Loading...Now that I’ve summarized what happens in the second edition of my reader, After the New Testament, I can say a couple of things about what I’ve changed this time around. First, there were several important texts that neither I nor any other thinking person I know can believe that I left out of the first edition. I’ve included them here in the revision. In addition, as I’ve indicated, I have added two new chapters, one dealing with Women in the Early Church and the other with Early Christian Theories and Practices of Biblical Interpretation. Each has a number of selections of primary source texts connected with it.
Moreover, I have expanded the coverage of some of the chapters, by adding a few new texts here and there. Altogether I have about 20 additional texts in this new edition. I have also “switched out” some of the translations – changing to more recent translations (a bunch of these are my own translations published since the first edition – for example of the Apostolic Fathers and of a number of the early Christian Apocrypha; others are by other scholars – for example, the Gnostic writings are now in improved translations by Marvin Meyer and my colleague Zlatko Plese). There are new translations of about 25 texts in this new edition.
Finally, I have “reimagined” how to set up the section on Gnostic texts. Instead of simply combining a bunch of writings somehow related to Gnosticism, I have divided the texts (and added a few) into more sensible categories, f Sethian texts, Valentinian texts, Thomasine texts, and “Other Gnostic” texts. I may explain this change in a subsequent post.
In any event, when you add it all together, there are a lot of changes in this new edition. Here then is the Table of Content, indicating each chapter and the texts (some of them complete, some of them excerpted) in each one.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR????
Bart,
I am a practicing Gnostic (Mystic is the term today). I can improve on Marvin Meyer’s translations. Two in particular are the Gospel of Judas, and Thomas the Contender. Marvin was a terrific scholar, very sharp, but he didn’t know mystic teaching as I do. I hope you will ask what I can do to help.
How many years have you studied Coptic? And with whom?
I don’t need to. I know Mystic teaching, see what others have done with the translating, and work from there. I do have Layton’s 20 Lessons, and Smith’s Coptic Lexicon, but so far, the only help they have been was to confirm that the title is definitely “Gospel OF Judas” and not “according to” Judas (NI is ‘of’). This is not about Jesus, and that includes the climax. Judas is the Good News in this gnostic work. That’s what makes it so interesting.
I read April DeConick’s alternative reading, and noticed although she is even more wrong than the rest of you consensus scholars overall, she has “Your star has *ascended*” in place of “passed by” at the climax. That is correct, not Marv Meyer’s version. I have seen this used in other Coptic gnostic translations, and like “in the midst of them” is really “*within them*” in certain canonical situations, this is the fitting translation for whatever the Coptic is there, although I admit I don’t have a clue myself what that Coptic word is. Maybe you can tell me.
Coptic is a more difficult language than I expected, but I still do hope to study it someday soon. Let me know when there is an upcoming convention on gJudas, so I can attend.
Btw, a simple Google search yielded the interesting find that “Apophasis Logos” in the Incipit does not mean “secret account of the revelation” but “Word said without saying”, or “without speaking” which is exactly the Zen koan called for there.
And the “region never called by any name” is “Anami Desh” in Hindi. I don’t know Hindi, either, but I do know English! “Anami” means No-name, of course, and “Desh” means region: the Highest Heaven in Sant Mat is the same as that in gJudas 47:13. The “five combatants” are the same as the “kings” that have “grown weak” and are paralleled in Sant Mat by the five perversions of lust, anger, greed, attachment and vanity, as well as the kings that Joshua ‘slays’ in Joshua 10 in the Tanak. See — I told you I didn’t need to know Coptic!
Judas is James because he dreams he is stoned by fellow disciples. Know of any other first century religious figure stoned by “fellow disciples” besides James the Just? – Hegesippus, Clement. He also is “replaced by someone” (who isn’t named) “IN ORDER THAT the Twelve [disciples] may again [! – gnostic spiritual rebirth of the Pneumatics] come to completion with their God.” -36:1. That someone is his Master, not ‘Matthias’ (fictional). The essence of Mystic teaching (Sant Mat) is that the disciple merges into the form of the Master, in this case Jesus. (“I am he” in John 13:19 is Jesus telling the disciples he IS James, in spirit.” and “I know whom I have chosen’ in 13:19 is likewise not ‘Judas’ but James. The Psalm 41:9 prophecy “lifted his heel” is mistranslated and has to do with succession of Jacob and Esau, not betrayal of David and Ahithophel.) Judas is James because in the other gnostic writings, like First Apocalypse of James (“James” right before gJudas) he is the one to assume Mastership from Jesus.
‘Judas’, you see, is therefore James, and not only here in gJudas, *but in the canonical gospel account of the ‘Betrayal’ as well* — a reversal, or inversion, of the true story of Mastership succession. That is what I wrote my book about.
I keep telling you, Bart — I know about this stuff because I *practice it* MYSELF. I have been for nearly 40 years.
judaswasjames.com
If you don’t think you need to be an expert in ancient Coptic in order to translate an ancient Coptic text, then I’m afraid that (a) you aren’t going to get much of a hearing for your views and (b) we have a very fundamental disagreement indeed.
Dr. Joseph Smith Jr. never studied ancient/reformed Egyptian either Bart, and he translated just fine. The Holy Spirit don’t need book learnin to translate… duh 😉
I said I could “help” with it. I didn’t say I could DO it.
