Want to Study Ancient Papyri?

Have I got a website for you.

If papyri is your thing, you should definitely know about Brice Jones’ metasite for papyrological resources. There are a few dozen links to online papyrus collections, journals, online publications, Coptic lexicons, and other tools. Pretty slick.

Brice is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Religion at Concordia University in Montreal.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

New Gospel of Judas Fragments

You can read the short post on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog here. I recommend clicking through to the links, especially to April DeConick’s blog. April, as readers may recall, is strongly opposed (for very coherent reasons) to the notion that the Gospel of Judas presents Judas a hero.

Technorati Tags: ,

Tom Bartlett Responds to National Geographic’s Defense of its Gospel of Judas

Tom Bartlett, the reporter who wrote the article about the sloppiness of National Geographic’s Gospel of Judas project, was kind enough to email his response to NG’s “rebuttal” of his article.  Here is his reply (NG’s rebuttal comments are marked by *):

The press release that National Geographic issued in response to my article “The Betrayal of Judas” is filled with errors and nonsense. Below are a few of the more egregious inaccuracies:

*  “Contrary to the article’s assertion, the translation took years (not months) to complete.”

Here’s what the article actually says:

“It all happened in record time. In the cases of other newly discovered ancient texts, the process of translation and interpretation has dragged on for years. But it was only about eight months from the time Marvin Meyer was brought on that the gospel was announced to the public.”

Meyer confirmed this timeline to me in an e-mail. Meyer was the primary English translator and it was his translation that other scholars, like Bart Ehrman, used as the basis for their own critical essays. This part of the project did not take years; it took months.

* “This was an enormously complex project, but hardly a ‘secret’ in biblical circles.”

My article does not say that the existence of the Gospel of Judas was a secret in biblical circles. I make it clear that other scholars knew of its existence for decades. The article does say that other scholars complained about the “secrecy” of the project, i.e., that the material wasn’t shared with scholars outside of the National Geographic team. There is a difference.

* “Virtually all issues your article raises about translation choices are addressed in extensive footnotes in both the popular and critical editions of the gospel. Unfortunately, Thomas Bartlett chose to ignore that fact …”

I did not ignore that fact. I mention both the second edition and the critical edition of the Judas book and note that some errors have since been corrected and that alternate readings are now included. I even quote from those footnotes. (For the record, the best-selling first edition of the book and the television documentary watched by millions do not include these caveats.)

* “What Bartlett doesn’t tell the reader is that DeConick’s criticisms, which appeared in an op-ed piece in the New York Times in December 2007, were timed to coincide with the release of her own book about the Gospel of Judas.”

Wrong.  Her book came out two months before the NY Times op-ed. Regardless, I mention both her book and the op-ed in my article and I include the publication dates for both.

I understand that National Geographic must be reeling from criticism of its Judas project by biblical scholars. But your sloppy, bewildering response to my article doesn’t help your case.

Technorati Tags:

More on the National Geographic Gospel of Judas Controversy

Here are some items from April DeConick’s blog:

National Geographic’s Response to Tom Bartlett’s Chronicle of Higher Education article on the Gospel of Judas

Was National Geographic’s Gospel of Judas Footnoted so that it should not be criticized?

Technorati Tags: , ,

Logic and the Jesus Tomb Discussion, Part 1

As I and others have noted before, the real weight of the Jesus tomb debate hinges on primarily two points of data: (1) Whether a name that refers to Mary Magdalene is on one of the ossuaries, and (2) Whether the inscribed name “Yoseh” corresponds to the Yose of the New Testament. I’ve already posted the epigraphic work that undermines the former (see the May 6 posting regarding Stephen Pfann’s work). It’s time to simplify things, though, by applying some good old-fashioned logic to the material.

Warning: If you are a humanities scholar, especially in biblical studies, you may not want to read on. Okay, that’s a bit sarcastic, but I’m jaded. I actually do believe that every person who gets a graduate degree in biblical studies and archaeology should be forced to take a course in logic before they get the degree. If you think I’m kidding about the need for this, spend some time studying logic and reading about how to form logical arguments (and even better, dissect arguments for logical coherence) and then start reading journal articles (on just about anything controversial) in biblical studies. It won’t take long for you to come over to my side on this one. It’s pretty disgraceful, actually.

