I have no thoughts on this one way or the other in terms of its religious impact. It’s just that, every time I hear about this, I keep thinking, “Piltdown Man” or “Hitler Diaries.” It just always seems that when some fascinating historical discovery comes along that’s too good to be true…it turns out to be just that.
PAD
• 
Dead sea scrolls?
Lately, I’ve been fascinated by the accounts of early Christianity as it struggled to find a common identity before the Council of Nicea selected the four canonical Gospels. That Judas might have been operating at Jesus’ request shouldn’t be shocking to us in the modern era. After all, that same theory was presented in The Last Temptation of Christ and was probably the least controversial aspect of the movie.
But, if you believe that Jesus’ crucifixion was preordained than Judas was just fullfilling God’s will in betraying him, whether he knew it or not. That makes Dante’s treatment of him a bit harsh, IMHO.
The press is making way too much out of this supposed “Gospel of Judas.” Not even the National Geographic Society is claiming that the text was written by the Judas. It’s a Gnostic document, written in the second or third century by people using the historical figures Jesus and Judas to advance their own philosophies – kind of like in that Babylon 5 episode, “The Deconstruction of Falling Stars.” There are many such documents floating around, all purporting to be from one figure or another from the beginnings of Christianity. The Christian church has known about them for centuries.
And some of those texts are probably locked up in the Vatican secret files, too…
In “Jesus Christ Superstar” Judas says, (sings), “I only did what you wanted me to.”
When I first heard that music in 1970 I thought that it expressed the exact same idea that all of us Catholic kids used to ask the priest in religion class. “If Jesus was born to die for our sins, and his death was all part of the plan to redeem us, wasn’t what Judas did was necessary?”
Judas’ role in the events of the last week of Christ’s life has always been a matter of debate. It isn’t new and it isn’t shocking.
“Judas’ role in the events of the last week of Christ’s life has always been a matter of debate. It isn’t new and it isn’t shocking.”
The best discussion I saw of that was on an episode of MASH in which a downed bombing pilot, being treated at the unit, was convinced he was Jesus. At one point Hawkeye breaks up an animated discussion between the pilot and Father Mulcahey on that very topic (“Being Judas he could do nothing else.” “Ah, but if that’s so, then…”)
PAD
BBOvenGuy: Not even the National Geographic Society is claiming that the text was written by the Judas.
Luigi Novi: Of course not. Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John themselves were not written by those apostles, or even by anyone who claimed to have met an earthly Jesus. The Judas Gospel is no different.
Not even the National Geographic Society is claiming that the text was written by the Judas.
For that matter, there really isn’t any proof that the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were actually written by those apostles or by later followers of theirs who wrote down what they were told.
This isn’t so much a new text as it is the oldest copy of it found. In fact, it’s one of the oldest copies of any Gospel still in existance. It’s a fascinating look into how an early sect of Christianity may have viewed the story of the crucifixion. People will always gravitate towards whatever theory of the Jesus-Judas relationship that suits them anyway.
It’s a Gnostic document, written in the second or third century by people using the historical figures Jesus and Judas to advance their own philosophies – kind of like in that Babylon 5 episode, “The Deconstruction of Falling Stars.” There are many such documents floating around, all purporting to be from one figure or another from the beginnings of Christianity. The Christian church has known about them for centuries.
Sure, but as I said, the age of the text, just the Dead Sea Scrolls, makes it an exciting find for archaeologists. Will it change the very fabric of Christianity? Probably not, but it does give some significant clues into the origins of the faith.
Speaking about this topic just reminded me of an news item I just saw about the DaVinci Code. I have not read that book yet but the article mentioned that it begins with the theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. This was the controversial thought of The Last Temptation of Christ also.
What has always astounded me is that when I was in Catholic school the Nuns screend Jesus Christ Superstar for us, and even in the sixth grade when I heard Mary Magdalene sing ” I don’t know how to love him” it didn’t strike me as being in the spiritual sense. (Kirk when the lights went down in TOS was more subtle at that time.)
