Posted on 11/04/2007 5:26:37 PM PST by blam
Contact: David Ruth
druth@rice.edu
713-348-6327
Rice University
Rice University professor debunks National Geographic translation of Gospel of Judas
A new book by Rice University professor April DeConick debunks a stunning claim by National Geographic's translation of the Gospel of Judas. According to that translation, Judas was a hero, not a villain, who acted on Jesus' request to betray him. DeConick disagrees.
Before releasing her book "The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says," DeConick was intrigued by the original release of the Coptic Gospel of Judas and as a scholar wanted to read it for herself. While researching and translating it, she discovered that National Geographic's translators had made some serious errors.
"Once I started translating the Gospel of Judas and began to see the types of translation choices that the National Geographic team had made I was startled and concerned," DeConick said. "The text very clearly called Judas a 'demon.'"
DeConick contends that the Gospel of Judas is not about a "good" Judas or even a "poor old" Judas. It is a gospel parody about a "demon" Judas written by a particular group of Gnostic Christians who lived in the second century.
"The finding of this gospel has been called one of the most important archaeological discoveries in the past 60 years," DeConick said. "It's important that we get this right."
DeConick said many scholars and writers have been inspired by the National Geographic version.
"It appears to have something to do with our collective guilt about anti-Semitism and our need to reform the relationship between Jews and Christians following World War II," she said. "Judas is a frightening character. For Christians, he is the one who had it all, and yet betrayed God to his death for a few dollars. For Jews, he is terrifying, the man whom Christians associated the Jewish people, whose story was used against them for centuries."
###
DeConick is the Isla Carroll and Percy E. Turner Professor of Biblical Studies at Rice University in Houston. To read more about her teachings, visit http://reli.rice.edu/rice_reli.cfm?a=cms,c,38,1
"The Thirteenth Apostle" (Continuum International Publishing Group) is available to purchase on www.amazon.com.
April DeConick is available nationwide for media interviews. To book an interview, contact David Ruth at 713-348-6327 or druth@rice.edu.
Don’t dare to call my comments liberal thinking. It is backed by solid archeology andr research. I suggest you read “What Paul Meant” by Garry Wills to have your eyes opened. Then write me back to discuss.
That's the first thing I thought.
I suggest you check up on Garry Wills. He seems to be a proponent of abortion, homosexuality, and the ordination of women. He may not be as liberal as the Jesus Seminar, but those “scholars” are so far left, they’re off the charts.
It would also seem that Garry Wills is a proponent of the idea, (in his work, “What Jesus Meant”) that the real, historical Jesus can’t be known. Only the “Jesus of faith” can be know. Then he sets about trying to distinguish the “authentic” sayings of Jesus from the “inauthentic”.
I’ve got news for you. That is LIBERAL THINKING. That is as liberal as the liberal theology of Bultmann and the Tubingen school.
Here’s something for you to check out (Available for free online):
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: THEIR DATE AND ATTESTATION
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc02.htm
It’s from
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS
Are they Reliable?
By F. F. BRUCE,
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
Dr. F.F. Bruce ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.F._Bruce ) was the one of the most respected and careful NT scholars of his day (he died in 1990). He did a tremendous job of destroying the arguments lightweight and agenda-driven liberal theologians with historical data.
The NT documents are accurate, trustworthy and early. Take the time to check the above link out and you will come to understand that you’ve been sold a bill of goods by the liberal theologians.
The original of John’s Gospel, and perhaps Mark’s Gospel account told to him by Peter may be as soon as fifteen years after the Ascension. Most of the originals for the New Testament were completed within thiry years of the Ascension. The Revelation would have been written the furtherest from the Ascension. There is a fragment of John’s Gospel which shows someone wrote the portion copy on a piece of Egyptian mummification fabric and it is dated to within fifteen to thirty years of the Ascension ... that is a copy dated to that recent following the Ascension!
Thanks for the ping. I had not realized that the National Geographic would mistranslate a document to contradict Christian doctrine.
So there are liberal Presbyterians?
I was joking about it being a different Matthew and this is the first time I’ve ever heard that his gospel was originally in Hebrew. Who came up with that idea?
Some believe that it was originally in Hebrew because it was written to Jews by a Jew who was a tax collector for the Roman government. Mathew presents Christ as the son of David and son of Abraham and characterizes Jerusalem as the holy city.
Yes, there are different ‘versions’ and dialects.
What you start studying in the beginning is what is classified as Homeric Greek, the language Homer used for the Odyssey for example. It an old form and fairly easy to read, which is why it is taught early on in high school.
Then you move on to Attic Greek, which is the form used in the Classical Age of Greece - Plato, etc. It’s very similar to Homeric, but just gets more sophisticated. Keep in mind that education at the time was for the aristocratic class of people. Much of what you study is in the classes of poetry, philosophy, theater plays. But there are a lot of treatises on farming and husbandry, military tactics and tales, and architecture.
Then you move on to a vernacular form of Greek that was available to what we call the general public. This is the Greek in which the New Testament was written and probably this gospel of Judas.
The alphabet changed little over probably this ~1000 years of time that I mention above.
But, the Greek of today differs greatly from those times. It’s not like I can pick up a Greek newspaper and read it, but I can pick up these ancient texts and work my way through them. So, yes, the vocabulary and the alphabet has changed considerably - much more so than the English from King James’ time to today.
One comment about your Latin being dead comment. THe percentage of our current English vocabulary that is pure or some variation on the Latin original is high; same with Greek. So, we do use a lot of Latin and Greek today.
yeah, I should have done things differently looking back on it.
Longer I live, less I believe in extended education. Not everyone should go to college. I shouldnt have gone when I was 18-21. I had too many other things on my mind to concentrate.
My ‘theory’ is that the more education you have, the less risk you’re willing to take on in business. But, I really don’t know how many actually make it big without finishing high school (although my dad did it).
It's a pity, actually, that it is not much taught anymore today. It was popular enough when I went to employ two teachers full time, teaching Latin only, in a four year high school of 1600 students -that would be about 300 students taking Latin in any given year. I'm not sure that it is taught anywhere in public schools in the county (about 700,000 population) today.
The original Matthew might have been the Matthias chosen to sub for Judas who busted his gut, but whether this is right or not the idea goes back to Schleiermacher and the other biblical NT scholars of the 1800s. The original circle of 120 who met in the Upper Room were mostly Jews so most were literate and were keeping notes so Luke could compile his accurate history in two books. They all would have had access to this hypothetical original Matthew in Hebrew.
Only reason Judas became the 13th disciple was because Ross Perot entered the race.
It sounds all very speculative. I am skeptical of the idea that Matthew didn’t write Matthew in the absence of any definitive proof. Scholars often try to make their bones by these sorts of theories. Shakespeare is an example where they try to credit his work to others. This is what a friend of mine calls “a pipe and beer question”-fun to ponder and talk about but pretty fruitless in terms of increasing knowledge.
I am also skeptical about Matthew being written in Hebrew. Koine Greek or aramaic is more likely. Do you know of any early versions found that were in Hebrew?
The source Matthew was in Hebrew. The Gospel of Matthew is a different work.
Sorry...I don’t follow you.
Hermeneutics is the name of the discipline. Schleiermacher is the start of the trail.
I understand. You’re saying that “the” Matthew wrote an account in Hebrew and then another Matthew used to write the gospel in Greek. Could be...but it violates Occam’s Razor, “non entia multiplicandia sunt prater necessetatum”. Don’t multiply entities beyond necessity. What’s the necessity of the Hebrew source is my question?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.