Coptologist and sleuth extraordinaire Alin Suciu reports an interesting find as part of his incredibly fruitful labors in identifying Coptic fragments. Got to love his background investigative work, too:
http://alinsuciu.com/2012/10/10/newly-found-fragments-of-codex-tchacos/
Showing posts with label Codex Tchacos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Codex Tchacos. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Monday, January 25, 2010
More on Judas' Sister
Tommy directed me to a recent post by April DeConick discussing the sale of fragments related to the Gospel of Judas Codex on Ebay. Much of what was sold appears to have been scraps of documentary texts. As far as I can gather, there is no evidence that any piece of the Tchacos codex was sold on Ebay; all known fragments are perhaps now in good hands. DeConick calls attention to a Coptic Philippians fragment which she suggests may be part of a sister codex purportedly found with Tchacos. I think that I can support this possibility based on the Ebay image. The transcription reads:Phil 2:10-11
ⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲧϩⲓϫ]ⲉⲙ ⲡⲕⲁ[ϩ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲉⲧϩⲁ
ⲡⲉⲥⲏⲧ ⲙⲡⲕⲁϩ. ⲛⲧ]ⲉ ⲗⲁⲥ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉ[ⲝⲟⲙⲟⲗⲟⲅⲉⲓ
ϫⲉ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲓ̅]ⲥ̅ ⲡⲉⲭ̅ⲥ̅ ⲉⲡ[ⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ
Two factors suggest that this fragment was once part of the Tchacos sister codex (right). First, the scribal hand is very similar, resembling the Nag Hammadi codices and other early Coptic literary texts. Second, this fragment does not abbreviate the Epsilon in the fashion typical to Sahidic manuscripts as in the word ϩⲓϫⲉⲙ above. (Wolf-Peter Funk alerted me to this tendency in the large Colossians fragment). Quick facts on these codices: While the Judas Codex was written in Sahidic with Middle-Egyptian influence, its sister Pauline Epistles Codex was written basically in Sahidic. The Judas Codex has a beautiful biblical uncial hand, while the Sahidic Pauline codex uses an informal literary script.
UPDATE: Martin Heide has blogged concerning an Augsburg exhibition with the Sahidic Pauline epistles manuscript on display. The exhibition website offers an additional image which I assume to be of the Tchacos-related codex (Heb 11, right).
Thursday, January 14, 2010
New Judas Fragments
The latest stage of the gospel of Judas saga has brought a new batch of fragments. For all the gory details as well as transcriptions of the fragments, visit Marvin Meyer's dedicated webpage which I learned of via April Deconick's Forbidden Gospels blog. Meyer states that 90-95% of GJudas is now legible with these new fragments. My initial impression is that these new fragments will not significantly alter the overall discussion of the gospel.
For a synopsis of the sister codices reportedly found with codex Tchacos, visit Roger Pearse's informative webpage. I posted earlier on an announcement that the Sahidic Pauline fragments had been sent to Augsburg to be restored and edited. I can now say that these have essentially the same text of Paul as found in Chester Beatty Coptic Ms A (ca. 600 CE). The orthography has a peculiar trait which suggests that the manuscript could indeed pre-date standardization in the 4th–5th centuries.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Coptic Text of the Pauline Epistles
Along with Codex Tchacos (= the Gospel of Judas Codex), two other codices were found. One of these contained the Pauline Epistles. This codex was sold about a year and a half ago and has been sent to Augsburg to be restored by Gregor Wurst. Apparently, it is also Sahidic with considerable Middle Egyptian influence. A picture has apparently been published of one side of a relatively intact leaf of Colossians in Ink and Blood Dead Sea Scrolls to the English Bible. Is there anyone out there who can send me a scan of the photo from this publication? The pamphlet was created as part of a traveling exhibition. cha25 [a] cam.ac.uk
UPDATE: The text is written in Sahidic (although the vowels are not abbreviated) and preserves a text essentially the same as the circa 600 CE Chester Beatty Codex.
UPDATE: The text is written in Sahidic (although the vowels are not abbreviated) and preserves a text essentially the same as the circa 600 CE Chester Beatty Codex.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Judas and Textual Criticism
Interesting things have been transpiring in the world of the Gospel of Judas. Some of them are relevant to our discipline as they involve textual criticism and a new reading. This new reading is especially interesting given the initial hype concerning Judas. National Geographic's site still tells us that this Gospel "portrays Judas as acting at Jesus' request when he hands Jesus over to the authorities." Shocking -- Judas is the good guy! The disciples are the baddies!
Two new critical editions have now been published. One by Kasser, Wurst, etal. and one by Brankaer and Gebhard-Bethge. Below I have placed the first National Geographic translation/transcription on the top and the new National Geographic transcription/translation below (both by Kasser, Wurst, etal.). Coptic font available, here.
Judas 46:24-47:1 (images)
"In the last days they will curse your ascent to the holy [generation]."
ⲛϩⲁⲉⲟⲩ ⲛⲛⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲕ'ⲁⲩⲱ <ⲛ>ⲛⲉⲕⲕ̣ⲧ̣ⲏ̣ ⲉⲡϣⲱⲓ̈ ⲉⲧⲅⲉ̣[ⲛⲉⲁ ⲉⲧ]ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲁⲁⲃ:
ⲛϩⲁⲉⲟⲩ ⲛⲛⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲥⲉ<ⲛⲁ- > ⲛⲁⲕ' ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲕⲃ̣ⲱ̣ⲕ̣ ⲉⲡϣⲱⲓ̈ ⲉⲧⲅⲉ̣[ⲛⲉⲁ ⲉⲧ]ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲁⲁⲃ:
"In the last days they [will ???] to you, and you will not ascend on high to the holy [generation]."
