To the Editor:
Thomas Bartlett’s “The Betrayal of Judas” (The Chronicle Review, May 30) makes several serious and unfounded accusations against the National Geographic Society and omits pertinent facts that require comment and clarification.
Bartlett’s article mischaracterizes the process by which the Gospel of Judas codex was translated. Contrary to the article’s assertion, the translation took years (not months) to complete. Rather than a rushed job, it was a long and painstakingly careful process. In fact, the conservation-and-translation process had begun a full three years before National Geographic’s involvement and was being overseen by Rodolphe Kasser, one of the world’s pre-eminent Coptic scholars. Kasser brought in another leading Coptic scholar, Gregor Wurst of the University of Augsburg, to assist. In 2004, National Geographic was approached for additional, critical resources so that Kasser and Wurst could complete the conservation-and-translation process. National Geographic underwrote the lengthy and painstaking assemblage-and-authentication process as well as the translation work.
We suggested to Kasser that, as is typical in such cases, an additional layer of review, by outside experts, would be helpful. He agreed, and François Gaudard of the University of Chicago and Marvin Meyer of Chapman University were brought in to work with Kasser and Wurst to produce the consensus translation. At the same time, National Geographic assembled an advisory team of highly credentialed scholars and religious authorities, who reviewed and commented on the codex and advised the society as to its importance, value, and impact.
This part of the project took nearly a year, and all involved agreed that the work should be shared with the academic community as soon as practicable.
Curiously, we are now being criticized for being both too fast and too slow in releasing the codex. The fact is that the document was released once the authentication process was complete and the translation team advised us that a consensus translation had been reached. Once those two conditions were met, we shared the initial results with the public and the academic community in a broad and expeditious manner. We said at the time, and we reiterate now, that this was the beginning of a dialogue about what the text might mean, not the last word. We recognized that views were likely to change, and we have consistently encouraged respectful, global discourse.
While we welcome constructive debate, we take great exception to the mischaracterization of our motives and process. This was an enormously complex project, but hardly a “secret” in biblical circles. Kasser himself announced at a conference of biblical scholars in the summer of 2005 that he was working on the project. We moved to share the results as quickly as we could, but not before they were scrutinized by leading academics in the field. Circumstances were difficult. Reconstruction and conservation of the badly fragmented and crumbling document were under way until just before our announcement, as we wanted to release as complete a work as possible. The rigorous authentication process (radiocarbon dating, multispectral imaging, ink analysis, paleographic analysis, and contextual evidence) was finalized just weeks before our announcement.
Despite these obstacles, we shared the findings within two years of becoming involved in the project — far less time than lapsed between the discovery and published translations of such recently found ancient texts as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts.
To enable scholars and the public to make a full examination of the codex, last summer we published a critical edition of the Gospel of Judas, with full-color photographs of the original papyrus pages alongside the Coptic text and its consensus translation in English and French. A second edition of the gospel will be published this June, including views by additional scholars that broaden the perspectives on the meaning and significance of the gospel. Our Web site also includes the entire codex in photographic form at 100 percent resolution.
Virtually all the issues your article raises about translation choices are addressed in extensive footnotes in both the popular and critical editions of the gospel. Unfortunately, Thomas Bartlett chose to ignore that fact and instead gives much prominence to criticisms advanced by April D. DeConick. What Bartlett doesn’t tell the reader is that DeConick’s criticisms, which appeared in an op-ed piece in The New York Times in December 2007, were timed to coincide with the release of her own book about the Gospel of Judas.
As is the case in any translation, there can be differences of interpretation, word selection, and nuance, and the Gospel of Judas is no exception. As interesting as word-by-word discussion is, such analysis should not be made without considering the context of the total piece and what the authors from so many centuries ago may have been trying to share.
National Geographic takes great pride in the role we have played in bringing this intriguing and important cultural artifact to world attention. We place much value on our reputation for scientific excellence and have always upheld the highest standards.
There is still much debate on the meaning of the text of the Gospel of Judas, as Bartlett makes clear in his article. It is our hope that the world continues to study this important work, and that the ongoing dialogue will be conducted with civility and mutual respect.
Terry D. Garcia Executive Vice President for Mission Programs National Geographic Society Washington
The Chronicle Review stands by the story. — The Editors
***
To the Editor:
Anyone who thinks scholars don’t get bellicose should take a look at “The Betrayal of Judas.” To be sure, there are issues that need to be addressed regarding the Gospel of Judas, and they are being addressed — for example, in the new edition of the text. Yet it remains remarkable, in spite of a few protestations to the contrary, that most scholars agree about a great deal in the National Geographic translation of the Gospel of Judas. We produced what we called a consensus translation, with input from all the members of the National Geographic Society team.