It’s a Gnostic document, written in the second or third century by people using the historical figures Jesus and Judas to advance their own philosophies
Does anybody else see the irony in this comment?
Wasn’t the New Testament written around this same time period as well (ie, not all of it during the life of Jesus, but some if not most of it after he had died), with the purpose of the writers advancing their own philosophies? 🙂
By definition, the scriptures of any religion were written down by those who were advancing their own philosophies.
Now, sure, in at least one particular case the philosophy may have come direct from a divine entity. But which one?
You could make the argument that the four gospels provide corroborating (and sometimes contradictory) accounts, whereas the Gospel of Judas is a single work and without any supporting documentation, more open to question on the subject of its authentic portrayal of the events.
Or you could just say that it’s a matter of faith and it doesn’t really matter what’s corroborated or not.
The only people it will really affect are those fundementalists who get upset over anything that dares to disagree with them, and the type of people who believe that the Da Vinci Code has uncovered some great religious truth.
Pretty much everyone else is just going to ignore it as an irrelevance, or a quick conversation starter when we get bored talking politics.
You could make the argument that the four gospels provide corroborating (and sometimes contradictory) accounts, whereas the Gospel of Judas is a single work and without any supporting documentation, more open to question on the subject of its authentic portrayal of the events.
Not exactly, because the three synoptic Gospels (Mathew, Mark, and Luke) are interrated. Most Biblical scholars agree that Mark was the earliest one written and that both Mathew and Luke used it as source material. Only John is believed to have been written independently, which is why it’s the most different of the four canonical Gospels.
Second, the only reason why Judas is seen is as “more open to question” is that the Council of Nycea did not deem it or any of the 20+ noncanonical gospels to fit into their interpretation of the Christianity. There’s really no proof that the four that appear in the Bible are any more “true” other than a group of bishops 1500 years ago thought that they were.
Wasn’t the New Testament written around this same time period as well (ie, not all of it during the life of Jesus, but some if not most of it after he had died), with the purpose of the writers advancing their own philosophies?
Touche… 🙂 Although, there are some significant differences. The Gnostic gospels were written at least a full century after the life of Jesus, whereas the books of the New Testament can all at least make a case for being traceable back to the people who were actually there and witnessed the events themselves. Whether or not you believe the case that can be made for each is, of course, up to the individual. Some in this very thread believe it more than others. But there’s been enough archaeological evidence to indicate that it’s possible, whereas for the Gnostic gospels there hasn’t been.
Also, the Gospel of Judas and the other Gnostic gospels present a completely different theology from orthodox Christianity. They all center on the claim that Jesus gave the disciples secret teachings on how an enlightened elite could attain salvation through a special kind of self-knowledge. That’s the complete opposite of Christianity, which teaches that salvation is freely available to everyone equally, and can’t be attained through one’s own efforts. (The Gnostics also believed that the God of the Old Testament was an evil false God.) It’s kind of like someone trying to publish The Secret Policies of Ronald Reagan, in which it was claimed that Reagan wanted to tax the rich and loved communism.
as I said, the age of the text, just the Dead Sea Scrolls, makes it an exciting find for archaeologists. Will it change the very fabric of Christianity? Probably not, but it does give some significant clues into the origins of the faith.
Oh yes, from an archaeological standpoint, the document is very interesting. But the press is making it out to be some kind of great theological revelation, which it very much isn’t.
Coming next: The Gospel According to Harlan.
I keep thinking of the Last Temptation of Christ as I keep hearing about this today. Harvey Keitel to william Defoe “You begged me to betray you”.
Just goes to show, even the Gospels had fanfic communities. At least there’s not much slash (one might classify parts of the Book of Jubilees as such, IIRC).
Spoiler for Dracula 2000 to follow. If you haven’t ever seen it but plan to do so then don’t read the below statement.
I still think the best Judas twist ever was him being Dracula.