With our new reading, Judas no longer makes it to the holy generation. He is not a good guy, after all. In fact, Jesus is explicit in saying that Judas will not go to the eternal generation. I am not an expert here, but I will point out a few issues concerning the original transcription. First, the word which is translated "curse", ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲕ'ⲁⲩⲱ, does not resemble the typical word 'curse,' ⲥⲁϩⲟⲩ. In fact, the scribe has inserted a stroke after the kappa which usually indicates that a high frequency word has just been completed (here, ⲛⲁⲕ, "to you"). This is not the only stretch. The word <ⲛ︦>ⲛⲉⲕⲕ̣ⲧ̣ⲏ̣ is based (1) upon a series of reconstructed letters and (2) the editorial addition of the direct object marker. According to the new critical edition (p. 211), the reading ⲃ̣ⲱ̣ⲕ̣, "go," is certain when looked at under infrared light. From this comes the reading above.
This is not the only place where the translation of Judas has come under renewed discussion. When Judas was told that he would be the 13th, was this good or bad (GJudas 44:21, 46:20)? Was this an anti-apostolic number or was this a number related to the evil entity Saklas? The former was good if you were a Sethian Gnostic, the latter was bad. Was Judas a god (Ehrman) or a demon (Coptic: ⲇⲁⲓⲙⲱⲛ, GJudas 44:21)? Even in Gnostic cosmologies, demons are not appreciated. April DeConick, of Rice University (blog), has been the chief challenger of the old consensus, and has nearly produced a new consensus on Judas. In doing so she has challenged the integrity of the scholars who produced the original transcriptions, translations, and the hype which surrounded them under a shroud of secrecy. You can read her New York times piece, here. She also has a new book out titled, The Thirteenth Apostle. Among other things, she rejects the label proto-Orthodox to refer to the early Christians who would later win out, write history and start an ETC blog -- DeConick prefers the term Apostolic. The new consensus now rejects the idea that Judas is a witness to the historical Jesus.
I think that there is still work to be done here; the new reading still does not make sense without editorial emendation. It may be that there was parablepsis, but I would guess that there may be other answers to this quandary. I expect to see more reconstructions of this verse as scholarship struggles to understand better GJudas.
Two new critical editions have now been published. One by Kasser, Wurst, etal. and one by Brankaer and Gebhard-Bethge. Below I have placed the first National Geographic translation/transcription on the top and the new National Geographic transcription/translation below (both by Kasser, Wurst, etal.). Coptic font available, here.
Judas 46:24-47:1 (images)
"In the last days they will curse your ascent to the holy [generation]."
ⲛϩⲁⲉⲟⲩ ⲛⲛⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲕ'ⲁⲩⲱ <ⲛ>ⲛⲉⲕⲕ̣ⲧ̣ⲏ̣ ⲉⲡϣⲱⲓ̈ ⲉⲧⲅⲉ̣[ⲛⲉⲁ ⲉⲧ]ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲁⲁⲃ:
ⲛϩⲁⲉⲟⲩ ⲛⲛⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲥⲉ<ⲛⲁ- > ⲛⲁⲕ' ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲕⲃ̣ⲱ̣ⲕ̣ ⲉⲡϣⲱⲓ̈ ⲉⲧⲅⲉ̣[ⲛⲉⲁ ⲉⲧ]ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲁⲁⲃ:
"In the last days they [will ???] to you, and you will not ascend on high to the holy [generation]."
With our new reading, Judas no longer makes it to the holy generation. He is not a good guy, after all. In fact, Jesus is explicit in saying that Judas will not go to the eternal generation. I am not an expert here, but I will point out a few issues concerning the original transcription. First, the word which is translated "curse", ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲕ'ⲁⲩⲱ, does not resemble the typical word 'curse,' ⲥⲁϩⲟⲩ. In fact, the scribe has inserted a stroke after the kappa which usually indicates that a high frequency word has just been completed (here, ⲛⲁⲕ, "to you"). This is not the only stretch. The word <ⲛ︦>ⲛⲉⲕⲕ̣ⲧ̣ⲏ̣ is based (1) upon a series of reconstructed letters and (2) the editorial addition of the direct object marker. According to the new critical edition (p. 211), the reading ⲃ̣ⲱ̣ⲕ̣, "go," is certain when looked at under infrared light. From this comes the reading above.
This is not the only place where the translation of Judas has come under renewed discussion. When Judas was told that he would be the 13th, was this good or bad (GJudas 44:21, 46:20)? Was this an anti-apostolic number or was this a number related to the evil entity Saklas? The former was good if you were a Sethian Gnostic, the latter was bad. Was Judas a god (Ehrman) or a demon (Coptic: ⲇⲁⲓⲙⲱⲛ, GJudas 44:21)? Even in Gnostic cosmologies, demons are not appreciated. April DeConick, of Rice University (blog), has been the chief challenger of the old consensus, and has nearly produced a new consensus on Judas. In doing so she has challenged the integrity of the scholars who produced the original transcriptions, translations, and the hype which surrounded them under a shroud of secrecy. You can read her New York times piece, here. She also has a new book out titled, The Thirteenth Apostle. Among other things, she rejects the label proto-Orthodox to refer to the early Christians who would later win out, write history and start an ETC blog -- DeConick prefers the term Apostolic. The new consensus now rejects the idea that Judas is a witness to the historical Jesus.
I think that there is still work to be done here; the new reading still does not make sense without editorial emendation. It may be that there was parablepsis, but I would guess that there may be other answers to this quandary. I expect to see more reconstructions of this verse as scholarship struggles to understand better GJudas.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)