A “consensus scholar” on Gospel of Judas is one who thinks Jesus is the sacrifice, instead of Judas. That means all of you.
I meant John 13:18 for “I know whom I have chosen”, of course.
Really? Which scholars have you read that argue that the point of the Gospel of Judas is Jesus as a sacrifice?
Bart,
I’m not saying that it is “the point”. But you, as the rest, including DeConick, are saying that Jesus is the sacrifice, thus *missing the point* of this gnostic tractate. The point is that JUDAS is sacrificing HIMSELF to become one with Jesus, thus becoming the successor. He is “to be replaced by someone” (un-named) “IN ORDER THAT the Twelve may again come to completion in their God” (36:1). THIS ISN’T MATTHIAS. It is Jesus. Matthias didn’t replace Judas “in order that” anything. (In fact, in the canon, the supposed replacement for Judas is never heard from before, or again after, Acts 1.) The Twelve, including Judas, will be led by Judas to union with the Father THROUGH JUDAS (Second Apocalypse of James, NH55:10) after Jesus replaces him. More: “When you become the One Who Is, you will no longer BE James” (First Apocalypse of James, NH27:10, James, Tchacos13:25). ‘Judas’ is also seen as James because he dreams he is stoned by fellow disciples, as was James in Clement and Hegesippus, and by “the kiss” of spirit infamously reversed in the canonicals. How many others would fit that description in first century Palestine? First Apocalypse also has “YOU have stirred up YOUR WRATH AGAINST YOURSELF”, repeated right after “You will exceed them all …” in the ode section of gJudas. I covered all this in another post on your video posting.
I’m not saying I can help with the transliteration, but with the transLATION. Being a mystic practitioner myself, I understand the gnostic teachings, so I know, for example that “Apophasis Logos” in the Incipit is not, “The secret account of the revelation …”, or (you): “The secret word of revelation that Jesus spoke with Judas Iscariot in the course of eight days, three days before he celebrated Passover.” It is: “The Unspoken Word of revelation given to Judas by Jesus….” “Apophasis” is Greek loan for “that which is said without saying”. So, you can’t translate something without understanding what you are reading. This “Logos” is THE WORD (John 1) that is given mystically, not “spoken”, although that may very well be the Coptic word chosen by the writer. Like Dr. Joel Hoffman says of translating, it isn’t the best word for word rendering of something, but the best sense of the passage that is desired. An example: Matt. 6:22: “When thy eye be SINGLE thine whole body shall be full of light” –paraphrased. That’s the KJV. Other, newer versions, like the NIV have “eye be whole”, eye be sound”, eye be healthy” — a whole bunch of guesswork. The KJV is right: “eye be SINGLE”. A gnostic (mystic, like me) knows that the eye referred to is the “Tisra til” of Hindi-based philosophy, the seat of the soul, or awareness, centered inside the head, because that is where we ‘feel’ consciousness and “see” (see Balaam in Numbers 24:3-5). This is why David “throws stones” at the FOREHEAD of Goliath. The “stones” are symbolic of the mantra (five is significantly the number of archons to be passed in ascent) given to David to aid in concentration in meditation to slay the giant ego-self — David’s ‘Goliath’. He doesn’t need King Saul’s armor, as the Lord’s WORD, or “NAME” is sufficient. He lops off Golaith’s head with Goliath’s sword, showing allegorically that it is his own demise — his lower self is eliminated by the spiritual effort of the same lower self.
This is happening in the climax of the Gospel of Judas. Jesus tells Judas that HE will be sacrificing himself, not Jesus. That’s why the ode to the successor follows: “Your horn has been raised, your wrath has been kindled [against self — First Apoc. James], your star has ascended [DeConick], and your heart has grown strong.” That isn’t words of remonstration against a traitor, but a paen to the new Master! “I am HE” in John 13:19 is Jesus telling his disciples that James will be the new Master (13:18, “I know whom I have chosen”). All that got reversed by the antiJamesian writers of the canonical gospels — to HIDE James in a too-clever-by-half device of very creative writing, upsetting a Mastership installation by creating a “betrayal”. “Paradidomai” (Synoptics) means “to deliver” as well as “to betray”. See John 19:16: “They handed him over.”
Malchus is an allegorical initiation by the new Master, I can show all the details. Naked young man is James wearing Nazirite linen, and all the prophecies like “Strike the shepherd” and “lifted his heel against me” are mistranslations of the Tanak. I can show all. I can prove that John 18:9 and 10 are one sentence, referring to the Malchus ear-cutting metaphor, for example, from the Greek. The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter has Jesus denying Peter three times, not the reverse, in his meditation. Do you see now how I can help with the proper translation of the ‘Judas’ saga, without knowing Coptic?
Great and comprehensive table of contents. When is this new edition is coming out? Kindle Edition?
Probably in about a year.
Another year to wait for this one?
Yup!
Hello, Bart! Why do some scholars claim Justin Martyr went to Ephesus? Is there any evidence for it?
I’m not sure what you’re referring to?
Following the reference on page 330 of _How Jesus Became God_, I decided to look up an online translation of Justin Martyr’s _Dialogue with Trypho_.
It is more than I can digest in a morning’s reading, but fascinating for sure.
Wishing you a very happy Easter.