PAD wrote: “It just always seems that when some fascinating historical discovery comes along that’s too good to be true…it turns out to be just that.”
Oh, I don’t know. I think there are plenty of astonishing discoveries or purported “mythical” creatures and places that are pooh-poohed or though to be hoaxes which turn out to be absolutely real.
There’s the Rosetta Stone, the aforementioned Dead Sea Scrolls, the tomb of Tutankhamen, the amazing 120-room underground tomb (KV5) of Ramses II’s family, the long-lost city of Petra, Macchu Piccu, Troy, Pompeii/Herculaneum, the 5,000-year old frozen “Iceman” found in the mountains of Italy, the duck-billed Platypus, the Coelacanth, the Indonesia “Hobbit” race Homo floresi, the “Lost World” found in the highlands of New Guinea, the intact frozen carcass of the Jarkov Mammoth, nests of petrified dinosaur eggs found in the Gobi desert, the Giant Squid, the mummified Inca princess found on top of Mt. Ampato, and a host of other eye-opening discoveries.
If anything, truth is stranger than fiction far more often than not.
There’s a similar situation in the story of Joseph. When he finaly reveals his identity to his brothers and how his being sold to slavery was part of God’s plan to protect the Jews during the famine, he tells them: “you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.”
In other words, his brothers didn’t have God’s will in mind when they sold him to the slavers, and just because God used it for good, does not excuse them for their crime. The same could be said of Judas.
Out of curiosity, in the Gospel of Judas does he not kill himself…which would certainly make his ability to write anything a lot more likely.
I don’t know, unless it’s a particularly well written sddition, I’d just as soon not see the Bible retconned.
“I don’t know, unless it’s a particularly well written sddition, I’d just as soon not see the Bible retconned.”
I don’t think anyone is expecting that. It’s just not likely that any major additions will happen to the bible in today’s world. The most that could happen is that bible scholars consider it an additional historical work.
The bible has actually had many changes done to it over the centuries. What’s called the King’s James Bible today has lots of little differences from the King James Bible of a few hundred years ago. Those changes are minor compared to the more significant changes in the early centuries of the bible. So the bible really isn’t inherently proof against “retcons”.
Am I the only one who looked at the title of the entry and wondered if it was going to be a Scooter Libby reference? 🙂 (Yes, I’m familiar with what IS being referenced, but really…)
TWL
Define “real”. The National Geographic Society has confirmed that the scroll does indeed date back to the third century, and isn’t a forgery. Of course, they take no stance as to its historical accuracy…
Query: Was the Nicean group the one that decided the Books of the Maccabees were “apocryphal”? When I learned of this, I found it amusing – they’re among the few books that are actually historically verifiable, dealing as they do with the Maccabean Revolt against (IIRC) the Persian Empire.
(Kirk when the lights went down in TOS was more subtle at that time.)
Now I’m flashing on that ST:TNG episode with Darmok. “Kirk, when the lights went down,” would mean “someone who is being extremely unsubtle, especially sexually”. 🙂
Now I’m flashing on that ST:TNG episode with Darmok. “Kirk, when the lights went down,” would mean “someone who is being extremely unsubtle, especially sexually”. 🙂
Dangit! Now every time a new troll pops up around here, I’m going to hear Paul Winfield’s voice in my head sighing and saying, “X-Ray, at his keyboard.”
-Rex Hondo-
Oh, I hope it turns out to be authentic. Between this and the missing-fish-link discovery, this has turned out to be a great week for all things old being new again (and a nice one-two punch for literalist “religious” nuts)…
Here we go again. The world is full of people who will jump at every opportunity to discredit Christianity – happily accepting the blatant innacuracies of the Da Vinci code while ignoring everything the Bible itself has to say. It only confirms what Jesus says in the Bible, that others will come later pretending to be him or to speak for him, and they will introduce lies and half-truths to the Church, and the world will be hostile to Christ. He said it was going to happen, yet when it happens the media say “so Christianity must be wrong!” – it’s confounding.
