 |
| | | | |
Statement from National Geographic in Response to Thomas Bartlett's
Chronicle of Higher Education story, "The Betrayal of Judas" (May 30, 2008)
Thomas Bartlett's article "The Betrayal of Judas" in this week's issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education makes several serious and unfounded accusations against the National Geographic Society and omits pertinent facts that require comment and clarification.
Bartlett's article mischaracterizes the process by which the Gospel of Judas codex was translated. Contrary to the article's assertion, the translation took years (not months) to complete. Rather than a rushed job, it was a long and painstakingly careful process. In fact, the conservation and translation process had begun a full three years before National Geographic's involvement and was being overseen by Rodolphe Kasser, one of the world's pre-eminent Coptic scholars. Kasser brought in his colleague, also a leading Coptic scholar, Gregor Wurst of the University of Augsburg to assist. In 2004, National Geographic was approached for additional, critical resources so that Kasser and Wurst could complete the conservation and translation process. National Geographic underwrote the lengthy and painstaking assemblage and authentication process as well as the translation work.
As is typical in such cases, we suggested to Kasser that an additional layer of review, by outside experts, would be helpful. He agreed, and Francois Gaudard of the University of Chicago and Marvin Meyer of Chapman University were brought in to work with Kasser and Wurst to produce the consensus translation. At the same time, the Society assembled an advisory team of highly credentialed scholars and religious authorities, who reviewed and commented on the codex and advised the Society as to its importance, value and impact.
This part of the project took nearly a year, and all involved agreed that the work should be shared with the academic community as soon as practicable.
Curiously, we are now being criticized for being both too fast and too slow in releasing the codex. The fact is the document was released once the authentication process was complete and the translation team advised us that a consensus translation had been reached. Once those two conditions were met, we shared the initial results with the public and the academic community in a broad and expeditious manner. We said at the time, and reiterate now, that this was the beginning of a dialogue about what the text might mean, not the last word. We recognized that views were likely to change, and we have consistently encouraged respectful, global discourse.
While we welcome constructive debate, we take great exception to the mischaracterization of our motives and process. This was an enormously complex project, but hardly a "secret" in biblical circles. Kasser himself announced at a conference of biblical scholars in summer 2005 that he was working on the project. We moved to share the results as quickly as we could, but not before they were scrutinized by leading academics in the field. Circumstances were difficult. Reconstruction and conservation of the badly fragmented and crumbling document were underway until just before our announcement, as we wanted to release as complete a work as possible. The rigorous authentication process (radiocarbon dating, multispectral imaging, ink analysis, paleographic analysis and contextual evidence) was finalized just weeks before our announcement. Despite these obstacles, we shared the findings within two years of becoming involved in the project — far less time than lapsed between the discovery and published translations of such recently found ancient texts as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi.
To enable scholars and the public to make a full examination of the codex, last summer we published a critical edition of the Gospel of Judas, with full-color photographs of the original papyrus pages alongside the Coptic text and its consensus translation in English and French. A second edition of the gospel will be published this June that includes views by additional scholars that broaden the perspectives on the meaning and significance of the gospel. Our Web site also includes the entire codex in photographic form at 100 percent resolution.
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 and instead gives much prominence to criticisms advanced by April DeConick. 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.
As is the case in any translation, there can be differences of interpretation, word selection and nuance, and the Gospel of Judas is no exception. As interesting as word-by-word discussion is, such analysis should not be made without considering the context of the total piece and what the authors from so many centuries ago may have been trying to share.
National Geographic takes great pride in the role we have played in bringing this intriguing and important cultural artifact to world attention. We place much value on our reputation for scientific excellence and have always upheld the highest standards.
There is still much debate on the meaning of the text of the Gospel of Judas, as Bartlett makes clear in his article. It is our hope that the world continues to study this important work, and that the ongoing dialogue will be conducted with civility and mutual respect.
###
Contacts:
MJ Jacobsen
National Geographic Society
202-857-7759
mjacobse@ngs.org
Mimi Koumanelis
National Geographic Society
202-857-5814
mkoumane@ngs.org
| | | | |
| |
