Apocryphal Gospel Titles in Coptic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is interesting and well documented, but every now and then it takes things for granted. Since the volume is not entirely dedicated to Coptic manuscript tradition, especially at the beginning the author should better orientate the reader.
The following revisions are suggested:
1) The first 2 sentences of the abstract are a bit cryptic. It is suggested to re-formulate in a clearer way.
2) A brief definition of what an apocryphon gospel is would be useful. Not all reader are expert of apocrypha.
3) The author should explain why he includes in his analysis also the Gospel of Mani and the Gospel of Lots of Mary, both belonging to other categories of texts (the latter is not even a literary text) and are not considered by the scholarly community as apocryphal gospels. The use of the term "gospel" is clearly not a sufficient conditio. A convincing explanation is required.
4) the formula "in peace" cannot be considered a colophon. There are same basic elements that a colophon should have to be considered as such. On colophons there are many recent publications and reflections, among which those promoted by the Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures, Hamburg University. See also the definition of colophon in "Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies. A Handbook".
5) the author should explain what (s)he meas with the expression "colophon title", that is not commonly used. Introducing new terminology requires a theoretical reflection and certainly at least an explenation. The same with "incipit title".
Author Response
Response to review attached
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
As the title suggests, this article takes up the titles of apocryphal gospels in Coptic manuscripts through ca. 500 CE. After a brief introduction, the article outlines the methodology that it will use and places this study in the context of other scholarship on early Christian gospel titles in the process. The heart of the article as well as its chief contributions are to be found in sections 3 and 4. In section 3, the author considers titles of apocryphal gospels in Coptic that have a close relationship to the titles of canonical gospels outlined in section 2. After examining five texts in section 3, the following section considers titles that are less closely related to what was apparently becoming a dominant title form. The study is carefully argued with detailed attention paid to the grammar and ambiguities in the Coptic titular tradition.
There is much to be commended in the article.
The study highlights the value of paying attention to the titles given to texts by ancient scribes. The author notes that a dominant title form in Greek manuscripts was “Gospel according to NAME,” where the name ascribed the gospel to a particular author or editor. Implicit in such a title was the source of authority, which is most often to be understood as Jesus himself. Thus the titles of the gospels may be interpreted as a theological claim in which the source of authority and the human transmitter of that authority can be found. A similar structure is found in several of the Coptic gospels studied by the author. Perhaps most surprisingly, the structure is also found in a text which is given the title “Apocryphon of John.” The author thus argues that the title of the Apocryphon of John suggests that the following text should be understood as a gospel. The author’s attention to grammatical ambiguity is on display when exploring the title of the Gospel of Judas, which may be understood as the Gospel about Judas or the Gospel written by Judas depending on how one interprets the genitive and Judas’s role in the story. Finally, the author argues that a text which contains the word “Gospel” in the title should not be understood as a gospel. In addition to the generic differences between the Gospel of the Lots of Mary and other gospels, the author points out that the structure of the title differs and thus suggests that something else is going on in this text.
In addition, a potential avenue for further research is mentioned but is not fully integrated into the current study, namely, the use of titles within the running text or in locations besides the incipit and subscription (p. 13). This study may thus not only have value in itself but may also encourage future research for its readers.
Nevertheless, I wondered if it might be possible to offer readers one further word about the significance of the study following the summary at the end of the article. Given the length of the study, such a statement might be kept quite brief. Yet the presence of such a statement might offer the author an additional opportunity to allow readers to evaluate the article’s importance after reading the article.
Finally, I noticed a few small typographical errors that might be addressed in the manuscript.
Page 8, line 302: The first and second text --> The first and second texts
Page 11, line 470: Homily on the Farther of Truth --> Homily on the Father of Truth
Page 11, line 471: I am able to --> I am able to do
Author Response
Response to review attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
See attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to review attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
