Reflections on Teaching Gnosticism II: The Gospel of Judas
The first assignment due in my current Gnosticism course is a translation comparison. The goal of the assignment is for students to see how much work is involved in putting together an edition of a text and how the editor’s decisions can greatly affect how one reads or understand the text. This is particularly so with fragmentary texts. In previous years I have used the translations of the Apocalypse of Adam in Layton’s Gnostic Scriptures and Robinson’s Nag Hammadi Library.
This year I opted for the Gospel of Judas by Marvin Meyer (The Nag Hammadi Scriptures) and April DeConick (The Thirteenth Apostle). I chose this text for three reasons: it is well-known to (though not well-read by) the wider public, the assignment would force the students to read the gospel very carefully and thus lead (hopefully) to a rewarding discussion of the text, and the interpretation of the text is highly contentious.
Meyer and DeConick have been in conflict over their particular interpretations of the text; their positions are available for all to read in an article on Meyer’s site (see HERE) and a series of responses on DeConick’s blog (see HERE). But I hoped the students would not see this exchange before writing the paper; it is preferred that they find the major contentious passages themselves and thereby avoid trying to understand why each scholar arrived at his/her position but focus purely on the general issue of the choices involved in the editorial/translation process (the temptation is to label DeConick “conservative” for seeing the traditional Judas in the gospel, and Meyer as “liberal” when, in reality, they are both “liberal”).
I suggested to the students to focus on three areas when presenting their findings: presentation (e.g., use of headings, footnotes, line numbering, punctuation, etc.), approach to damage in the manuscript (i.e., are gaps filled in with emendations? Or left indicated with ellipses?), and major readings that dramatically affect the interpretation of the text (e.g., Judas as a “demon” or “spirit”).
The majority of the class seemed to favour DeConick’s translation. They appreciated her clear presentation of the manuscript evidence—she presents the text line-by-line, with damaged sections clearly marked; she hesitates to fill in the missing material, and tends toward a literal translation. But Meyer was praised for being more readable and less leading in his subheadings and translation choices (though his choices are contentious, at least his notes present other options).
In the course of our discussion several readings came up that left the class wondering about the actual content of the manuscript. If anyone out there who reads Coptic would like to provide solutions to these questions (are you there, April?), we would certainly be appreciative.
1. At 39, 24 DeConick has “And the animals that were brought for sacrifice” while Meyer has “And the cattle brought in are the offerings you have seen.” Is the Coptic “animals” or “cattle”?
2. At 52, 4-6 DeConick has “The first [is Ath]eth, the one who is called the ‘Good One,’” while Meyer has “The first is [Se]th, who is called Christ.” Again, what is the Coptic?
3. At 33, 19-21 DeConick has “Often he did not appear to his disciples, but when necessary, you would find him in their midst,” while Meyer has “Many a time he does not appear as himself to his disciples, but you find him as a child among them.” Both editors note the difficulties in translating this passage. One student thought the key to the solution might be in the words translated “as himself”—if this is present in the manuscript, he asked, then “as a child” might be the superior reading. So, what is in the manuscript?
4. In 40, 5-6 DeConick has “and generations of the impious will remain faithful to him,” while Meyer has “and generations of pious people will cling to him.” So, what is it: pious or impious?
UPDATE: April DeConick graciously answered these concerns in a post on her blog (read it HERE). Thanks April.
One of the most challenging aspects of the translation assignment, I found, was to balance the overall perspective that DeConick and Meyer maintained in regards to specific characters (portrayals of Jesus and Judas), and to evaluate the small changes in vocabulary and punctuation that each scholar had in their interpretation.
One aspect I wanted to get into (but unfortunately I did not have any more room) was how DeConick used the more Greek “Hades,” while Meyer translated this word as the “underworld.” It really seemed to suggest that one reading (DeConick) was emphasizing the Hellenistic influence in the text where Meyer’s was hinting at something more Christianized. I’m rambling, but it was one thing I noticed that I cannot stop thinking about.
Cheers,
Joshua
I really enjoyed this assignment, I spent hours and hours on it really pouring over every detail, not just to get a good grade, but because looking into the little things was something I’ve never done before and it really was interesting. Because I’ve never done a side-by-side comparison of two sources like this I’ve never put much stock into grammar: which letters to capitalize, what should be a semicolon and what should be a comma… It really reinforces that everytime you’re reading a translation, you’re reading an interpretation. It makes me think about the many times I’ve read the Epic of Gilgamesh for a class in a different light!
-Emily
The exercise was quite interesting and insightful. For me, it showed us that religious texts are often accompanied by varying interpretations. This was very clear in both the texts where each author had a certain interpretation of who wrote the text and what they wanted to convey. The writers also differed in their style. However, Meyers provided an easier read and Deconick left more for the reader to interpret it self.
At the same time, it was clear for me the DeConick supposed that the text were written by Sethians. Which lead to stark differences in the text. I am glad that the confusion over Pious vs Impious is cleared since that really had me thinking as to how two opposites be derived from a Coptic word. I think this shows us the true diversity of early Christianity and how the various beliefs, circumstances and political strives lead to difference of opinions and creeds.
-Abdullah
wow i find it pretty funny that deconick blames editing for the mistake. i dont see how anyone could have accidentally written impious rather than pious.
i also find it funny that she actually responded to these questions and pretty much stated that she is right and that meyers is wrong……..did anyone expect her to suddenly come and say “no i was wrong, I was just pulling Meyer’s leg all along”?
I enjoyed doing this assignment. I always heard of the gospel of Judas but never got to actually read the text. I agree that the april DeConick translation was easier to read then the marvin meyer translation. However the Meyer translation translated into a story which was fun to read. It was interesting that Judas was considered to be more then the man that betrayed Jesus. The gospel presents Judas as an active disciple in understanding the knowledge. Altogether it was good practice as a first assignment for this course.