Gospel of Judas · 8 of 8

Mattison’s Notes on Translation

[Editorial note: These are Mark M. Mattison’s notes on his translation. The manuscript references identify locations in Codex Tchacos; the chapters in this reading edition are modern divisions. Alternative readings and arguments below are the translator’s own. Minor bibliographic typography has been normalized.]

Manuscript page: 33: “Judgment.” Or “declaration.”

Manuscript page: 36: “Elements.” Rodolphe Kasser and Gregor Wurst reconstruct this word as “disciples” in The Gospel of Judas, Critical Edition: Together with the Letter of Peter to Philip, James, and a Book of Allogenes from Codex Tchacos (National Geographic), 2007, page: 191; but cf. Lance Jenott, The Gospel of Judas: Coptic Text, Translation, and Historical Interpretation of the ‘Betrayer’s Gospel’ (Mohr Siebeck), 2011, pp. 54-56; 193-194.

Manuscript page: 38: “Receiving.” Kasser and Wurst reconstruct this word as “presenting” (op. cit., page: 195); but cf. Jenott, op. cit., page: 196.

Manuscript page: 40: “Your minister.” Kasser and Wurst originally considered “the ruler of the world” as a possible reconstruction (op. cit., page: 199), which is followed by Willis Barnstone in The Restored New Testament: A New Translation with Commentary, Including the Gnostic Gospels Thomas, Mary, and Judas (W.W. Norton & Company), 2009, page: 600; cp. Karen King, “the ruler of chaos” in Elaine Pagels and Karen L. King, Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity (Viking), 2007, page: 113, but Kasser and Wurst suggested instead reconstructing the gap to read “the bishop” or “the minister” based on what follows. For “your minister,” cf. Jenott, op. cit., page: 64. “Present.” Meyer and Gaudard translate “stand up from,” King translates “stand with,” and April DeConick translates “stand up for” in her book The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says (Continuum), 2007, rev. ed. 2009, page: 78; but cf. Jenott, op. cit., pp. 65,66.

Manuscript page: 44: “Demon.” Literally, “daimon,” translated initially as “spirit” by Meyer and later as “god” by King. In broader Greek literature, daimons weren’t necessarily evil spirits, but in Jewish and Christian literature, they were unambiguously regarded as evil. Cf. Birger A. Pearson, “Judas Iscariot in the Gospel of Judas,” in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13-16, 2008, ed. by April D. DeConick (Brill), 2009, pp. 138-140.

Manuscript page: 45: “A roof of greenery.” Or possibly “a roof of lightning” or “fire.” Cf. Lance Jenott, “The Gospel of Judas 45,6-7 and Enoch’s Heavenly Temple,” in The Codex Judas Papers, op. cit., pp. 471-477.

Manuscript page: 46: “Surely my seed doesn’t dominate the rulers, does it?” Following King, DeConick, and Jenott. Meyer and Gaudard translate, “could it be that my seed is under the control of the rulers?” and Barnstone, “could my seed, my heritage, fall under the control of the archons, who are rulers of this world?”

Manuscript page: 47 and following: “The Self-Begotten.” Literally, “Autogenes.”

Manuscript page: 48: “Let a realm come into being.” Kasser and Wurst reconstruct “Let A[damas] come into being” (op. cit., page: 215); but cf. Jenott, Judas, op. cit., pp. 80-84.

Manuscript page: 49: “The twelve androgynous luminaries.” Kasser and Wurst reconstruct “the twelve […] 24 […]” (op. cit., page: 217); but cf. Jenott, op. cit., pp. 86-87.

Manuscript page: 51: “Eleleth.” Cf. Jenott, op. cit., pp. 94ff.

Manuscript page: 52: “The first is Yaoth, the one known as ‘The Good One.’” Meyer and Gaudard, King, and Barnstone translate “The first is Seth, the one who is called the Christ.” However, the context makes that reconstruction doubtful, as the Sethian Christ is never counted among the lower angels. Consequently, this translation follows Jenott’s reconstruction of “[Ya]oth” instead of “[Se]th” and DeConick’s reading of the sacred abbreviation “chs” as “chrestos” (“good one”) instead of “christos” (“Christ”; cf. DeConick, op cit., page: 121).

Manuscript page: 57: “Fruit.” Kasser and Wurst propose the reconstruction “image” instead of “fruit” (op. cit., page: 233); but cf. Jenott, op. cit., pp. 33,34.