HappyMike
2010-05-05 12:57:04 UTC
My Response to the Latest Absurd Accusations
by Gary Renard
The purpose of this article is clarification, not defense. It is
written mostly for the people who are personally involved, in order to
correct the phony "controversy" that is based on an absurd article
that was written by an unknown author named Bruce MacDonald, who
claims that I "stole" Pursah's Gospel of Thomas, which is part of
chapter 7 in my second book, Your Immortal Reality: How to Break the
Cycle of Birth and Death. The deliberately slanderous and libelous
title of MacDonald's article is "Gary Renard's Stolen Gospel." This
latest, ludicrous controversy is being championed and promoted by
Robert Perry and the so-called "Circle of Atonement." Robert has a
long track record of attacking other A Course in Miracles teachers,
including Ken Wapnick and myself. For 15 years, Robert has been the
most divisive force in the A Course in Miracles community. His actions
over this long period of time are an insult to everything that A
Course in Miracles stands for.
Let me point out that I feel no need to defend myself. First of all, I
am not a body. And secondly, on a purely practical level, the bond
that exist between my readers and I is such that the likes of Robert
Perry and Bruce MacDonald do not understand it, and they probably
never will. They cannot have an effect on it. Robert Perry has tried
to destroy my career at least 3 times in the last 4 years. It's not
working for him. Maybe if he spent more time developing a real message
instead of attacking other teachers he'd be more popular. His goal is
controversy, mine is clarification.
I used a quote from the Course in 2006 in a response article at that
time. Robert Perry had talked two other Course teachers into ganging
up on me and putting out 3 simultaneous negative articles about my
books. MacDonald actually mentions those scandalous articles in his
article. Rogier Van Vlissingen, the author of, Closing the Circle:
Pursah's Gospel of Thomas and A Course in Miracles, published by O
Books, whose blog I will be relying on heavily in this article because
he knows more about the Gospel of Thomas than I do, recently described
those articles by saying of MacDonald, "Curiously, the author (of the
article, MacDonald) relies once again on the discredited journalistic
drive-by shooting that appeared in the form of a series of articles in
Miracles Magazine a few years ago." And indeed it was a now
discredited journalistic drive-by shooting. Dr. Michael Mirdad, the
author of You're Not Going Crazy, You're Just Waking Up! wrote at the
time about my response article (titled "My Response to the Witch Hunt
that is Currently Going On Among Some in the Course Community") that,
"For the most part, Gary recently offered his detractors, and all
interested parties, a brilliant blow-by-blow defense that exposes many
inconsistencies and un-truths." What those articles were saying about
me was not true, and the article by MacDonald is simply not true. It
is a call for help and a defense against truth. The quote I speak of
from the Course that I used three and a half years ago, and which also
applies here, says, "....those who seek controversy will find it. Yet
those who seek clarification will find it as well. They must, however,
be willing to overlook controversy, recognizing that it is a defense
against truth in the form of a delaying maneuver." (Clarification of
Terms, page 77.)
As for Robert Perry, his jealousy of me is so severe I think at this
point the only thing that would stop him from trying to attack me
would be if someone drove a wooden stake through his heart. I remember
when I first met him. We were at a Course Conference is Salt Lake
City. I was the keynote speaker. Of course he thought he should be. I
went up to him, shook his hand and introduced myself. His response? He
wouldn't even talk to me. He wanted to have the next hit book about
the Course, and I had it instead. Imagine snubbing a new Course author
who is getting people excited about the Course again (which Robert had
turned many people off about with his grim intellectualism, lack of
humor, and approach that was totally devoid of spiritual experience?)
He's an emotional cripple. I didn't know he had whined like a baby to
someone who had been connected with the publication of my first book,
The Disappearance of the Universe, exclaiming "How could you do this
to me? How could you do this to me?"
At the end of the same Conference I was having a meeting with people
from The Disappearance of the Universe online discussion group. Robert
talked another Course teacher into coming over to the meeting and
asking me in front of everyone if I was "delusional." He thought that
might get me upset and that I'd freak out or something. I kept my cool
so that didn't work for him.
