The Judas Gospel deception

This raises questions about many other scholars (whose work I find very interesting) such as Bart Erhman and Elaine Pagels who both wrote books about the Judas gospel.

Both, I am sure, read Greek but coptic, I am not sure. I haven't read their books on the Judas gospel, but I would guess, if they don't read coptic, that they based their books on this very flawed translation.

I wonder if they will make any public statements about this?

If we exist here on earth and anything else is damning, Jesus is trying to save Judas from further existence or damning. He goes there anyway because he has not chosen Jesus who would have freed him from where he is; all ascension after this time is damning. Judas doesn't ascend because he has been saved, ceased.

So then when are you going to post the blog showing how the "clobber passages" against the GLBT community are based on fatally flawed mistranslations as well? Of course, I can also think of some sinister reasons why that hasn't taken place in this country or in Christianity in general.

Not surprising at all. National Geographic had an entire marketing campaign built around its story and the book.

Let's see if National Geographic has the academic cajones to do the same thing for Islamic texts. Probably not. Or how about Buddhist texts? No, the discipline of deconstructive literary criticism was intended for one target only- Christianity.

It is a popular thing to find "smoking gun" manuscripts that question Christianity. And there is little academic rigor expected from someone who wants to do so. But with libraries full of evidence to contrary, it is obvious that modern academia has traded its integrity for the demand of public consumption.

Accurate translations tend to support the historical integrity of traditional Christianity. But you'll never see this kind of work publicized. No one WANTS to see a headline that says "Unearthed Ancient Manuscript Confirms Traditional Christianity" or "Re-Imagined Christianity a Sham" or "Scrolls Confirm: Christianity Improved Status is Women in Patriarchal Pagan World."

There will probably be more such 'Gospels', not because the translations are accurate, but because people WANT to find something wrong with Christianity. Even better if they can find "missing" or "suppressed" books. It is precisely that desire (agenda even) that influences such translations.

Professor Deconick's article doesn't actually offer any proof of her assertions whatsoever, and doesn't provide any other sources that back her up (except for a small plug for, surprise!, her book about "What the Gospel of Judas Really Says" at the bottom). She makes a handful of assertions and then accuses a group of scholars of ethical violations based on those unsupported assertions. Rod posts it because it fits neatly into his paradigm of poor, beleaguered Christianity under assault by conspiratorial liberal academics.

That said, her book may well provide a much more solid basis for these accusations, and if it does, I'd love to see the response from the scholars involved in translating the text initially. I'd also love to see scholars like the aforementioned Bart Ehrman, who helped authenticate the text as genuine before the translation project began in earnest (disclosure: I've been a student of Dr. Ehrman's and hold him in very high regard as a scholar, but I realize that everyone is fallible)

Oh, and I_Like_Dragyn, the meme that circulates through LGBT circles about how those so-called "clobber passages" are mistranslated or misinterpreted is utterly bogus. There's no textual or historical evidence to suggest that those passages in Leviticus, Romans, and I Corinthians were intended to mean anything other than what traditional Christianity and Judaism have always claimed they mean. From my perspective, gay men and women trying to argue that the Bible "didn't really mean it when it said I was wicked" sounds a lot like an abused wife telling everyone "he really loves me when he hits me and calls me scum".

So you are honestly going to tell me with a straight face (no pun intended) that every different translation of the mainstream Bible has been accurately translated since its inception and has not been altered on iota due to political convenience nor personal prejudices? Well then thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Exegesis 101:

The laws of Leviticus illustrated to God's chosen people that they could not be be cleansed of their fallen state through the will. Rather, this required Grace.

The Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurection became the path to that Grace.

Sin has not been abolished just because many laws of Leviticus are no longer binding.

Though forgiven, we are still commanded to "go forth and sin no more".

It's not up to me. It's up to the Magisterium and Tradition.

Jewish scholars long ago decided that there were 7 Noachide laws that God imposes on everyone, while only the Jews were required to obey the 500 or whatever more particular ones.

So gentiles get a pass on eating shellfish, but still can't indulge in sexual immorality...which must be defined of course, but it's on a different level than the dietary or ritual laws.

logic says there are cultural laws and moral laws. Its easy to figure out. Homosexuality is wrong we know because both testaments say it is, but the penalty for on on earth no longerstands (death penalty). Thus we know its a sin, but government does not have the authority to kill GLBT people.

Sorry, what is the connection between the original post and these comments? Is this a technical glitch?

Reminds me of that great hit song from the hit Broadway Musical "Lease".

(You know, the one showcased in the film "Team America")

Irenaeous,

"In my professional opinion, the 'clobber passages' have not been mistranslated throughout history; they say what they say. I cannot believe the paranoid homosexuals that come out of the woodwork on this blog and make every single issue about homosexuality no matter what the subject of the post is. Good grief."

