Marvin Meyer: Disputes charges he and others mangled translation of the Gospel of Judas
[The writer, one of the original editors and translators of the Gospel of Judas, is a professor of religious studies at Chapman University.]
To the Editor:
Re “Gospel Truth” (Op-Ed, Dec. 1), about the Gospel of Judas:
April D. DeConick speaks too confidently when she talks about our mistakes in translation. She knows better. The issues of translation she highlights are almost all discussed in the notes in the popular edition and critical edition of the Gospel of Judas, and the observation that Judas is the “thirteenth daimon” in the text is open to discussion and debate.
Professor DeConick’s additional insinuations of ulterior motives by her fellow scholars in the establishment of the Coptic text and the development of an appropriate translation are extremely disappointing and disturbing. She knows how we struggled carefully and honestly with this difficult text preserved in fragments.
Professor DeConick comes up with her interpretation of the Gospel of Judas by virtually ignoring all the positive things said about Judas in the text. In the end, Professor DeConick’s Judas recalls Brando in “On the Waterfront.” He coulda been a contenda, he coulda been somebody — if he just were not so demonic.
When the positive things said about Judas in the Gospel of Judas are given fair consideration, it may be said: Judas is still a contenda. Marvin Meyer
Orange, Calif., Dec. 4, 2007
Read entire article at Letter to the Editor of the NYT
To the Editor:
Re “Gospel Truth” (Op-Ed, Dec. 1), about the Gospel of Judas:
April D. DeConick speaks too confidently when she talks about our mistakes in translation. She knows better. The issues of translation she highlights are almost all discussed in the notes in the popular edition and critical edition of the Gospel of Judas, and the observation that Judas is the “thirteenth daimon” in the text is open to discussion and debate.
Professor DeConick’s additional insinuations of ulterior motives by her fellow scholars in the establishment of the Coptic text and the development of an appropriate translation are extremely disappointing and disturbing. She knows how we struggled carefully and honestly with this difficult text preserved in fragments.
Professor DeConick comes up with her interpretation of the Gospel of Judas by virtually ignoring all the positive things said about Judas in the text. In the end, Professor DeConick’s Judas recalls Brando in “On the Waterfront.” He coulda been a contenda, he coulda been somebody — if he just were not so demonic.
When the positive things said about Judas in the Gospel of Judas are given fair consideration, it may be said: Judas is still a contenda. Marvin Meyer
Orange, Calif., Dec. 4, 2007