***Posted by Iain Gibson at April 7, 2006 04:36 PM
The only people it will really affect are those fundementalists who get upset over anything that dares to disagree with them, and the type of people who believe that the Da Vinci Code has uncovered some great religious truth. ****
Don’t know about the Da Vinci Code groupies, but from what I’ve heard from most of the fundementalists quoted in the press, is that his gospel is not going to really change or challenge any of their core beliefs all that much. Apparently this gospel doesn’t refer to either the Crucifiction or the Birth of Christ, so it’s not a challenge to any core beliefs there.
Now as a retconning of viewing Judas as Most Evil Person Ever, then it might have an impact on those who hold that as a major point of their belief systems. Otherwise, the gospel’s being seen as a historical document and not much else.
Chris
‘Here we go again. The world is full of people who will jump at every opportunity to discredit Christianity – happily accepting the blatant innacuracies of the Da Vinci code while ignoring everything the Bible itself has to say. It only confirms what Jesus says in the Bible, that others will come later pretending to be him or to speak for him, and they will introduce lies and half-truths to the Church, and the world will be hostile to Christ. He said it was going to happen, yet when it happens the media say “so Christianity must be wrong!” – it’s confounding.’
What’s confounding to me is how people take the Bible itself as an inherently perfect document, regardless of whether it has already been changed more than a few times, when different groups, convinced in their inherent rightness, actually decided which texts would and wouldn’t be included. That’s right; books that were there in one version were subsequently removed or added to suit their tastes, then bandied about as the ‘true word of God’.
The texts were all written by man in the first place, and last I recall, man was inherently flawed.
Besides, isn’t it remotely possible that the tales contained therein were actually meant to be used as educational stories, rather than the immutable word of God? The Judas argument caused by reading these newly revealed texts is a good one, since there seem to be so many things in the modern Bible that just don’t hold up or make sense when we allow for careful and studious scrunity of the text anyway.
If God hated sin, why create man with the freedom of chhoice, then create the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, actually allow an angel he cast out of Heaven to come into contact with them, then banish them for doing something he actually had to think up (after all, being omniscient means that you know everything, including what would happen in this scenario) to make possible?
Why the cross? Why would the Son of God need to obtain the keys to hëll and death, since they were both created by God? If it’s not a convenient story plot device, what sense does it make? God, being God, after all, could take back the keys to hëll and death at anytime, because He’s God and He says so. No death of Jesus necessary: “I’m God; DO IT.”
Why the endless hoops? Why the passages that contradict the other ones?
Isn’t it possible that we could simply find our own personal commune with God, allowing that while all the texts out there that are considered holy (and trust me, a lot of stories match or at least have parallels from book to book) have certain truths to them, the final truth comes from simple communication to the voice we reach within our spiritual self?
Sorry if this got too heavy, but after an outburst of blind fundamentalism, I felt the need for a little balance.
Okay, maybe overcompensation. 😉
A friend mentioned the Gospel of Judas in passing yesterday, but didn’t give me any context, and I haven’t followed up on it. So, as of this moment, I pretty much only know what I’ve read here, with regards to this “Gospel.”
On the other hand, I can offer some possibly interesting comments about Judas Iscariot.
One theory is that Judas was a Zealot, which, at the time, referred to a specific group that believed the Messiah would lead a revolt to overthrow Roman occupation. Judas “betrayed” Jesus because he believed that if he backed Jesus into a corner, he’d have to take off the gloves and come out fighting.
Of course he was wrong in his expectation of how Jesus would respond, and was devastated by this realization. As I recall, this devastation was two-fold. First, there would be no revolt; second, his friend would soon die. Judas probably thought Jesus was about to die for nothing.
Now, I _thought_ I’d read this interpretation of Judas’ motivations in “A Life of Jesus” by Japanese author Shusako Endo, a Catholic writing about Jesus (and those around him) for, “the benefit of Japanese readers who have no Christian tradition of their own and who know almost nothing about Jesus.”
