Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Judas

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey Nick ... find the same sort of concept in the other Gnostic gospels; for instance in the Gospel of Thomas whereby we find Thomas and a very few others are
    Message 1 of 48 , Dec 2, 2007
      Hey Nick

      >>>But it's not unusaul to find this sort of denunciation, you can
      find the same sort of concept in the other Gnostic gospels; for
      instance in the Gospel of Thomas whereby we find Thomas and a very
      few others are represented as having a true understanding of what
      Jesus teaches; whereas the other disciples are used to represent the
      wrong teachings of those that would come to represent the orthodox
      Christian faith.<<<

      This is true, but in Judas we are still left with an important
      difficulty that Lady Cari points out which doesn't exist in these
      other examples. I have now read four translations of the passage,
      three from National Geographic, and one from Dr DeConick. Let me
      copy two from Lady Cari's post.....

      National Geographic:

      Jesus answered and said, "You will become the thirteenth, and you
      will be cursed by the other generations—and you will come to rule
      over them. In the last days they will curse your ascent [47] to the
      holy [generation]."


      Critical Edition (pgs. 211-12):

      Jesus answered and said, "You will become the thirteenth, and you
      will be cursed by the other generations, and you will come to rule
      over them. In the last days they (will---) to you, and (that?) you
      will not ascend on high to the holy [generation]."

      So, does it say he will, or will NOT ascend to the Holy Generation?
      Both of these translations are from the National Geographic team, as
      is one other version that I read. Dr Deconick sides with the
      Critical Edition, essentially. If this latter version is the
      accurate one it could be a big deal. It implies Judas is not saved
      in spite of his knowledge (which, we may point out, goes against
      some assumptions many people have about Gnostic soteriology... but
      that is another conversation). Of course, in spite of Jesus'
      statement here, at the end of the book Judas does indeed seem to
      rise in imagery that evokes the rise into the Aeonic realm, but
      there are some key lines missing so it is hard to be sure exactly
      what is going on.

      PMCV
    • pmcvflag
      Hey Sean and Gerry Sean ... both versions of this gospel work for me. I guess I have been moving further away from the literalism I was bought up with. I think
      Message 48 of 48 , Jan 3, 2008
        Hey Sean and Gerry

        Sean

        >>>It might be just crazy logic on my part, but I am finding that
        both versions of this gospel work for me. I guess I have been moving
        further away from the literalism I was bought up with. I think I am
        seeing them both as, myths with a message. I can see messages in
        both versions that work for me.

        I think that they are both myths and neither one is the literal
        truth. Hmmm... I feel strange putting my thinking into these
        words.<<<

        I agree with you and Gerry on this. It doesn't matter to me which
        turns out to be true. They both "work for me" as you put it. From a
        mythological POV, both readings seem to hold value.

        On the other hand you mention feeling strange about stating this,
        Sean. I don't know your thinking or feelings on the issue, but I can
        think of one thing that would make me feel uncomfortable about
        putting both versions on equal ground based on whether they "work
        for me". Imagine a person who hears what they wish from all the
        people around them. Are they really communicating? This could be as
        simple as "I want a cookie" and the person answering may say yes or
        may say no, but we hear yes either way (like the example in the
        Symposium). Or worse, imagine a person on a date who asks the other
        person for sex and only hears the answer they want whether it is the
        answer the other person intends or not. Is hearing what "works for
        me" always good?

        I think the fact that they are myths with a message is generally
        agreed, but does that mean we shouldn't worry about the intent of
        the author of the myth at hand? Many readers may assume that texts
        like these are a one way communication, take what you will and no
        harm done (as Sylvia Browne would tell us). I contend that there is
        still a two way communication, and the primary value is not one
        sided.

        I am interested in the mythological value and how it works for us
        all on various levels. I simply mean to interject that the issue of
        what the author intended is not valueless.

        >>>It doesn't look like crazy logic at all. I find myself very much
        in agreement with your comments. I think that what prompted my
        initial reservations with Dr. DeConick's position on this subject
        was that she seemed to come across as saying that National
        Geographic's preliminary interpretation of the gospel was NOT
        Gnostic while hers WAS. That struck me as quite strange since I had
        no problem seeing that a "good" Judas might have indeed been the
        sort of twist on a traditional story that we might have expected
        from Gnostic authors. As I think I mentioned earlier, however,
        after finally seeing DeConick's actual translation, I believe that
        her version flows much more naturally—unlike the NG version that did
        come across as a plausible Gnostic redaction, but nevertheless left
        me with some nagging questions.<<<

        I think I had the same reservations as you, Gerry. As I have read
        her book I have found some of those reservations answered. I have to
        admit, though, I am still finding some problems. As far as the issue
        of translation, I think DeConick has made some solid points. For
        instance, when I read about Seth and Jesus as Archons in the NG
        translation it hit me as very odd. DeConick's explination hit
        something that was already nagging me.

        On the other hand, I find myself wondering about some of her methods
        when she is using the same format she says she is fighting against.
        For instance, she debates the word "exceed" (56), and says it should
        be "do worse than". She says that "exceed" could be taken
        positively, as in "to do better", and she is against that. The
        problem is that she is slanting the translation just as much as the
        version she is debating.

        To me, the word "exceed" could be good or bad. One could exceed at
        evil as much as good. While I see her point, I don't want her to
        figure the context for me if she is accusing the other translators
        of doing the same. If the word itself can be taken two ways, a good
        translator will not change that even if the context seems obvious.
        Even without knowing Coptic I can see that "do worse than" is just
        as poor translation as the version she is fighting. Her point is
        strong, but it is also strong against herself.

        She has made some important points about the possible evil of Judas
        in this text, but I still have problems with her assumption about
        the term "Daimon". In a way this point may seem unimportant. It
        really may not mean anything in this particular debate. However, the
        way she framed the issue seems to extend beyond this particular
        topic.

        I guess what I am saying is that I think my reservations about her
        points are the same as the ones you express. Her points could be
        right, but her methods of reaching those points raise some red
        flags. I am not yet past those red flags.

        PMCV

        PMCV
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.