine” (cf. 11.5–7) from John 1:11–12. This “connects a set of themes regarding the children of God, the reception of Christ, and the recognition of the people who are one’s own” (Ibid., 70).

21 Ibid., 78.

22 The “ethical program” discussed in Haxby’s work is not relevant for this paper, as 1 Apoc. Jas. does not focus on moral formation but on knowledge.

23 John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 493.

24 Marinus de Jonge, Jesus, Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and the Christians in Johannine Perspective (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977). Also, Wayne A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL 91 (1972) 44–72.

25 The NH version reads: “I am not ignorant about you, so that when I give you a sign, know and listen” (24.16–19). Jenott writes: “Whereas NHC V is ambiguous as to what James needs to learn, the version in CT states that the solution to his self-ignorance is to learn about Jesus” (Jenott, “Reading Variants,” 68). Brankaer and Bethge argue that in CT knowledge is seen as a part of or a condition of salvation, whereas in the NH knowledge is the goal of salvation (Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 176).

26 Haxby, “First Apocalypse of James,” esp. 69. Thomassen points toward non-Christian materials as the inspiration behind this dialogue in 1 Apoc. Jas.—for example, the Orphic Gold Tablets (Einar Thomassen, “Gnostics and Orphics,” in Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity: Studies in the History of Religions in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer [ed. Jitse Dijkstra, Justin Kroesen, and Yme Kuiper; SHR 127; Leiden: Brill, 2010] 463–74; and, more recently, idem, “Valentinian Materials in James”).

27 As John 7:53–8:11 is not part of the original text, 8:12 presumably continues in the temple; cf. 8:59.

28 The NH version reads “I am a Son” (NH 33.16–17), likewise the Irenaean parallel reads “a Son” (cf. Epiphanius Pan. 36.3.2). This may suggest that CT has been redacted toward John. Interrogations concerning one’s heavenly origins and destination are also found in Gos. Thom. 50 and Gos. Mary 15.13–16.16. 1 Apoc. Jas. is particularly close to John due to the echo of John 1:11.

29 This reiterates the earlier passage in 1 Apoc. Jas. that Jesus has descended to show the children of the One Who Is “what is theirs and what is not theirs (ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲩ ⲁⲛ ⲛ[ⲉ])” (11.6–7). The addition of “those who are not mine” is then qualified, as James explains that even those produced from Achamoth alone ultimately stem from the Preexistent Father, because he created Achamoth (21.8–15).

30 The CT version does not read ⲁⲕⲉⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ or ⲉⲃⲟⲗ, but rather ⲁⲕⲉⲓ ⲉ, in the sense of “came to” rather than “descended” (15.2–5).

31 For this translation, see Funk, “Significance of the Tchacos Codex,” 522.

32 Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 192.

33 The consequences are also different: In the NH, James says that he can remember some things beyond the archontic realm. In CT, however, those who are his are ignorant of him.

34 “Most of the judges realized that he had no sin and released him. And the others and all the people stood and said, ‘Take him away from the earth! He is unworthy to live!’ ” (30.8–13).

35 In John, the “Jews” are a rhetorical trope that represent the “world” (κόσμοζ), in opposition to Jesus’s followers and heaven. For a detailed analysis of how these concepts are used throughout John, see Lars Kierspel, The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context (WUNT 2/220; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). In Reinhartz’s recent study, she argues that John’s anti-Judaism is central to the Gospel’s theology and rhetorical program, and John’s Ἰουδαῖοι are not an ethnic or religious category but a rhetorical one (Adele Reinhartz, Cast Out of the Covenant: Jews and Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of John [Lanham, MD: Fortress Academic, 2018]).

36 Thomassen argues that the use of the toll-collector topos in 1 Apoc. Jas. indicates that it “was not composed by somebody who upheld a Valentinian type of theology” (Thomassen, “Valentinian Materials in James,” 84). It also appears in the Nag Hammadi Apoc. Paul, in which the toll-collector converses with the soul regarding its sins (20.16), and later the toll-collector of the sixth heaven opens the gate for Paul to pass through (22.20). It is also found in Acts Thom. A 48 and (Pseudo-)Cyril, Hom. Div. 14: εὑρίσκει τε τελώνια φυλάττοντα τὴν ἄνοδον (PG 77.1073.42), and a comparable idea is in Athanasius’s Life of Antony 65.

37 τελώνηζ appears repeatedly throughout the Synoptic Gospels but is nowhere in John. This is another example of 1 Apoc. Jas.’s knowledge of Synoptic (probably Lukan) traditions.