Two years later I was scheduled to speak before the whole group at the
International A Course in Miracles Conference in San Francisco. I had
earned that right because more people enrolled for the Conference due
to my publicity than any other individual speaker. Robert called
people connected with the Conference and threatened to boycott the
Conference if I was allowed to talk! Never mind playing by the rules.
Never mind fairness or human decency. Let's just get Gary. Well, that
didn't work for Robert either. Next year will be my fourth consecutive
Course where I speak to the entire group. But now he's at it again!
MacDonald said at his website that he was "asked" to re-write a
portion of a book he did in the form of his article and to "change its
emphasis." I wonder who it was who asked him to do that? Robert then
posted the article at the Circle of Atonement website at the same time
Mr. MacDonald posted the article at his website. He then linked his
website to the Circle of Atonement. There is no doubt who was the
initiator of all this. It's the same person who always initiates
attacks in the Course Community.
Robert Perry will try to tell you this isn't personal with him. Don't
believe him. He'll try to tell you that he's a "scholar." A scholar?
That's odd. I don't see a PhD next to his name. How honest is that?
As for the content of MacDonald's article, we'll get into the
silliness of it. But first, let me say for the record that I have
never read the translation of The Gospel of Thomas by Patterson and
Meyer that MacDonald erroneously claims I "stole." I've been advised
that I should sue him for slander and libel. That decision has not
been made yet. An apology from him would go a long way toward healing
his mistake. He is not a student or a teacher of A Course in Miracles,
and as far as I know he doesn't claim to be. That's good, because at
least that's one false claim he is not making. However, it also
explains why he doesn't understand Pursah's Gospel of Thomas. It's the
same reason Robert Perry doesn't understand A Course in Miracles. He
can't see the forest through the trees. I teach the big message of the
Course, or the forest. Perry nitpicks the sentences and paragraphs of
it, or
the trees. His approach is intellectual, mine is spiritual. Robert
doesn't get it, and MacDonald doesn't get Pursah for the same reason.
So what do we really know about Bruce MacDonald? What other stupid
claims has he
made in the past? Why is he making these false accusations now? It's
simple. He has an ulterior motive. Read the following two paragraphs
very carefully.
As "MikyE" writes in Rogier's blog on April 29:
"Pursah recommends us to compare her version with the current version
to know which part is omitted and changed, and Meyer and Patterson's
is a most famous translation. That simple fact told me Bruce MacDonald
must have got it twisted. I surveyed MacDonald's other articles to
know what made him misunderstand the
simple fact, and I found his claim that he is a true reincarnation of
St. Thomas and Gary Renard was once Simon Magus. I don't care what he
believes in himself, it's free, but too absurd for me is that he
seriously insists Simon Magus (Gary, he means) made up A Course in
Miracles... Fortunately, that joke made it easy for me to forgive."
Excuse me? Bruce MacDonald has written (conveniently in a different
article than the one in question) that he is the real St. Thomas, and
I was really Simon Magus, and that I made up A Course in Miracles?
Isn't it interesting that neither Perry or MacDonald bothered to
mention that along with their spurious accusations? I don't blame
them. Can you say off the wall? Over the top? Out to lunch? It's very
clear that Jesus dictated A Course in Miracles to Helen Schucman. For
Robert Perry to be endorsing the writings of a man who says otherwise
destroys his credibility with the Course community, and for Bruce
MacDonald to be saying these things should do the same to any
credibility that may have been given to him by any serious student of
the Course.