The points of contention with April DeConick and others concerning the translation have involved little more than the interpretation of the single instance of the term “daimon” and the understanding of a Coptic idiom that is ambiguous and open to interpretation, as well as two passages with extraordinarily difficult Coptic transcriptional issues (the ink traces on the papyrus are hard to decipher). These issues were addressed well before the publication of DeConick’s book, in the critical edition of the translation and in updated materials we distributed to our colleagues.
Why DeConick insists on raising old issues that are long past remains a mystery. She received a revised Coptic text and English translation of the Gospel of Judas at a conference in Paris in the autumn of 2006. To put it in clear terms: She discusses in her book and her public interviews an understanding of the Coptic text of the Gospel of Judas that had been abandoned by the National Geographic team long before the time she entered public discussions of the text.
Scholars are in essential agreement about almost everything else in the translation of the Gospel of Judas, though we interpret the text differently. DeConick asked at a recent conference, where we circulated page proofs of the paperback edition and welcomed suggestions, if we would change only one minor reading (the reconstruction of "[Se]th,” which we consider almost certain) — and we accommodated her wishes, for the sake of collegiality. So much for a translation that she says we “messed up.”
Our hope is that we can move beyond this sort of rhetoric and work together as colleagues to study a text and a codex that represent a precious recovered literary witness to our cultural tradition.
Rodolphe Kasser Emeritus Professor of Coptic Language and Literature University of Geneva Geneva
Marvin Meyer Professor of Bible and Christian Studies Chapman University Orange, Calif.
Gregor Wurst Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Patristics University of Augsburg Augsburg, Germany
François Gaudard Research Associate Oriental Institute University of Chicago Chicago
***
To the Editor:
“The Betrayal of Judas” portrays a tense argument among biblical scholars over the interpretation of the Greek word “daimon” in the Gospel of Judas, an ancient manuscript written in Coptic. The description of April DeConick’s reaction to the National Geographic team’s translation of the manuscript includes the statement that rendering “daimon” as “spirit” (the choice of the team) is “an unusual choice and inconsistent with translations of other early Christian texts,” where “daimon” is translated as “demon.” I do not know if this statement accurately reflects DeConick’s words, but it crystallizes the impression (found throughout the article) that it is possible to debate the meaning of this word or any other word in the abstract, without considering textual, historical, or social contexts.
Any good dictionary will verify that “spirit” is one of the most common English translations of the ancient Greek “daimon.” Even in Hellenistic culture, “daimon” could indicate either a good spirit or an evil one. Daimons were superhuman beings, somewhat similar to our concept of angels.
On the other hand, “daimon” usually refers to an evil spirit in the canonical New Testament. As occurs with other words in other languages, “daimon” changed its evaluative tone over time. That transition probably occurred at different times in different locations. Thus either “spirit” or “demon” could be a reasonable translation of “daimon,” depending on the textual, historical, and social contexts.
Biblical scholars should be seeking further knowledge of those contexts: Much more evidence is needed before anyone can claim to have answered the question of how best to translate “daimon” in the Gospel of Judas. I do not know if the fault lies with the scholars or in the reporting, but “The Betrayal of Judas” left me with the impression that both supporters and opponents of the National Geographic team’s translation had abandoned neutral, objective scholarship. As is the case in any discipline, a biblical scholar’s passions and commitments must not predetermine the outcomes of her or his research, let alone substitute for the doing of the research.
Anna Marie B. Bahr Professor of Religious Studies South Dakota State University Brookings, S.D.
***
To the Editor:
You and your reporter have gone out on a limb by revealing the apparent lack of integrity and the commercial spirit with which the National Geographic Society approached this project. Instead of being an organization that seeks the truth and has integrity, the society seems to have become like the major media giants, looking for dollar signs instead of truth signs.
There is enough room for blame all around, but there is room for grace as well. Times like these can serve to regenerate the integrity and search for truth that we need. I propose that National Geographic learn from this instance and make sure that its procedures are better in the future. As for The Chronicle, please continue to enlighten and entertain. You do it so well.
Milt Eisenhardt Marlton, N.J.
***
To the Editor:
Wow — all that animosity about a potential mistranslation of a mythology about a mythology. Maybe “academic” is the wrong descriptor for any of these individuals.
Grow up, people! The “truth” of any such account is at best highly questionable. Recall that all events of the period of Christ’s life were recorded well after the fact and subject to biases and faulty memory. Add ancient-language translation squabbles and damaged manuscripts to the mix, and truth is a hopeless quest. The situation is embarrassing for all involved.
William A. Broughton Professor of Medicine University of South Alabama Mobile, Ala.
http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 54, Issue 42, Page B25