38 Origen’s homilies on Luke are only extant in Jerome’s Latin, with a few Greek catena fragments. The Greek parallel to the above quotation is largely the same but without the sentence: “It seems to me that ‘the ruler of the world’ is like a toll-collector.” The link is implied but not stated. See Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-Kommentars (ed. M. Rauer; vol. 9 of Origenes Werke; 2nd ed.; GCS 49 [35]; Berlin: Akademie, 1959) 144. The English translation of the Latin is taken from Origen, Homilies on Luke (trans. Joseph T. Lienhard; FC 94; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996) 99–100.

39 There is also a missionary aspect to Jesus’s appearance, which will bring many to faith and knowledge (16.8–15).

40 Karen King points out that 1 Apoc. Jas. does not attest to Christ’s death as atoning sacrifice (Karen L. King, “Martyrdom and Its Discontents in the Tchacos Codex,” in Codex Judas Papers [ed. DeConick], 24–25). The same point has been made for John, for which the purpose of Jesus’s death is the culmination of the revelation that he is the Son of God. Bultmann writes that “the thought of Jesus’ death as an atonement for sin has no place in John” (Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament [trans. Kendrick Grobel; 2 vols.; London: SCM, 1958] 2:54). Although he concedes that such understanding can be read into John (1:29; 3:16; 17:9, etc.), it is a foreign element and does not cohere with the soteriology of the majority of the gospel. Also, M. C. de Boer, Johannine Perspectives on the Death of Jesus (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996).

41 These passages are lost in CT due to the fragmentary state of p. 14.

42 Judith L. Kovacs, “ ‘Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out’: Jesus’ Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12:20–36,” JBL 114 (1995) 227–47.

43 The NH version reads: “I am he who was within me” (31.17–18).

44 The NH version reads: “Never have I suffered in any way, nor have I been distressed. And these people have done me no harm. But this existed [as] a type of the archons, and it deserved to be [destroyed] through them” (31.18–26). The reconstruction of “it was fitting” in CT matches “it deserved” in NH.

45 For example, Veilleux, Première apocalypse de Jacques, 84. John, likewise, has been seen as docetic (see Hill, Johannine Corpus, 278–88, with references to the literature). Reading this passage in this way suggests that Jesus’s resurrected “self” does not have a body, which is not the case, as will be discussed later.

46 Both corresponding references in CT do not use the word “sufferings,” but “these things” (19.11–12; 19.24). Similarly, where Jesus reappears to James, in CT, James says, “I heard what you endured” (17.24), whereas in NH, James says, “I heard of your sufferings (ⲙ̄ⲕⲟⲟϩ)” (31.6–7). CT may downplay Jesus’s suffering, but this would require a longer study.

47 de Boer, Johannine Perspectives.

48 Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 253.

49 Haxby, “First Apocalypse of James,” 54–55.

50 The term “martyrdom” here does not necessitate any particular understanding of Christ’s death or the deaths of his followers. For martyrdom and the Tchacos Codex, see King, “Marytrdom and Its Discontents,” 24–25.

51 Candida R. Moss, Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions (ABRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012) 160.

52 The Latin text and translation is taken from Thomas J. Heffernan, The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 100–135.

53 The Letter of the Church of Lyons and Vienne is taken from Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.1.1–65.

54 The Martyrdom of Saints Montanus and Lucius 21.4; Musurillo, 234–35.

55 In many ways, 1 Apoc. Jas. is more akin to Epicurus and the Stoic school in their teaching of self-mastery. Epictetus describes “a ‘self’ unaffected by pain or suffering. Only virtue and vice mattered; pain belonged to that large category of things outside a person’s control and was therefore an indifferent” (Judith Perkins, The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era [London: Routledge, 1995] 80).

56 Ibid., 119–20.

57 Paul Middleton, “Overcoming the Devil in the Acts of the Martyrs,” in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Chris Keith and Loren T. Stuckenbruck; WUNT 2/417; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016) 357–74, at 360.

58 John 12:33 reads, “He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die.”

59 In John, Jesus will prepare (ⲥⲃ̄ⲧⲉ) a “place” (ⲙⲁ), whereas in 1 Apoc. Jas., he will prepare (ⲥⲃⲧⲉ) the “inheritance” (ⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲥ). The two concepts largely correspond, as the inheritance is the hoped-for destiny or destination after death. This is the way that Ignatius uses the word κλῆροζ (Ign. Trall. 12.3; Ign. Rom. 1.2).

60 Reimund Bieringer, “ ‘I Am Ascending to My Father and Your Father, to My God and Your God’ (John 20:17): Resurrection and Ascension in the Gospel of John,” in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John (ed. Helmut Koester and Reimund Bieringer; WUNT 1/222; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 209–35, at 232.

