How about this: a scholar and translator accuses National Geographic of major translation errors that completely falsified the meaning of the Gnostic "Gospel of Judas." Judas was not the secret hero of the Gospel, as the Geographic team had it; according to the manuscript itself, Judas was a demon. Excerpt:
Several of the translation choices made by the society’s scholars fall well outside the commonly accepted practices in the field. For example, in one instance the National Geographic transcription refers to Judas as a “daimon,” which the society’s experts have translated as “spirit.” Actually, the universally accepted word for “spirit” is “pneuma ” — in Gnostic literature “daimon” is always taken to mean “demon.”Likewise, Judas is not set apart “for” the holy generation, as the National Geographic translation says, he is separated “from” it. He does not receive the mysteries of the kingdom because “it is possible for him to go there.” He receives them because Jesus tells him that he can’t go there, and Jesus doesn’t want Judas to betray him out of ignorance. Jesus wants him informed, so that the demonic Judas can suffer all that he deserves.
Perhaps the most egregious mistake I found was a single alteration made to the original Coptic. According to the National Geographic translation, Judas’s ascent to the holy generation would be cursed. But it’s clear from the transcription that the scholars altered the Coptic original, which eliminated a negative from the original sentence. In fact, the original states that Judas will “not ascend to the holy generation.” To its credit, National Geographic has acknowledged this mistake, albeit far too late to change the public misconception.
Good grief. The author of the critical essay, which appears in today's NYTimes, supposes that the Geographic was so dedicated to getting a scoop that it went to print with fatally flawed material. That's one explanation; there are more sinister ones, I'm sure.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
quote: "It's statements like the one I quote that I see as show stoppers. People of good will can agree on moral principles, and my point is that religion is not the sole filter, per se."
Your right that religion is not the sole filter of moral principles. I understand that many non-religious people hold to some form of moral code, and oftentimes said code overlaps with religious ones (killing and stealing are immoral, it's good to help the poor, etc.).
That being said, I don't see any logical reason why non-religious people SHOULD hold to any moral code or indeed how morality exist without God. I just don't find arguments for the existence of morality without God to be remotely convincing, which is why I find the old line "religion is superstition, but just go be a good person" completely ridiculous. For the same reason, I find non-religious or atheistic (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) attacks on religion as "evil" as self-refuting since I don't think atheism gives us any basis for making moral claims in first place.
I'm glad that many non-religious people do believe in some sort of moral code. I just don't see them as very logically consistent in doing so, and am not impressed by critiques of religion that mention morality. I realize this could end up on an entirely different subject than the one Rod intended, and I have no intention of doing so. I just wanted to register my skepticism of the notion that moral claims can logically be separated from religious ones and that one can consistently call religion "superstition" and not morality as well.
rr
RR (hi, Dale), I too don't mean to drag this into a tangent, but I also want to indicate my agreement with the general principle: individuals are pretty good at maintaining personal integrity, but when it comes to larger groups, some sort of authority is necessary to enforce moral principles.
The distinction may be lost on some, in the sense that if a culture fails to maintain morality, it is not likely that many moral individuals will be found therein. In the context of our discussion, my point is to ask, respectfully, that writer's at least acknowledge their generalizations and the limitations they have.
I respect your scepticism, RR. I share it, even while objecting to the specifics of how you express it. This may be damning with faint praise, but from my POV no religion has done well in enforcement of moral systems, even while Christianity has a better (modern) track record than most. :-)
quote: "This may be damning with faint praise, but from my POV no religion has done well in enforcement of moral systems, even while Christianity has a better (modern) track record than most. :-)"
Actually, I agree. But it's because I believe in original sin, so everybody who adheres to some moral system (both religious and non-religious ones) is bound to fail at some point, some in more spectacular ways than others. And that goes for us christians too:)
rr
In response to rr and Franklin, regarding morality...
An argument can (and certainly has) been made that morality is merely a result of evolution - that by observing a certain moral code, we better ensure the survival of the race. It's morality as a highly developed form of the "herd instinct," if you will. But here's the rub - there are undeniably times when our herd instinct tells us to do one thing, and some deeper, stronger voice tells us to do the opposite. C.S. Lewis uses the example of the man who sees a stranger being stabbed in the street by vicious criminals. His herd instinct tells him to run for his life, thus ensuring his own survival and the survival of his family. But another voice (perhaps deeper and truer?) tells him to go to the aid of the victim, thus risking his own survival and putting his family (who needs him to provide) at risk. Of course, he doesn't necessarily obey that deeper, truer voice. But Lewis's point is that the voice is THERE, whether we obey it or not, and that it transcends the herd instinct. He calls that voice God. It's an argument that resonates with me.
No surprise here. I'm a former student of one of the translators. His bias against orthodox Christianity is nakedly evident. I'd doubt intentional deception on his part, but seeing what he expects to see in this case would be no different than his doing the same as part of the Jesus Seminar (another clue to the mediocre level of scholarship involved in the translation).
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.