However, I’ve pulled the book off the shelf, and read through the relevant chapters concerning Judas. Either I mis-remembered what Endo wrote, or I read the “force Jesus to come out fighting” theory elsewhere.
For the record, Endo does say that Judas seems to be the only disciple who understands Jesus, because he _knows_ Jesus won’t raise up arms against that sea of troublesome Romans (to butcher Shakespeare). The others are caught up in the excitement of the crowd during Passover.
But anyway, I’ve always found the “Judas thought Jesus would come out fighting if backed up against the wall” theory interesting. It gives him a plausible motivation, instead of just being, I don’t know, evil? I don’t recall much being said in the Bible about _why_ Judas would turn on Jesus, just that he did. Was the 30 pieces of silver supposed to be the motivation, or was that just the subsequent payment?
Another theory about Judas, aluded to by others above, I saw on some program about Jesus that aired around Christmas. This theory was that Jesus knew (or believed, as the case may be) that he had to fulfill certain prophecies, and that Judas was the only one he could trust to do what needed to be done. This program also said Judas was trusted by Jesus and the other disciples, overall, because he was in charge of their common purse.
It also said the 30 pieces of silver was standard payment (for turning in a criminal?), and that said payment was seen as a normal part of the process.
I don’t recall if the show addressed Judas’ suicide. My guess would be that even though Judas followed Jesus’ instructions, he probably never imagined things would work out as they did, and thought that he had truly betrayed Jesus.
What would have happened, I wonder, had Judas not gone off and hanged himself. What if he’d decided to spend the weekend wallowing in guilt, and thus had still been alive on Easter Sunday?
With regard to the 30 pieces, Endo writes that Judas despised the crowd that reviled Jesus; but more so, he despised himself. He writes, “He took the paltry sum contemptuously handed to him by the high priest, knowing full well that the price was in line with his own ignoble deed.”
Endo also believes that Judas was saved through the merits of Jesus, “for the reason that because he felt the parallel between himself and Jesus, he believed in Jesus. And Jesus, for his part, understood the suffering of Judas. By means of his own death, Jesus poured out his love even on the man who betrayed him.”
This “parallel” Endo cites includes Judas’ decision that because Jesus is going to die, he must also die. Judas also took into account that while Jesus would be rejected, jeered and spat upon by the people on Good Friday, he would be (metaphorically) rejected, jeered and spat upon by the human race, until the end of time.
So, was Judas a traitor, plain and simple; a man who thought he was doing the right thing by backing Jesus into a corner; or a man following Jesus’ instructions? I doubt we’ll ever know with absolute certainty.
Speaking of the 30 pieces of silver, somewhere in my home library I own a short story, the title of which escapes me, that concerns a group of people overcome by greed. They believe there’s something of value buried in the area. Bad things happen. People die (or are seriously injured), but at last, one of the characters digs up the “treasure”. And finds, to his horror, that it’s 30 pieces of silver. The clear implication being that these particular coins have been cursed. Good story. Wish I could remember the name. ‘Cause I want to read it.
Rick
and a nice one-two punch for literalist “religious” nuts
Speaking of which, A bunch of them recently went nuts at a Bill Nye The Science Guy appearence because he criticized literal interpretation of the biblical verse Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”
He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/04/06/04062006wacbillnye.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=11
Hmmm. I recall a novel from Judas’ viewpoint by Taylor Caldwell, I believe. Quite good.
The idea of a “gospel of Judas” was also used by the late Joseph Rosenberger in his Death Merchant action-adventure pulp series. In #53 The Judas Scrolls the Death Merchant is called in to recover an ancient scroll purportedly written by Judas. Rosenberger frequently put all sorts of ’70s pseudoscience and other fringe ideas in his books, and the “truth” about Jesus includes him surviving the crucifixtion via yoga learned during his “lost years” in India, Jesus having a period in India being an idea with some popularity in certain circles over the years.
