A title printed above an ancient text looks like part of the text itself. Sometimes that assumption needs checking. The Apocryphon of James provides a compact example of how an edition’s presentation can differ from the surviving manuscript evidence.
Start with what the reference says
Julia Lindenlaub’s NASSCAL entry places the work as the second tractate in Nag Hammadi Codex I. It notes that the surviving manuscript lacks a title and distinguishes its fourth-century date from the debated date of composition.
Those are separate pieces of information. Neither the familiar modern title nor the date of the surviving copy should silently answer every question about the work’s origin.
Give your notes three headings
Use “title in this edition”, “surviving witness” and “composition proposed by the source”. Under the third heading, retain uncertainty and the scholar’s reasoning where available.
If you have consulted only a reference entry, say so. Do not imply that you independently examined the Coptic manuscript or all the studies in its bibliography.
Read the introduction as part of the edition
An editor may explain how a title was chosen and what evidence supports a date. That explanation deserves attention before you summarise the text’s history in one confident sentence.
The same distinction is developed in our guide to dating the text and the copy. A clear uncertainty is more informative than a falsely exact timeline.