tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post3464670704720767394..comments2023-11-02T01:20:32.436-07:00Comments on The Forbidden Gospels: Response (5) to Marvin Meyer: The Thirteenth DaimonApril DeConickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-85916364595079177122008-02-17T12:06:00.000-08:002008-02-17T12:06:00.000-08:00Actually that is incorrect. You cannot have BOK i...Actually that is incorrect. You cannot have BOK in this form in a durative sentence. <BR/><BR/>This codex has negative emphatic future with only one "N" throughout. This is a common spelling.April DeConickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-16231746195319413892008-02-07T11:15:00.000-08:002008-02-07T11:15:00.000-08:00The critical edition, page 46,25, has: ...auo ne...The critical edition, page 46,25, has:<BR/> ...auo nekbok...<BR/> This form is not a third negative future, but an imperfect. You rightly conjecture a "n", even if there is no place for it in the manuscript. So your rendering of the text should be:<BR/> ... and you (will not) ascend...<BR/>J. Montserrat TorrentsJ. Montserrat Torrentshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03289000474869020780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-40175757920626129412008-02-07T11:11:00.000-08:002008-02-07T11:11:00.000-08:00The critical edition, page 46,25, has: ...auo ne...The critical edition, page 46,25, has:<BR/> ...auo nekbok...<BR/> This form is not a third negative future, but an imperfect. You rightly conjecture a "n", even if there is no place for it in the manuscript. So your rendering of the text should be:<BR/> ... and you (will not) ascend...<BR/>J. Montserrat TorrentsJ. Montserrat Torrentshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03289000474869020780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-25084709924214762162008-01-19T09:44:00.000-08:002008-01-19T09:44:00.000-08:00Paul,The e-mails I got were quite interesting in t...Paul,<BR/><BR/>The e-mails I got were quite interesting in this matter. The largest number of them criticized me for not being tough enough. These readers thought that I didn't say what they felt needed to be said, but was protecting my colleagues. <BR/><BR/>I have found that you cannot control how readers interpret the written letters, and that these interpretations can be quite the opposite the authorial intent. I don't know what to do about this. As a writer, I try my best to be clear. But in the end the interpretation is left to the reader.April DeConickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-92195362099547127712008-01-18T14:46:00.000-08:002008-01-18T14:46:00.000-08:00April, Again, I'm not disagreeing with what you ju...April, <BR/><BR/>Again, I'm not disagreeing with what you just said. I believe you did not intend to call anyone out on their integrity, but that is the way it was interpreted by most readers. And not completely irrationally, given that the NG team was the main target of the piece.<BR/><BR/>I understand -- I write for a living and not everything comes out the way I intend and sometimes I'm surprised that words are interpreted in ways I would not have imagined.paulfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16727202517182571557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-28500480154625733862008-01-18T13:51:00.000-08:002008-01-18T13:51:00.000-08:00Paul,Thank you for your comment. I believe the su...Paul,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your comment. I believe the subject of that sentence was "we" and NOT Marvin Meyer or the NGS team.April DeConickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-60897370792680528742008-01-18T13:08:00.000-08:002008-01-18T13:08:00.000-08:00It's kind of disingenuous to deny that you made an...It's kind of disingenuous to deny that you made any accusations. You did say in the op-ed that someone was "manufacturing a hero Judas."<BR/><BR/>Now I know a careful analysis of the text would reveal that you may not have been specifically referring to Meyer in that sentence, but just about anybody reading the article in a less-than-Talmudic manner would have inferred that Meyer's team was the offending party.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you are not done with the responses yet, but so far it seems you are picking at the little points but not at the larger ones.<BR/><BR/>1) Whether or not you are right about the translation of a handful of words, what about the larger sense of the book? <BR/><BR/>As Meyer puts it: "What<BR/>about the Sethian confession of Jesus’ identity uttered by Judas and Judas alone? ... And how to explain the textual opening or<BR/>incipit, promising revelatory conversations between Jesus and Judas Iscariot? And Jesus’<BR/>private revelations to Judas, including the sprawling cosmogonic revelation that<BR/>dominates the central portion of the text? And Jesus’ repeated statements that he has<BR/>revealed the mystery of the kingdom of God to Judas and told him everything?" <BR/><BR/>2) The strongest part of his rebuttal comes from the section comparing Judas to Sophia. I'm not qualified to judge the references, but the overall sense of what he is saying on its face sounds more plausible than parody. <BR/><BR/>Again, I know little about this, but the sense you call the book a parody doesn't fit with the other uses of ancient parody you cite. Those involve parody within a book, while your interpretation makes Judas a book of parody. Not the same thing.paulfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16727202517182571557noreply@blogger.com