I commiserate with you in your "grief", but God's gay and lesbian children have been victimized as a result of translation/mistranslation, interpretation/misinterpretation is that is what Rod's post is ABOUT.

We are affected by it. That you would deny us our input on the matter is what seems to me "paranoid".

I don't recall who said it first, but "I'm not a self-hating homosexual. I love myself. It's all those other homosexuals I can't stand."

Can we please get back to the topic at hand, namely, the Gospel of Judas?

allen,

Slight correction. The subject is NOT "the Gospel of Judas", but rather "major translation errors that completely falsified the meaning of the Gnostic Gospel of Judas" and Rod's subsequent comment on that, namely: "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".

Many here are addressing the different "explanations" and the different "interpretations" and the different "translations" of Scripture that exist (on a variety of topics) and how they affect various members of society today. Especially critical in light of the fact that the Gospel of Judas does not even appear in what we have left of "The Bible (TM) today.

Might some of them NOT be "fatally flawed material" too? That, to me, is "the topic".

allen,

I quite understand WHY the Gnostic Gospel of Judas might not appear in what we have left of The Bile (TM) today. I'm challenging others to ask the same questions about the other parts that have been chopped out.

"if you are intent on making the discussion about whether or not the handful of references to same-sex activity in the Torah and the Epistles have all been mistranslated or misinterpreted, you have some work to do that consists of a great deal more than spraying shrill hyperbole and victim-status assertions around the thread."

Where have I "sprayed shrill hyperbole"? And the "victim status label" is one that other people thrust on me. I have never claimed it. I HAVE claimed that what people do with the various versions of The Bible (TM) has a direct affect on me. The 'victimizing' is purely on their part.

"If you claim that the verses are mistranslated, how do you account for the fact that people who use untranslated versions of the texts consistently have come to the same conclusion as to their meaning as the various English (and every other language) translators?"

But of course they HAVEN'T come to the "same conclusion" let alone "consistently". And that is why this discussion exists.

"To be more concise, translation errors can't possibly account for the interpretations"

Plural? Why is there more than one "interpretation" if they've always come to the "same conclusion", "consistently"?

"If you claim that the verses in question are being "misinterpreted", you need to explain what the "correct" interpretation of those verses should be"

No, I don't need to explain that. The people who claim to have the "correct" one need to explain why theirs is "correct" and the others aren't. I keep asking which one IS the "correct" translation/interpretation, and no one will tell me.

"(a correct interpretation in this case being the one which most closely aligns with the author's intended meaning, and by extension, God's. Good luck on that one)"

Yes, one would need a great deal of "luck" since we do not and can not KNOW an author's intended meaning. Nor can we know if the author's meaning IS "God's".

"and a reasonable explanation for how the wrong interpretation came to be so universally accepted until the 20th century. Heterophobic conspiracy theories need not apply."

Nor need homphobic conspiracy theories apply.

I think your "reasonable explanation" might have something to do with the power of "the Church" to control the masses. They did it quite effectively for centuries and had very effective tools at their disposal to ensure compliance with the "correct interpretation" (i.e. theirs).

"Or you could do something really radical and admit that the Bible is an antiquated collection of history, myth, and polemic, which shouldn't be determining how our society structures itself or how we treat one another, regardless of what it says."

On this we agree.

And I sure as heck don't want, say, the AFA's "interpretation" or FotF's "translation" or the FRC's "version" to automatically be accepted as the 'correct' one, let alone have laws based on their interpretations/translations.

So Rod, by hyper-reacting to this thread being turned into a gay discussion, only continued it going gay! Gay! Gay! Gay! Gay! Gay! Everything is gay!

Or should everything in this world just be Healthy! Healthy! Healthy!? Doesn't seem like that was God's plan, or She wouldn't have made so many people with cancer.

rxP said: "But of course they HAVEN'T come to the "same conclusion" let alone "consistently". And that is why this discussion exists."

I'll buy this when you can show me a single instance of an historical group of Christians who not only considered same-sex activity peachy-keen, but actually pointed to the verses in question as faulty in doing so. I'm not aware of a single Christian sect before the mid-20th century which considered sexual relationships between members of the same sex to be anything but wicked, abberant, and worthy of condemnation. If you can point me to such a group, I'd love to read up on them.

The people who claim to have the "correct" one need to explain why theirs is "correct" and the others aren't. I keep asking which one IS the "correct" translation/interpretation, and no one will tell me.

