tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post8921329156925473403..comments2023-11-02T01:20:32.436-07:00Comments on The Forbidden Gospels: Marvin Meyer speaks out about the Gospel of JudasApril DeConickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-8739799683915580732008-06-05T14:47:00.000-07:002008-06-05T14:47:00.000-07:00Ganieda,I don't know how many times I have to tell...Ganieda,<BR/><BR/>I don't know how many times I have to tell you, but yes they are errors. And yes the editors of the NGS team have corrected them. <BR/><BR/>There were two major transcription errors that complicated immensely the interpretation. I have written about these many times. What this means is that the transcription of the Coptic was wrong in two places, both of which had Judas ascending or going to ascend or possibly ascending. This has been corrected so that now the transcription and translation correctly read that he does not.<BR/><BR/>Although translation is an interpretative process, there are wrong translations as anyone who has taken a foreign language test knows. Every word has a range of acceptable meanings based on ancient usage of the word, and outside of that are translations that cannot be supported from the ancient literature which are just wrong. These have been corrected to. The big one here is "set apart for" which is not the meaning of the Coptic phrase and cannot be supported from the Coptic literature. It means "separate from" or "divide into pieces."<BR/><BR/>I could go on and on. But I already have discussed these items on many occasions and feel like a broken record. <BR/><BR/>There is nothing sensationalistic going on here. This is a matter of scholarly review that happens to be taking place in a public arena instead of behind the scenes anonymously before publication which is how it usually works.April DeConickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-75430576239085398042008-06-05T13:52:00.000-07:002008-06-05T13:52:00.000-07:00Nice. But we still seem to be casting this as the...Nice. But we still seem to be casting this as them making "corrections." These are INTERPRETATIONS, not "corrections." How can there be "errors" in the first place when all of this is up to how it's interpreted by various scholars? None of it can be proved, so it's all educated theory. I think I'd be more comfortable with all this if any sensationalist allegations of "errors," "mistakes" and "corrections" were off the board and these were instead cast as various ways of interpreting the text.Ganiedahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10394950715816532550noreply@blogger.com