Gospel of Judas No. 4 Judas Not to Ascend to the Holy
The fourth error that DeConick points out has already produced agreement in the period after the original release. What the original National Geographic translation of 46.25-47.1 read as:
"They will curse your ascent to the holy [generation]"
now reads as:
"…You will not ascend to the holy [generation]" (DeConick)
The fourth error that DeConick points out has already produced agreement in the period after the original release. What the original National Geographic translation of 46.25-47.1 read as:
"They will curse your ascent to the holy [generation]"
now reads as:
"…You will not ascend to the holy [generation]" (DeConick)
"…you will not ascend on high to the holy [generation]" (Judas Critical edition).
The problem here were that small parts of both lines are missing in the manuscript and thus the entire line had to be reconstructed. Now there seems to be agreement on what it likely should read and say (Meyer’s translation in his own edition of Judas reflects the change in the reading). So the very positive reading that Judas will be blessed at the highest level is not the meaning here. As DeConick concludes on this point: "Without this fictitious Coptic line, there is no ascent of Judas into the holy generation." The only question that remains is does Judas end up in another blessed level or some more neutral status (so Meyer) or is this an example of a negative take on Judas (DeConick).
This kind of problem, trying to determine what is missing in a defective manuscript, does occur here and there in trying to translate ancient documents. This is what happens when the key materials we are working with are between 1500-1850 years old.
4 Comments
Magnus Nordlund
Did Paul know the Jesus of the gospels?
Dr Bock!
Paul seems in his letters (the autentic one’s), to know very little, or just about nothing concerning the activity of the historical Jesus, such as the miracle stories, the important parables and so on.
Is it possible that Paul from the start only knew about the “kerygma” preached by persons such as Stephen (Stefanos). Thereafter i.e. after his conversion and during his fellowship with the twelve, Paul got informed about the earthly life and work of Jesus (from the first-hand witnesses). If this is correct, Paul must have been acquainted with the works and teachings of Jesus at that point.
If the above is true, Paul accordingly must have received a different account concerning the life and works of Jesus given the discrepancy in comparison with the gospel stories; which he doesnt confirm at all.
Since the genuine pauline letters are older than the recorded gospels and the discrepancy is so evident; this would then, put the reliability of the gospel accounts into question wouldnt it?
Sincerely Magnus Nordlund
bock
Did Paul Know Jesus of the Gospels dlb
Magnus:
Paul does know Jesus and his teaching (1 Cor 7:10-18; themes in Rom 14-15). He did not know Jesus before this and did respond to the kerygma as a presupposition for his processing the vision he received, which did discuss Jesus’ work (See Acts 10:34-42 as an example).
dlb
Magnus Nordlund
The kerygma as the historical foundation vis-à-vis the gospels
Dr Bock! I do agree with you. But still, Paul seems to lack considerable knowledge of the miracle stories of the synoptics; aswell as Jesus geographical whereabouts and so on. Even though I do not usually agree with Rudolph Bultmanns exegtical program (die Entmythologisierung); I still think that he might have a point when he tries to distinguish between mythos and kerygma in which the kerygma functions as the foundation for the historical core of what was known about Jesus of Nazareth previous the formation of the gospels.
This would in my estimation (or from my own perspective concerning exegetical thinking and interpretation) imply that the gospel traditions is a combination of:
kerygma + verifiable historical and geographical accounts (such as the context in which Jesus lived his life) + a various collected logia of Jesus+ the early christian reinterpretation or recreation of the major OT:stories; which in light of the new belief in Christ were transposed in order to create a Jesus in conformity with the prophets, Moses, Joseph and so on (in one aspect a made up Jesus but in a kerygmatic perspective: the real Jesus).
In this, the miracle stories (mythos) of Jesus would have the kerygma as basis/ foundation; but the content of the miracle stories in the gospels had no other source than the Old Testament stories; and from a Christian perspective. A brief example of the former can be given: Moses went up on Mount Sinai and gave the law; accordingly: The second Moses went up on a mountain and gave “sermon on the mount” and so on and on (a lot of examples can be given).
*So in conclusion:
i. Evidently Paul knew about the kergyma aswell as some about the life and teachings (logia) of Jesus. However since Paul writes before the formation of the synoptics he probably didnt know about the mythos (i.e. the miracle stories and the reinterpretation of OT:s figures and stories in creating a story concerning the life of Jesus).
ii. This would lastly imply that the miracle stories in the gospels have no historical value and should not be taken as such (this doesnt mean that the stories are of lesser value or untrue in essence; or not the word of God; but still it is presumably not historical).
Well Dr Bock, being a swede and lutheran and heavy influenced by german theology one still wonders: Have I gone to far in my speculations?
Sincerely Magnus Nordlund.
bock
Kerygma dlb
Magnus:
Yes, too far in my view. Paul writes occasional letters. When I respond to you in an email, I do not go over ground we may well share about Jesus. I assume you know the "story". I think the kerygma works in a similar way. People knew it and so its story did not need repeating. Secondly Paul was impressed by his experience of the Risen Jesus which brought him to Christ and was the preeminent "mythos" that he, of course, saw as true, real historical event. The Jesus of word and deed is the Jesus of the church’s preaching, as Acts indicates, and Paul would have known about these themes from his own work in the churches. Third, the authority that Paul and other apostles had to perform wonders assumes Jesus’ own ability to do the same, I would think. The kerygma like we see in Acts suggests this as do some fo Paul’s remarks (Gal 3:5).
dlb