Comments on: The Gospel of Judas hoax http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/ Christianity, Culture, Vocation Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Ed http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9656 Ed Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:51:44 +0000 http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9656 Dear G. E. Veith: I think a number of things I'm seeing on this page are written a bit too hastily or too harshly: 1.) The Gospel of Judas is not a hoax. It is an actually existing ancient document. I presume you really mean "the translation of the Gospel of Judas promulgated by National Geographic is a hoax." But even that is not supported by the article (at least in my opinion)--it seems rather that the scholars involved were hurt by being pressed into exclusivity by National Geographic, insofar as this obstructed their ability to be fully double-checked by their fellow scholars. (More on the question of hoax or no hoax below.) I don't disagree with you that "genuine scholarship got high-jacked by media sensationalism, pop culture superficiality, and commercial temptations," but I don't think that means that these scholars pulled off a hoax. 2.) One commenter, Steve Rowe, wrote: "I suspect we are talking about are examples of how peoples presupposition inform there scholarship. In the case of the Gospel of Judas it seems to me that many of the scholars involved were very invested in a vision of early Christianity that privileged the many voices, many Christianity views and were personally more sympathetic to Gnostic as apposed to 'proto-orthodox' documents." On the one hand, I think Steve Rowe speaks for moderation in evaluating these scholars: "I am not sure that fraud is the right word it’s more of a world view question." I agree with him that fraud or hoax is a little strong, since it implies that these scholars were trying to hoodwink people, which I don't think they were. As for an investment "in a vision of early Christianity that privileged the many voices" on the part of these scholars, I'm not sure that's right plcae to find the problem--at least if we're going to take April DeConick seriously. She claims that the real problem was not being influenced by the gnostics, but just the reverse: the scholars made mistakes because they were too strongly influenced by the _traditional Christian_ take on gnostics! Go to the very next paragraph after the passage quoted by Veith: "...Why had they seen a good Judas where, according to DeConick, none exists? "Maybe because they were looking for him. The first reference to the Gospel of Judas was made by St. Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, in Against Heresies, written around 180. Irenaeus was not a fan of the Gospel of Judas, which he deemed a heretical text (though it's not known whether he actually read the gospel or had only heard rumors about it). Until the Coptic manuscript surfaced in the 1970s, Irenaeus' mention of the gospel was the only known reference. Irenaeus wrote that the gospel portrayed Judas as 'knowing the truth as no others did.' It was an intriguing statement and suggestive of a more positive Judas. "DeConick thinks the translators were overly influenced by Irenaeus and read the gospel with his interpretation in mind. If you come to the gospel free of preconceptions, she argues, then it's clear that Judas is evil and cursed, not holy and chosen." So, according to DeConick, it's NOT some weird postmodern academic tendency to love gnostics that caused the mis-reading, but rather the fact that those scholars listened too closely to the _traditional Christian attacks_ on gnostics! Dear G. E. Veith:

I think a number of things I’m seeing on this page are written a bit too hastily or too harshly:

1.) The Gospel of Judas is not a hoax. It is an actually existing ancient document. I presume you really mean “the translation of the Gospel of Judas promulgated by National Geographic is a hoax.” But even that is not supported by the article (at least in my opinion)–it seems rather that the scholars involved were hurt by being pressed into exclusivity by National Geographic, insofar as this obstructed their ability to be fully double-checked by their fellow scholars. (More on the question of hoax or no hoax below.) I don’t disagree with you that “genuine scholarship got high-jacked by media sensationalism, pop culture superficiality, and commercial temptations,” but I don’t think that means that these scholars pulled off a hoax.

2.) One commenter, Steve Rowe, wrote: “I suspect we are talking about are examples of how peoples presupposition inform there scholarship. In the case of the Gospel of Judas it seems to me that many of the scholars involved were very invested in a vision of early Christianity that privileged the many voices, many Christianity views and were personally more sympathetic to Gnostic as apposed to ‘proto-orthodox’ documents.”

On the one hand, I think Steve Rowe speaks for moderation in evaluating these scholars: “I am not sure that fraud is the right word it’s more of a world view question.” I agree with him that fraud or hoax is a little strong, since it implies that these scholars were trying to hoodwink people, which I don’t think they were.

As for an investment “in a vision of early Christianity that privileged the many voices” on the part of these scholars, I’m not sure that’s right plcae to find the problem–at least if we’re going to take April DeConick seriously. She claims that the real problem was not being influenced by the gnostics, but just the reverse: the scholars made mistakes because they were too strongly influenced by the _traditional Christian_ take on gnostics! Go to the very next paragraph after the passage quoted by Veith:

“…Why had they seen a good Judas where, according to DeConick, none exists?

