No doubt you were aware earlier this year of the publication of the “Gospel of Judas”(Please note: I am always suspicious of any Wikipedia article and you should be too, but the core facts in this linked article are accurate as far as I can determine.) by the National Geographic Society. The practical upshot of the publication of this recently discovered Gnostic gospel was that it purported to portray Judas in a favorable light. The spin went as far as to suggest he was a misunderstood saint, acting out of loving compassion and not at all the sinful tool of those who bore ill will towards Jesus.
Now an acclaimed academic language scholar has put her considerable skills to the task of translating the text and has found that the National Geographic scholars may have not only been rushed in their work to meet publishing deadlines, but may also have been coerced into rendering a translation that produced a much more palatable and thus marketable book. The story of this twisted translation is presented in an article in this weeks’ issue of MacLeans’ magazine.
The following is an excerpt from the article:
“It wasn't long before there was no joy at all in the effort. NG's provocative gospel turns on a handful of phrases, all of which DeConick translated differently. Judas, for example, was not a "spirit" destined for heaven, as NG would have it, but a "demon" with a far different ultimate destination; Judas would "exceed" the other apostles, DeConick agreed, although not in his reward, as NG states, but in the wickedness of his actions. Judas, in fact, was as evil as ever. The Gnostic Christians who wrote the gospel were bitterly opposed to what was already emerging as a core theological concept in Christianity's dominant tradition: the doctrine of the Atonement, whereby God so loved the world he gave his only son for its redemption. To the Gnostics the idea was repellent, no better than child sacrifice. It certainly could not have been God's plan. Judas could only have been acting for the forces of evil.
"I didn't want to write this book," DeConick says. "Some of the NG people are personal friends of mine. But when I mentioned my concerns to another expert, his reaction was 'Oh my God, me too!' The more I talked about what I was doing, I found all this underground support." So how did the eminent scholars on the NG team go off the rails?”
Well I guess MacLeans’ has more than justified my renewing my subscription. As for National Geographic, I’ll be sending them an email and I’m not sure yet whether or not I’ll re-subscribe next year. You might want to send them an email, too. They at least owe us an explanation as to why their scholars’ translation differs so very distinctly from one of their respected peers.
Shalom
*The label "Made in a Hurry" is NEVER a sign of quality or reliability. - BJM*
3 comments:
Brian,
Download the NG translation and read it. It is a SEVEN page pdf with a LOT of whitespace. I love the occasional lines that appear informing us that one or two lines are missing, most often at critical junctures in the text.
I actually gave my Sunday School class two excerpts to read, two paragraphs that covered a half page. It was quite clear that this was simple wrong. In fact if you want it to make sense I advise getting some heavy drugs. It is simply not Christian. The gospel of Thomas looks orthodox compared to this. Personally, I do not see how either one of these could be considered to be Christian. It seems to me that Hollywood in making their stories based on real events (read change most facts but a limited few) is really working from an ancient genre, the same as these gospels.
I see this as bringing us back to the issue of the power wielded by the author/editor. Fully examined at face value this NG text is not an issue for the Christian, only those who look for an excuse for apostasy. If the translation is bad then it really is a non-issue.
Seriously, read it and be dumbfounded.
As always I am grateful for the true academics among us, such as you Rick, who actually bother to do the reading. I thank God for your dilligence and generosity. I also thank you for helping me to make the point - that we need to test things.
I'll admit that I had my suspicions when the news about the NG book broke in springtime, but I never followed up (I will now). The point for me still is that the NGS should be called to account for this alleged serious breach of academic integrity. Whether or not you are a Christian; whether or not you have a vested interest in this particular issue; we have a collective right to expect the NGS to adhere to the rigorous editorial standards that they themselves claim to follow.
The real story for me at this point isn't whether or not The Gospel of Judas adds to our knowledge of the Gospel story and the history of the Christian church - it's whether or not the public and, more particularly, the media will allow this misuse of editorial control and public trust go unchallenged.
If the NG book had been published by The Star or The National Enquirer I wouldn't be so dismayed - no one expects editorial responsibility and accountability from those publications. But The National Geographic Society is supposed to be on a completely different level. Of course I'm not overly surprised, sin is everywhere, but the media double standard is particularly evident in this story.
The media has no problem pursuing with bare-knuckle intensity those in public and private life who abuse their reputations and public trust for selfish ends, but when a media entity does the same the kid gloves come out. Who is calling the NGS on this? A one-pager in Macleans' (who?) seems hardly enough of a response.
I also agree with you that we as pastors should be educating our people better about these things. I am often frustrated that many Christians don't seem interested to learn. I guess milk is always easier to digest than meat.
Me - I like steak!
Shalom
Also -
I just did.
I agree it isn't.
And I was.
Shalom
Post a Comment