"Gospel of Judas" Errors

[Philosopher]

Since I've seen the "Gospel of Judas" mentioned here before (and sometimes cited in support of the view that Judas was actually a good guy), I figured I'd post a link to this (semi-)recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education detailing the growing consensus among scholars that the popularized translation of the text was, essentially, way off. It also details some of the ways in which the scholars called upon by National Geographic to translate and present the text were pressured to "sensationalize" or even lie for the sake of drama. Check it out here: http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i38/38b00601.htm. It's a bit long, so here are some choice excerpts:

"But almost immediately, other scholars began to take issue with the interpretation of Meyer and the rest of the National Geographic team. They didn't see a good Judas at all. In fact, this Judas seemed more evil than ever. Those early voices of dissent have since grown into a chorus, some of whom argue that National Geographic's handling of the project amounts to scholarly malpractice. It's a perfect example, critics argue, of what can happen when commercial considerations are allowed to ride roughshod over careful research."

(Something worth mentioning since many seem unaware of this: ) "There is no scholarly debate over whether the conversations in the gospel actually took place. Everyone agrees that it's fiction."

(This one seems pretty major, so I've added emphasis: ) "In another passage, the National Geographic translation says that Judas 'would ascend to the holy generation.' But DeConick says it's clear from the transcription that a negative has been left out and that Judas will not ascend to the holy generation (this error has been corrected in the second edition)."

" . . . in the documentary, there is a scene in which Meyer is standing in a burial cave in Egypt, explaining the likely story of how the codex was found. The director, according to Meyer, wanted him to say that that very cave was the cave where the codex was found. But, of course, no one knows that, and there are a lot of burial caves in Egypt. In the end, Meyer says on camera that it was probably found in a cave like the one he's standing in. The pressure to sacrifice truth for drama, he says, was constant."

Enjoy the full-length article, if you'd like!

[Warriorbird]

I tend to think a lot of stuff translated out of that period (Bible or Apocrypha) is very badly done.

[Paradii]

Is this really a fair and unbiased source?

[Philosopher]

Is this really a fair and unbiased source?
The Chronicle of Higher Education? Why think not?

Also, note the following: i) members of the original National Geographic team itself -- even those who still think that the "Gospel of Judas" presents a significantly different picture of Judas (e.g., Meyer) -- admit that there were serious flaws and that "the pressure to sacrifice truth for drama . . . was constant"; ii) National Geographic itself implicitly and/or explicitly admits that there were significant errors, as it has released (but only after this controversy) a second edition which acknowledges mistakes and corrects translation errors (such as the extremely significant omission of "not" in the portion I quoted); iii) objectively, National Geographic did impose restrictions on its scholars that are at odds with the accepted standards of the scholarly community (for example, they directly conflicted with the 1991 resolution of the Society of Biblical Literature mentioned in the article), and, again, even the members of the original team admit this.

All of the above having been said, even if there has been some bias, it's not likely to significantly affect the crucial points of the article.

[Warriorbird]

Press release from Meyer on it.

http://press.nationalgeographic.com/pressroom/index.jsp?pageID=pressReleases_detail&siteID=1&cid=1196942552919

[Philosopher]

Here's another source on this controversy, Birger A. Pearson (Professor and Directer of the Religious Studies Program at UC-Berkeley), via the Biblical Archaeology Review (34:03): http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=34&Issue=3&ArticleID=9

Some quotes from the article:

"The National Geographic scholars basically misunderstood what the Gospel of Judas is really saying. This has two aspects: first, a failure to appreciate fully the Gnostic context of the Gospel of Judas; and, second, a mistranslation of some critical passages in the text."

"There is worse to come. While it is true that only Judas knows Jesus (as indicated above), Judas has this knowledge only because he, Judas, is a demon—daimon in the Coptic text. Later in the gospel, Jesus addresses Judas as the 'thirteenth demon (daimon).' No hero here . . . daimon can only mean 'demon' in Gnostic contexts."

"That Judas will not ascend to the holy generation above is made absolutely clear: 'You will not ascend to the holy [generation]' (46:25–47:1). Unfortunately, the National Geographic translation also mistranslates this passage, simply omitting the crucial 'not.'"

"Judas is even worse than the Twelve; Jesus prophesies what Judas is going to do: 'You will do worse than all of them. For the man that clothes me, you will sacrifice him.' It is a supreme irony that Judas’s sacrifice will enable Jesus’ spirit to be freed from the body and ascend on high. Again, the National Geographic translation misfires: Instead of Jesus saying to Judas, 'You will do worse than all of them [the Twelve],' the National Geographic translation states, 'You will exceed all of them.' Building on this translation, the statement that 'you will sacrifice the man that clothes me' is taken to mean that Jesus is asking Judas to sacrifice him so that his spirit can be freed from his immortal body. But it means no such thing."

Pearson also quotes an outside source, Gesine Schenke Robinson (who himself provides a new translation of the text in the Journal for Coptic Studies), who says: "The Gospel of Judas had captivated the imagination of the first editors to a much greater extent than the text itself supports."

[Philosopher]

Press release from Meyer on it.

http://press.nationalgeographic.com/pressroom/index.jsp?pageID=pressReleases_detail&siteID=1&cid=1196942552919
Thanks for that link. Professor DeConick has an article in the Society of Biblical Literature responding to Meyer (and another National Geographic release) here: http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=743. That article provides a number of additional scholarly sources and is a nice summary of the issues that I'm so far aware of.

[Warriorbird]

It is interesting. I wish I could read Coptic.

I don't consider the Chronicle of Higher Education biased at all, btw.

[Philosopher]

It is interesting. I wish I could read Coptic.
Yeah, I suppose that's ultimately what it comes down to. Unfortunately, I can't read Coptic either; as it is, I tend to trust DeConick and colleagues right now for at least the following reasons (summed up nicely in the last link I offered):

1) the practices of the National Geographic team were clearly suspicious (no peer review, a popular/sensationalized release preceding any academic review, non-disclosure agreements, publications based on "provisional" drafts, a failure to produce photographs of the text, and obvious translation errors (cf. the omission of "not"));

2) Meyer's response tends not to deal with the actual text (e.g., the grammar and vocabulary) and resorts to being "cute" (e.g., the "Brando" stuff), whereas DeConick's response openly parses the Coptic text for all to see and explains in plain language why certain phrases apparently cannot mean what the defenders of the National Geographic translation suggest they might mean;

3) DeConick's response to Meyer answers one of his most important objections -- Meyer notes that Irenaeus had said that this gospel purported that Judas possessed special knowledge of "the mystery," but DeConick notes that even the critical edition of the NG text explains why this does not show that Judas was a good guy (the text says: "I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom, not so that you will go there, but you will grieve a great deal");

4) the other complaints of DeConick, Pearson, et. al, seem to me to be untouched by the responses from Meyer of which I am aware, and some are ultimately acknowledged by, and therefore result in changes in, the second edition of the NG text, which, oddly, National Geographic does not seem to be publicizing.

In any case, all of this certainly makes the content of the "Gospel of Judas" much less clear-cut, at least.

[Warriorbird]

I wondered a bit when I read it initially. It seemed really sensationalistic in the way it was advertised. That made me doubt it a little even though they made the text seem pretty straight.