“Maybe because they were looking for him. The first reference to the Gospel of Judas was made by St. Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, in Against Heresies, written around 180. Irenaeus was not a fan of the Gospel of Judas, which he deemed a heretical text (though it’s not known whether he actually read the gospel or had only heard rumors about it). Until the Coptic manuscript surfaced in the 1970s, Irenaeus’ mention of the gospel was the only known reference. Irenaeus wrote that the gospel portrayed Judas as ‘knowing the truth as no others did.’ It was an intriguing statement and suggestive of a more positive Judas.

“DeConick thinks the translators were overly influenced by Irenaeus and read the gospel with his interpretation in mind. If you come to the gospel free of preconceptions, she argues, then it’s clear that Judas is evil and cursed, not holy and chosen.”

So, according to DeConick, it’s NOT some weird postmodern academic tendency to love gnostics that caused the mis-reading, but rather the fact that those scholars listened too closely to the _traditional Christian attacks_ on gnostics!

]]> By: In Light of the Gospel » Blog Archive » This & That around the Web http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9591 In Light of the Gospel » Blog Archive » This & That around the Web Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:52:30 +0000 http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9591 [...] Gene Veith on the Gospel of Judas Hoax [...] [...] Gene Veith on the Gospel of Judas Hoax [...]

]]> By: Blue Ridge Bible Church » Blog Archive » The “Gospel of Judas” was a hoax http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9466 Blue Ridge Bible Church » Blog Archive » The “Gospel of Judas” was a hoax Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:36:14 +0000 http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9466 [...] a ‘dream team’ of biblical scholars mislead millions?” Here is a key excerpt (h/t Dr. Veith) but I recommend reading it all because there is a lot more too it than just this: One of the seven [...] [...] a ‘dream team’ of biblical scholars mislead millions?” Here is a key excerpt (h/t Dr. Veith) but I recommend reading it all because there is a lot more too it than just this: One of the seven [...]

]]> By: Susan aka organshoes http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9460 Susan aka organshoes Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:14:22 +0000 http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9460 Doesn't the same sort of 'scholarship' and 'expertise' cloud so much these days? We're still buying snake oil, in spite of more research and more widespread higher education. Look at all the falsehood offered as proof in so many areas, all with the hope of changing our behaviors, beliefs, and ultimately who we are. I firmly believe these 'experts' think that their lies and obfuscations are for our benefit. They only want to help us. What talking-down and elitism. What hubris. Doesn’t the same sort of ‘scholarship’ and ‘expertise’ cloud so much these days? We’re still buying snake oil, in spite of more research and more widespread higher education.
Look at all the falsehood offered as proof in so many areas, all with the hope of changing our behaviors, beliefs, and ultimately who we are.
I firmly believe these ‘experts’ think that their lies and obfuscations are for our benefit. They only want to help us.
What talking-down and elitism. What hubris.

]]> By: The Gospel of Judas Hoax « Planet Augsburg http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9455 The Gospel of Judas Hoax « Planet Augsburg Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:45:38 +0000 http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9455 [...] Posted by OB1-K. under Uncategorized   Cranach (Gene Veith’s blog) has a great post about the hoax that is the “Gospel of [...] [...] Posted by OB1-K. under Uncategorized   Cranach (Gene Veith’s blog) has a great post about the hoax that is the “Gospel of [...]

]]> By: Bike Bubba http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9412 Bike Bubba Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:06:47 +0000 http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9412 Steve, sorry, but it's fraud, especially in the bird/reptile thing from National Geographic. More or less, in their excitement over this "missing link", they failed to take a close look and realize that it was two different animals with the rocks literally krazy glued together. In their apology, they admitted their fault. Same basic thing with the language here; Coptic is not one of the harder languages to translate today, as it's still a liturgical language with thousands of fluent speakers. This goes beyond worldview or competence into the realm of blatant fraud. Put gently, there are some basics in any sane academic (or any intellectual) enterprise, and they're increasingly being violated. Same thing with my example; how can you call something a statistical study without a testable hypothesis or control? And yet my home state was billed for exactly that. Steve, sorry, but it’s fraud, especially in the bird/reptile thing from National Geographic. More or less, in their excitement over this “missing link”, they failed to take a close look and realize that it was two different animals with the rocks literally krazy glued together. In their apology, they admitted their fault.

Same basic thing with the language here; Coptic is not one of the harder languages to translate today, as it’s still a liturgical language with thousands of fluent speakers. This goes beyond worldview or competence into the realm of blatant fraud.

