"My main reason for branding it a hoax it that it contains an outstanding grammatical error at 48.18, TOU-, instead of correct TREU-, and that this exact error is found in an almost identical passage in the Codex II version of the Apocryphon of John, at 24.34, where AJ reads TOU- instead of correct TREU-. This fact to me indicates that a writer was familiar with one defective version of AJ (the Codex II version) - there are two other copies without this error - and this Codex II version, first published in 1963 is quite familiar to all modern students of Coptic and is the root of the error now found in the Judas Gospel."Post '63? I'm not in any position to comment on the strengths or otherwise of Arthur's objections, but it'd probably be true to say that he's flying in the face of the sacred consensus as Judas has been widely accepted as authentic (in the sense of at least being an ancient document), appearing in English versions by a veritable "who's who" including Marvin Meyer (Nag Hammadi Scriptures), Willis Barnstone (Restored New Testament), Karen King, DeConick and the original National Geographic translation team (which included Meyer, and is freely available online.)
So, if Arthur is correct, does this mean Judas should sit alongside the Secret Gospel of Mark on the shelf labelled 'suspected hoax'?