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

Re: Judas

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... First, I d like to briefly discuss the names or aspects given to the demiurge. They vary, but still indicate the demiurge. IOW, PMCV, in response to your
    Message 1 of 48 , Dec 11, 2007

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
      > Hey Lady Cari
      > Sorry I didn't get to this one the other day. I will try to get to
      > your most recent ones day after tomorrow.
      > >>>PMCV, April DeConick covers this argument on pages 110-13 of The
      > Thirteenth Apostle. Texts she discusses regarding the number
      > thirteen are Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, Apocalypse of
      > Adam, and Zostrianos. Dr. DeConick goes into much more detail, but
      > briefly -- In Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, Ialdabaoth
      > and assistants Saklas and Nebruel, reside above the cosmos in the
      > thirteenth realm. She says that Apocalypse of Adam "is predicated
      > on a universe consisting of `thirteen kingdoms' that are ruled by
      > the Archons," and they "are contrasted with the holy `generation
      > without a king' above them." In Zostrianos, an initiate's soul
      > ascends "through the thirteen realms populated by the demonic
      > Archons."<<<
      > I am skimming the "Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit" (which
      > most of us likely know as the "Gospel of the Egyptians") and I am
      > not seeing this. I could be missing it, though. The mention
      > of "thirteen" does not look as wholely demonic as she seems to
      > suggest. It states there are thirteen Aeons that do seem to have
      > some Archon like qualities, but they are saved. And twelve Archons
      > (with Sakla being the first... and the name Ialdabaoth not being
      > mentioned so far as I see). I have previously mentioned the problem
      > I see with Zostrianos and the Apoc of Adam as examples. In other
      > words, as I look at the texts themselves I am not seeing what Dr
      > DeConick seems to say is there. I am not seeing one single example
      > where it is stated that Ialdabaoth is the Thirteenth Demon. I am not
      > saying it doesn't exist, just that these specific examples don't
      > really seem to support her statement.
      > If we simply think of the number thirteen, then you and I have both
      > provided examples where it seems to talk about the Archons, or in
      > other cases the Aeons. She doesn't simply say that in some texts
      > there are 13 kingdoms of Archons though there are other texts where
      > there are this many Aeons (BOTH being "Sethian" in category), but
      > instead she goes much farther into making a specific equation that
      > she seems to feel is an obvious point.
      > When you look at the texts she sites as examples, do you feel her
      > points are there? Do these examples demonstrate the point in your
      > view? I am not sure either way. I reserve the right to change my
      > mind pending further evidence.

      First, I'd like to briefly discuss the names or aspects given to the demiurge.  They vary, but still indicate the demiurge.  IOW, PMCV, in response to your correctly pointing out lack of certain names mentioned,… what is in a name?


      A few examples:

      In Sethian literature we see Ialdabaoth (or Yaldabaoth, etc.), also named Sakla and Samael in The Secret Book of John.


      In the Gospel of Judas we see a demiurge with fiery face and bloody countenance reminiscent of the demiurge in The Secret Book of John called Nebro and also named Yaldabaoth by others.  Sakla (or Saklas) is an attendant in this case along with six angels, who produce 12 angels.


      In The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit we see mention of Sakla and his sidekick Nebruel, the great demon, producing twelve angels to reign over twelve realms.  They are set over Hades and chaos. 


      IOW, we're still talking about the demiurge in different ways.


      Regarding lack of specific textual identification you mention that also made me curious in Dr. DeConick's reference to The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit was when she talked about Ialdabaoth and his assistants, Sakla and Debruel.  The name Ialdabaoth per se is not used in the translations I referred to (see my message #13248 for list of references), unless we can honestly reconstruct the unfortunately voluminous lacunae to imply this.  She might have another source.  Even in these translations I have, however, one might make a case for this since so much of the text is missing.  When Eleleth wants someone to reign over chaos and Hades, Sophia appears.  There is mention of "blood."  Is more of the story missing or was the ancient reader expected to have a common understanding of mythology here sans explicit detail?  Would blood indicate a sort of abortion or a demiurge's bloody appearance?  Would there already be a demiurge produced before Sakla and Nebruel appeared on the scene?  Or not?  Also, later, there is mention of the "god of the thirteen realms", and designation of the `god' isn't clear since footnotes in my references don't indicate a particular name.  Actually, in the end, this even does not matter so much in my mind due to the fact that the demiurge has variation and many faces in different pieces of Sethian literature, as described above.  He's still the demonic bad guy in this work.


      Now to continue with April DeConick's reference to The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, in the description above, the demiurge (various combinations making up his crew) would be above these twelve realms?  One might refer to it as a thirteenth realm?  Is that what Jesus is referring to when he calls Judas `The Thirteenth Demon' (per April DeConick's translation - 44.21, p. 77), or not?  At this point we could get into a discussion again about the intended meaning of `daimon'.  In the updated Critical Edition (p. 207), they seem to be noncommittal here, just retaining the word 'daimon', without even a footnote, unlike the provisional National Geographic translation that used "spirit". 


      In any case, my opinion is that use of the word `daimon' in this instance might carry a bit of significance, more than possibly being just an offhand slur, in that Judas does have capabilities different than the other twelve disciples.  He does after all recognize more than they do, even if he eventually does not ascend to the holy generation.


      What is also important to consider, and this relates to your issue, PMCV, about being "saved," is that the demiurge and his reigning angels do not appear to be saved in this The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, if I'm reading correctly.  `Repentance' does come down from above to the world below to pray for the seed of Adam and Seth and, in addition, to pray for the seed of the ruler and authorities, which is the defiled seed FROM the god who produces demons and who is destined to be destroyed.  Later this work talks about being saved by means of destruction or renunciation of the world and the god of the thirteen realms.


      Speaking of thirteen realms, April DeConick does bring that up in her examples (The Thirteenth Apostle, pages110-11) about Zostrianos and Apocalypse of Adam.  The thirteen realms are false (Zostrianos) or something to escape from (Apocalypse of Adam).


      PMCV, you mention texts including 13 aeons that are not in a negative light.  Do you have examples that could work regarding Judas as the "thirteenth" within the whole context of Gospel of Judas?


      I'll stop here for now.  Let me know if you need further clarification or if you have more questions.





    • 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


        >>>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

        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

        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

        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.


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