Anyway, I have to pick an example from James Tabor again–but it’s only because I can’t really find anyone else in the biblical studies arena who defends the Talpiot tomb as being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Granted, some are non-committal, but who else is defending it? If you know of anyone else, please let me know so I can take a look.

Tabor argues strongly that the ossuary bearing the name Yoseh (composed of the Hebrew letters, yod-waw-samech-heh; Joseph) belongs to Jesus’ brother by that same name in the gospels. For Tabor, this correlation would support his idea of a Jesus dynasty because it would place Jesus’ oldest brother-the male in direct dynastic descent behind Jesus-in a tomb with Jesus and other important members of his family.

Tabor’s main line of evidence for an identification of the Yose in the tomb and the Yose of the gospels is that the name is very rare. Tabor writes on his Jesus Dynasty blog:

In the time of Jesus, that is, in 2nd Temple times, before the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, this nickname Yoseh is extremely rare in either Hebrew or Greek. As far as Hebrew goes, it is found only here, in the Talpiot tomb, on an ossuary, and one other time in a slightly different, but equivalent spelling (Yod, Samech, Hey), on an ossuary from Mt. Scopus. It is also found once on a tomb inscription from the period (Jason’s Tomb), and once in a papyrus from Wadi Muraba’at (pre-135 CE). In Greek, its equivalent forms (Ιωσε/Ιωση/Ιωσης), which are usually translated Yose/Jose or Joses/Joses in English, occur on only five ossuaries. In contrast, the full name Joseph/Yehosef is found on 32 ossuaries and many dozens of literary references in the period. . . . This nickname Jose/Joses in Greek is found in Mark 6:3 as the nickname for Jesus’ brother Joseph. (Tabor, 2007)

In the same blog post Tabor admits,

Of course this alone does not prove that the Yoseh in the Talpiot tomb is the brother of Jesus. But the data does indeed argue that as a rare nickname, known only on a handful of ossuaries and from two inscriptions of the period, found in a tomb with a “Jesus son of Joseph,” Yoseh is quite striking. And that Mark knows this as the unique and rare nickname of Jesus’ brother Joseph, is surely significant evidence. (Tabor, 2007)

One could rightly ask, “significant evidence for what?” This is characteristic of Tabor’s writing style. He produces data, is honest enough to admit the limitations of the data, but then proceeds to give the reader the feeling that, despite the fact that the evidence does not and cannot prove idea X, the reader still ought to find idea X pretty compelling. This is little more than assuming what one is trying to prove [logic point], and Tabor does this with regularity, as many reviewers of the Jesus Dynasty have pointed out. (Peerbolte, 2007; Witherington, 2006; Evans, 2006).

Tabor’s argument that the rarity of the name Yose actually proves nothing. That a name is rare doesn’t mean it’s exclusive [logic point], and if not exclusive, there is no necessary connection between it and the Yose of the gospels [logic point]. Tabor of course admits there are other occurrences of the name besides the Talpiot tomb, but that doesn’t stop him from steering the reader toward a more positive assessment of Tabor’s idea than the evidence can sustain. Tabor’s argument is further hampered-and I would say undone-by two considerations: (1) We have no proof that the Yose of the tomb is actually related to any of the other people named on the tomb’s ossuaries [logic point]; and (2) even if Yose is related to the other people in the tomb, we have no idea HOW he was related since Yose’s ossuary lacks any patronym, or statement of kinship relation [logic point].

But there’s more . . .

Technorati Tags:

Gospel of Judas Apology

Let’s file this under the “too little, too late” category.  National Geographic has apologized for its television  special on the Gospel of Judas.  A new edition of the gospel with a “thoroughly updated translation” has now been put forth which, to cite Gnostic scholar Birger Pearson, acknowledges “the flawed scholarship of the original edition.” NG itself admits to putting out a “sensationalized reading.”  Oops. Now if only we had done objective scholarship in the first place.  Remind anyone of any other over-hyped claims about the ancient Christian world?  Jesus Tomb? DaVinci Code?  Why didn’t Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman step forward and call for more careful approaches?  You can ead about the new Gospel of Judas edition and NG’s apology here.

Technorati Tags: ,