When they find out it was writen on ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ stationary Opus will be in trouble.
Jonathan (the other one) –
AFAIK, in declaring the Books of the Maccabees apocryphal, Martin Luther and later the Protestant churches were actually following the lead of Jewish Biblical scholarship. The primary reason why they are not considered part of the canon of the Jewish Bible (or Old Testament, Protestant version) is that they only survive in a Greek version, there is no tradition of their Hebrew originals (if they ever existed). In Catholic theology, the two Books of the Maccabees are grouped among the other texts of the Old Testament which only exist in the Greek version (Catholic Version) that are considered deuterocanonical (belonging to the second canon).
I would assume that in Nicea they would not have worried much about the deuteroncanonical texts (which apart from books like the Macabees e.g. includes a couple of passages in the Book of Daniel) as a that time they were trying to set themselves apart from Jews (IIRC it was around this time that they came up with a method of calculating the date of Easter so that in most years it would not coincide with Passover and that they made sunday, not saturday, the high day of the week) and many of them would only have used Greek version of the texts of the Old Testament anyway.
Craig J. Ries: Wasn’t the New Testament written around this same time period as well (ie, not all of it during the life of Jesus, but some if not most of it after he had died)
Luigi Novi: All of it, actually.
BBOvenGuy: The Gnostic gospels were written at least a full century after the life of Jesus, whereas the books of the New Testament can all at least make a case for being traceable back to the people who were actually there and witnessed the events themselves.
Luigi Novi: None of the Gospels were written by people claiming to have been witnesses, and the authors even admit to this. They are written in the third person in the style of narrative fiction (they talk about things Jesus did when he was alone, or what he was thinking), and at best, are heresay accounts.
Maybe I’ve gotten too much of my Christ story from Superstar, but to me, the parallels of JC telling Peter that he will deny him three times and Judas will betray him are critical to the whole thing: They’re not predictions or criticisms, they’re marching orders. If God is omniscient, and Jesus has enough of the spark to see the “cup” that he wants taken from him, he knows what’s coming next, and the requirements for the outcome.
Of course, I’ve always liked the pop-art speculations. There’s nothing in Da Vinci Code that wasn’t done more clever and crude in the comic “Preacher”, no better version of explaining how Christ knew his fate than Moorcock’s “Behold the Man.” See Blaylock’s “The Last Coin” for what happened to the 30 pieces of silver.
And if you’re offended, tough. If your faith isn’t strong enough to be able to deal with a reflection, a fiction, an alternative… well then you’re proving evolution, bub, ’cause I’m moving up, and you’re moving out.
LOL. Well said, Joel. 🙂
The world is full of people who will jump at every opportunity to discredit Christianity
Maybe, but around here it just seems like folks are interested in the historical aspects, and not the religious, which are two entirely separate beasts.
…and since folks are reecommending books, in a tangent related to this, the new Kathy Reichs book, Cross Bones, is pretty interesting – set in the Holy City, concerns the bones of Jesus and the ideas of the DaVinci Code and other such books.
I don’t know, it seems to me that the Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar is a delusional egomaniac more than anything else, and that everything that happens is by his own will, rather than God’s (it’s even debatable that the play/movie even acknowledges the existence of a god… I believe Tim Rice is an atheist).
“Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, who are you, what have you sacrificed?” Good question.
Dorothy L. Sayers, the famous mystery writer, wrote a series of radio plays for the BBC on the life of Christ and she had an interesting take on the character of Judas. She portrayed Judas as an intelligent man, clever and well-educated, who understood Jesus a lot better than most of his disciples; but Judas came to believe that he understood Jesus better than Jesus himself.
In Sayers’ play, Judas begins to suspect that Jesus is going to go the political messiah route and declare himself king. Suspicion hardens into paranoia until finally Judas sells him to the Pharisees to ‘save Jesus from himself.’ It is only when the insurrection he fears fails to materialize that Judas realizes his horrible mistake.
