Comments on: Reflections on Teaching Gnosticism II: The Gospel of Judas http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2008/02/18/reflections-on-teaching-gnosticism-ii-the-gospel-of-judas/ A weblog devoted to the study of the Christian Apocrypha Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:44:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: warren chan http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2008/02/18/reflections-on-teaching-gnosticism-ii-the-gospel-of-judas/comment-page-1/#comment-10034 warren chan Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:22:33 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2008/02/18/reflections-on-teaching-gnosticism-ii-the-gospel-of-judas/#comment-10034 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. 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.

]]> By: bahram dehghan http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2008/02/18/reflections-on-teaching-gnosticism-ii-the-gospel-of-judas/comment-page-1/#comment-9220 bahram dehghan Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:43:39 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2008/02/18/reflections-on-teaching-gnosticism-ii-the-gospel-of-judas/#comment-9220 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"? 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”?

]]> By: Abdullah Ramay http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2008/02/18/reflections-on-teaching-gnosticism-ii-the-gospel-of-judas/comment-page-1/#comment-8999 Abdullah Ramay Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:46:14 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2008/02/18/reflections-on-teaching-gnosticism-ii-the-gospel-of-judas/#comment-8999 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 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

]]> By: Emily Jurman http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2008/02/18/reflections-on-teaching-gnosticism-ii-the-gospel-of-judas/comment-page-1/#comment-8930 Emily Jurman Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:09:44 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2008/02/18/reflections-on-teaching-gnosticism-ii-the-gospel-of-judas/#comment-8930 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 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

]]> By: Joshua Demers http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2008/02/18/reflections-on-teaching-gnosticism-ii-the-gospel-of-judas/comment-page-1/#comment-8923 Joshua Demers Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:35:20 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2008/02/18/reflections-on-teaching-gnosticism-ii-the-gospel-of-judas/#comment-8923 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 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

]]>