Put gently, there are some basics in any sane academic (or any intellectual) enterprise, and they’re increasingly being violated. Same thing with my example; how can you call something a statistical study without a testable hypothesis or control? And yet my home state was billed for exactly that.

]]> By: Steve Rowe http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9409 Steve Rowe Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:44:25 +0000 http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9409 Hello Bike can you provide links for the reptile-bird and the dwarf hominids fraud? I suspect we are talking about are examples of how peoples presupposition inform there scholarship. In the case of the Gospel of Judas it seems to me that many of the scholars involved were very invested in a vision of early Christianity that privileged the many voices, many Christianity views and were personally more sympathetic to Gnostic as apposed to “proto-orthodox” documents. In the case of the reptile-bird we are talking about scientists who presuppose common descent. I am not sure that fraud is the right word it’s more of a world view question. In the case of the Gospel of Judas it seems likely that the right word is not fraud but severe self-delusion verging on incompetence. This is not to say that no scholars do commit fraud (Dr. Michael A. Bellesiles and the Arming of America is a blatant case) but is very rare. It’s far more common for a scholar simply to discount data that agrees with there theses and emphases finding they are personally sympathetic to. This is not a uniquely secular problem just look at the way of New Testament scholars deal with the last few verses in Mark’s Gospel. peace Steve in Toronto Hello Bike can you provide links for the reptile-bird and the dwarf hominids fraud? I suspect we are talking about are examples of how peoples presupposition inform there scholarship. In the case of the Gospel of Judas it seems to me that many of the scholars involved were very invested in a vision of early Christianity that privileged the many voices, many Christianity views and were personally more sympathetic to Gnostic as apposed to “proto-orthodox” documents. In the case of the reptile-bird we are talking about scientists who presuppose common descent. I am not sure that fraud is the right word it’s more of a world view question. In the case of the Gospel of Judas it seems likely that the right word is not fraud but severe self-delusion verging on incompetence. This is not to say that no scholars do commit fraud (Dr. Michael A. Bellesiles and the Arming of America is a blatant case) but is very rare. It’s far more common for a scholar simply to discount data that agrees with there theses and emphases finding they are personally sympathetic to. This is not a uniquely secular problem just look at the way of New Testament scholars deal with the last few verses in Mark’s Gospel.

peace

Steve in Toronto

]]> By: Bike Bubba http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9406 Bike Bubba Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:40:45 +0000 http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9406 You know, I'm seeing more and more "peer reviewed research" that doesn't pass a basic smell test--you don't even have to be a professor of Ph.D. to figure it out. One great example; I took a quick look at a Minnesota "abstinence doesn't work study," and they had an impossible criterion for success, no statistical test, no control. This is, by the way, at least the third time that National Geographic has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar in the past few years. There was the reptile-bird fraud, the dwarf hominids in Indonesia fraud, and now this. They've also abandoned any pretense of objectivity on the issues of evolution and global warming, pretending that no intelligent person could possibly object to the mainstream opinion. I would dare suggest that the Bells and Grosvenors would be appalled, were they alive today to see what has become of their work. And now we find out You know, I’m seeing more and more “peer reviewed research” that doesn’t pass a basic smell test–you don’t even have to be a professor of Ph.D. to figure it out. One great example; I took a quick look at a Minnesota “abstinence doesn’t work study,” and they had an impossible criterion for success, no statistical test, no control.

This is, by the way, at least the third time that National Geographic has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar in the past few years. There was the reptile-bird fraud, the dwarf hominids in Indonesia fraud, and now this. They’ve also abandoned any pretense of objectivity on the issues of evolution and global warming, pretending that no intelligent person could possibly object to the mainstream opinion.

I would dare suggest that the Bells and Grosvenors would be appalled, were they alive today to see what has become of their work.

And now we find out

]]> By: The Gospel of Judas hoax « The Wanderer http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9401 The Gospel of Judas hoax « The Wanderer Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:38:13 +0000 http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9401 [...] by the so-called Gospel of Judas, then you might find Gene Veith’s article and referral here of help, where he speaks of “genuine scholarship . . . high-jacked [sic] by media [...] [...] by the so-called Gospel of Judas, then you might find Gene Veith’s article and referral here of help, where he speaks of “genuine scholarship . . . high-jacked [sic] by media [...]

]]> By: Bruce http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9400 Bruce Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:34:46 +0000 http://www.geneveith.com/the-gospel-of-judas-hoax/_732/#comment-9400 You might dig out and read a book entitled DEGENERATE MODERNS for more of the same. You might dig out and read a book entitled DEGENERATE MODERNS for more of the same.

]]>