That’s one interpretation.
One interesting thing about Judas in the Gospel of John: he is never mentioned without some sort of commentary: (“Judas, the dirty-rotten-stinking-traitor; oh, by the way, did I mention he was a thief too?”). I get the distinct impression that John (assuming that he really wrote the Gospel) really hated Judas and never forgave him for what he did. It reminds me that the great Saints of Old were human too.
BTW, if anyone is interested, you can read it at http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf
Don’t expect much. My favorite part is where a cloud appears and a voice from within (presumably God) says “great generation…image…(5 lines missing).”
Thanks, God. Very helpful.
I followed the link and the first thing that struck me was the copyright notice. National Geographic must have negotiated that with Judas’ estate.
I wonder if they secured the movie rights, too.
I followed the link and the first thing that struck me was the copyright notice. National Geographic must have negotiated that with Judas’ estate.
Facetiousness aside, it’s the case that copyright can be asserted over specific translations of a work. In this case, although the original Coptic language text is almost certainly in the Public Domain (as may be defined by various countries’ copyright law,) this specific English language translation would itself be a copyrightable work. Anyone else who made a different translation (provided he/she/it/they had access to the original…) would be able to assert a copyright on that different translation.
Just nitpicking, I know, but given the lively debate that arises over different translations of religious works, it strikes me as a point worth noting.
“great generation…image…(5 lines missing).”
It forsees the literary careers of Tom Brokaw and of Jim Lee, Marc Silvestri, Jim Valentino, Todd McFarlane, Erik Larsen, etc.?
Posted by: Ali T. Kokmen at April 9, 2006 10:34 AM
Facetiousness aside, it’s the case that copyright can be asserted over specific translations of a work. In this case, although the original Coptic language text is almost certainly in the Public Domain (as may be defined by various countries’ copyright law,) this specific English language translation would itself be a copyrightable work. Anyone else who made a different translation (provided he/she/it/they had access to the original…) would be able to assert a copyright on that different translation.
Just nitpicking, I know, but given the lively debate that arises over different translations of religious works, it strikes me as a point worth noting.
It’s a point well worth making.
I’m no expert in copyright law, but I kinda figured they were claiming ownership of that specific translation, and not of the original Gospel of Judas. Still, there was a joke screaming to be made, and I couldn’t resist.
Joelfinger wrote:
>And if you’re offended, tough. If your faith >isn’t strong enough to be able to deal with a >reflection, a fiction, an alternative… well >then you’re proving evolution, bub, ’cause I’m
>moving up, and you’re moving out.
Joel, you are absolutely right. I’m a Christian, in fact, I’m an ordained minister, and I couldn’t agree with you more.
Although; I’ve not read Moorecock’s treatment of Jesus knowing about his death, but that topic has never been a mystery to me. Given what he was saying and doing in the powder keg of Roman-occupied Israel, Jesus would have had to have been an idiot NOT to know that he was headed for a cross.
Oh, and Luigi, you’re mostly right. Three of the four Biblical gospels do NOT claim to have been written by eyewitnesses (later traditions about their authorship notwithstanding), but the fourth gospel DOES claim to come from an eyewitness, the Beloved Disciple (whoever that was, the Gospel never reveals his name).
No one here seems to have mentioned Borges’s “Three Versions of Judas” yet, which expands on this premise to conclude that not only was Judas doing God’s will, but that Judas actually was God and paid the price of sin by betraying Jesus and going to hëll for humanity’s sins, so here I am, mentioning it.
One of the key points of “Last Temptation of Christ” was that Christ told Judas to portray Him. He said something like: “Of the two of us, you have the harder job.” And yet Scorsese STILL hasn’t won a bloody Oscar!
The strange thing about the Gospel of Judas is that Frank Herbert wrote the same exact sort of find in his God Emporer of Dune novel, where the Judas stand in was ordered by the God Emperor to kill him, and its only much later where a text revealing this fact is found.