61 Jesus’s return can and has been read in two ways: as a proximate postresurrection appearance and as the more-distant Parousia (Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 437–39). 1 Apoc. Jas. narrates only a postresurrection appearance adjacent to the crucifixion and is not interested in a future coming of Christ.

62 John 20:17 has no parallel in the Synoptics or in the tradition and so is likely the work of the evangelist. See Bieringer, “Resurrection and Ascension,” 218–20. Cf. Ashton: “In 20:17 there is no reference to the Son of Man and the context indicates the use of an old ascension tradition” (Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 248 n. 18). Also, according to Mohri, 20:17 preserves an ancient tradition that is kept because it is close to John’s thinking (Erika Mohri, Maria Magdalena. Frauenbilder in Evangelientexten des 1. bis 3. Jahrhunderts [Marburger theologische Studien 63; Marburg: Elwert, 2000] 140).

63 The majority of patristic writers that engage with this verse assume touch to be physical; see e.g., Tertullian, Prax., 25.8; Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Dialogue, 3.12; Ephrem, Commentary on Diatessaron 21.26; Epiphanius, Pan., 26.15.5. Lehtipuu writes: “No patristic commentator to my knowledge tries to solve the problem [of John 20:17] by interpreting the verb ἅπτομαι as something else than referring to touching” (Outi Lehtipuu, “ ‘I have not yet ascended to the Father’: On Resurrection, Bodies, and Resurrection Bodies,” in “Noli me tangere” in Interdisciplinary Perspective: Textual, Iconographic and Contemporary Interpretations [ed. Reimund Bieringer, Barbara Baert, and Karlijn Demasure; BETL 283; Leuven: Peeters, 2016], 43–59, at 47).

64 On the multiple scholarly explanations of the syntax of 20:17 and the use of the word “touch,” see Bieringer, “Resurrection and Ascension in the Gospel of John.”

65 Ibid., 210.

66 CT 17.19–22: “In the midst of this prayer Jesus appeared to him. And he stopped his prayer (and) began to take him (into his arms).” The language of “Lord” in NH is closer to John 20.

67 CT 19.1–2: “As for me, he embraced me and kissed me.” Luttikhuizen sees these details as proof of Jesus’s bodily resurrection and the kiss as a ritual kiss (Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, “Vor- und nachösterliche Herrenworte in der 1. Offenbarung des Jakobus, NHC, V,3,” in Der Gottesspruch in der koptischen Literatur. Hans-Martin Schenke zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. W. Beltz; Halle: Druckerei der Martin-Luther-Universität, 1994] 93–95).

68 Hartenstein, Die zweite Lehre, 207.

69 Brankaer and Bethge, Codex Tchacos, 209.

70 In other works, Origen gives different explanations for the words “Do not touch me.” See Joseph Crehan, “The Dialektos of Origen and John 20:17,” JTS 11 (1950) 368–73.

71 Entretien d’Origène avec Héraclide et les évêques ses collègues sur le Père, le Fils, et l’âme (ed. and trans. Jean Scherer; SC 67; Paris: Cerf, 1960) 72.

72 Outi Lehtipuu, Debates over the Resurrection of the Dead (OECS; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) 168.

73 See, e.g., David Brakke, Talking Back: A Monastic Handbook for Combating Demons (Cistercian Studies Series 229; Collegeville, MN.: Liturgical Press, 2009) 1–40.

74 Hugo Lundhaug and Lance Jenott, The Monastic Origins of the Nag Hammadi Codices (Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity 97; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015).

75 Origenist or anti-Origenist redaction of Nag Hammadi literature is an avenue worth researching, as shown by Geoffrey Smith, “Anti-Origenist Redaction in the Fragments of the Gospel of Truth (NHC XII,2): Theological Controversy and the Transmission of Early Christian Literature,” HTR 110 (2017) 46–74. However, the two examples mentioned above at which 1 Apoc. Jas. and Origen provide similar readings of John are consistent in both Coptic recensions of 1 Apoc. Jas. and therefore do not point to a clear case of Origenist redaction.

76 Other connections with Origenism might be the ontological connection between Christ and humanity, as Origen saw the Word as one of the preexistent rational souls (e.g., Princ. 2.9.6); forgetfulness of God in laziness (Princ. 1.4.1); a spiritual interpretation of the parousia as the manifestation of Jesus’s divinity to all people that will result in recognition of their true character; reabsorption into God; and Christ returning in the body, as the soul needs a body in material places (Cels. 7.32).