The explanation you're claiming hasn't been offered is available almost anywhere you care to look. A plain reading of these verses in their original language indicates that same-sex activity is sinful and is being specifically condemned BECAUSE IT TAKES PLACE BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE SAME SEX. If the authors had "really" meant temple prostitution or man-boy relationships, or anything else they would have bloody well said so and people who spoke those languages would have known, all along, that this is what they meant. The semantic contortions people will attempt to get around this are just silly.

But I'm through discussing this with you. You don't actually care about what the Biblical texts say, you don't actually want your questions answered rationally or factually, you just want people to tell you you're right without actually putting forth an iota of effort to actually be right. Your childish rants are exactly the kind of brush with which all of us are painted by the real homophobes out there. You play right into their hands and you're too wrapped up in faux-outrage to realize it.

"Gee, this will come as a shock to the Biblical literalists and the "inerrancy of Scriptures" movement."

Those who believe that scriptures are inerrant have no problem conceding minor errors of translation and the like, not that it matters to those who want to cast us all as "literalists".

Setting aside the homosexual question, given it's utter irrelevance to the post, it is worth exploring the reasons why NG might be motivated to ignore flaws in this story. Like the Da Vinci code mania that preceded it, the Judas gospel gives passive observers a way of reassuring themselves that Christianity is just a bunch of voodoo while simultaneously reassuring themselves that they have made a sincere intellectual effort to explore the Bible's veracity. After all, if such intelligent theologians are coming to the conclusion that the Bible is incomplete, then it must be so.

Whoa -- how did "one scholar asserts that other scholars' translations are off" turn into "NG ignored flaws in this story"?

Without getting into the self-serving pop psychology of the rest of your post, why are you leaping across the conclusion chasm to the idea that National Geographic knew there were problems with the translation its team produced (how would they have known this? Random Coptic experts slumming as copy editors?) and chose to ignore them?

Jewish scholars long ago decided that there were 7 Noachide laws that God imposes on everyone, while only the Jews were required to obey the 500 or whatever more particular ones.

So gentiles get a pass on eating shellfish, but still can't indulge in sexual immorality...which must be defined of course, but it's on a different level than the dietary or ritual laws.

Posted by: Lisa | December 1, 2007 4:43 PM

Well, I'm glad that "Jewish scholars" give us a pass. Let's hope that they had the same dedication to their, uh, scholarly work that Islamic "scholars" (i.e., taliban) have today. We know how earnestly they pursue their "studies" and how well they care for our sensibilities.

Max ol' boy,
I never said I didn't approve of how God made you; there ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy, there's only you and me and we just disagree.
Mmmmmmmmmmmm, ohohohohohohohoh...

Those who wrote about Socrates daimon weren't gnostics and wrote about half a millennium earlier.

Rob G: You seem to have got the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church mixed up. The latter is a off-shoot of the Orthodox Church and dates from 1054, long after Gnosticism had passed away, as indeed had the Roman Empire.

"You seem to have got the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church mixed up. The latter is a off-shoot of the Orthodox Church and dates from 1054, long after Gnosticism had passed away, as indeed had the Roman Empire."

No -- prior to the schism between E and W, there was one Church, which was both catholic and orthodox, and which had both Eastern and Western aspects. It is later usages which refer, somewhat wrongly, to the Western church as 'Catholic' and the Eastern church as 'Orthodox.' The Roman Catholic church of today no doubt considers itself 'orthodox' and likewise, the Orthodox church of today refers to itself as 'catholic,' but these words when used this way are not titular, but descriptive.

The Church I was referring to as being anti-Gnostic is the "one holy catholic apostolic Church" as described by the Nicene Creed.

Aesop's Fables.

RR, with much respect, I find it disingenuous at best to cite the Bible as the sole bastion and only repository of moral exemplars.

I wasn't arguing that the Bible was the "sole bastion of and only repository of moral exemplars," though as a christian I would say it is the gold standard. My point was that if religion in general is a bunch of superstitious nonsense and by way of extension the Bible is just a bunch of fables then there would be no reason to believe that moral claims are anything else but subjective social constructs. Thus, beyond pragmatic social concerns, there would be no reason to care about morality in the first place. If I was an atheist or agnostic, I'd care as much about morality as I would about praying daily or going to church regularly. Moral claims without religion are a load of horse manure.

rr

Franklin:

OK, "horse manure" is hyperbolic. But I think rr has a good point: isn't it the case that moral claims without "religion" (or transcendent authority, etc.) are invariably social constructs? With all that implies for modification or enforcement.

I'm not one who believes that nihilism is what one defaults to in the absence of religious motivation. But, in the absence of such motivation, external coercion by the state inevitably fills the vacuum.

This is very inchoate on my part, so don't take this argument as representing anything fully reasoned through. It's literally lobbing ideas into the air.

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. :-)

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.