As for details, I know from reading Rogier's blog that the translation
of Thomas by Patterson and Meyer is the standard, 114 Saying version
of that Gospel. Both MacDonald and Perry lie about Pursah's version of
the Gospel on the home pages of their websites by saying it was
"plagiarism" and "mostly unaltered." That is so far from the truth
it's bizarre. Pursah has heavily edited Thomas. She literally threw
out 44 of the sayings Patterson and Meyer and everyone else used,
saying they were added on later by others, leaving only 70. For anyone
who understands A Course in Miracles, Rogier says in his book that
Pursah's version makes more "intuitive sense." He says that Pursah's
Gospel is the "bridge" between The Gospel of Thomas and A Course in
Miracles. Of course MacDonald and Perry wouldn't see that. How could
they when MacDonald doesn't even study the Course and Perry teaches an
incorrect version of it? Pursah also edited many of the other sayings,
at one point combining two of them that were separate in the other
versions. Rogier, who calls MacDonald's criticism "unfortunate," says
in his blog, which is abridged for this article:
Spring has sprung, and criticism of Gary's work is circulating again,
and once more in connection with the Circle of Atonement. Predictably,
a number of people have come to me in recent days for comment on this
material, because of my own book on the subject - to which this blog
is dedicated. (I am slowly moving my material here, from my Xanga blog
at http://rogierfvv.xanga.com.) New blog address:
http://acimnthomas.blogspot.com/2010/04/gary-in-news-again.html
I have perused the website on MacDonald's book a bit, and it seems to
me that he comes from a very different frame of reference than Gary
does, and it's not clear to me what purpose could possibly be served
by his pretty pointless accusation of plagiarism. Simply put, it is
very hard to be original in these types of translations, and I say
that after following Thomas translations in 4 languages for the past
40 years. You either believe Gary's explanation of how he received the
translated text which is published in his books, or you don't. That
much is a personal decision. I have no truck with any one who chooses
not to believe Gary's story, but it does not overly bother me either.
For me at least, this gratuitous attack on Gary hardly enhances the
credibility of what Mr. MacDonald's book might have to say. On the
most practical level, it simply represents another viewpoint, and if
disbelief in Gary's work is part of that viewpoint, so be it.
Almost every word choice and turn of phrase in the Pursah version
could be traced to one translation or another, and I have most of them
here on my shelf, and have studied those differences in the process of
writing my book. However it was my conclusion at the time of writing
my book, that it was pointless to study a comparison of the Pursah
material with the historical texts, except to become aware of when she
makes deliberate changes, or offers unique and different word choices.
In other words, the informational value is in the deliberate
differences, not in the parts that are the same as, or similar to
other translations. Prior to the appearance of Gary Renard's Your
Immortal Reality, Gary once told me that Pursah's favorite translation
was actually Meyer's own translation, and NOT the one he did with
Patterson. Be that as it may, the controversy seems pretty petty to
me. Either you believe Gary's story or you don't, and the need to pick
an argument with him has little to do with the content of his books.
By the same token, MacDonald's book may contain valuable information
for some people, regardless of the controversy, it does however simply
come from a totally different frame of eference than does the Course.
I see no need to make a fuss over that.
Looking at the Pursah material as Gary has published it, and the way
she frames her historical argument, the state of the text, namely, her
point is that some of the Logia are more corrupted than others. It is
in line with that observation that I would suggest to pay attention to
the informational value of when Pursah chooses to make different
choices than the standard text, and/or different choices in terms of
the translation. The material contribution that the Pursah text makes
in that regard consists of the dismissal of about one third of the
collection which we have in the form of the Nag Hammadi text (which
dated from the 4th century CE), which she declares to be corrupted
beyond all recognition. For the rest of the material she simply thinks
that some of it was transmitted to us relatively unscathed, and in
that respect it makes complete sense that the only possible issue
could be about a word choice here or there, but in some instances she
makes some very interesting edits, which amount to a correction of the
historical Thomas text tradition. Her criticism is entirely focused on
the reliability of the Nag Hammadi text tradition, and not so much on
the translations, although, again, she makes some interesting word
choices here and there.
Aside from the above, which makes sense if you choose to believe it,
and no sense at all if you don't, there is really very little to say
about this matter. From a standpoint of the Course, there is really
nothing else to it, except that it may be another forgiveness
opportunity for some, or simply random noise for others. I would doubt
if it is worth anybody's while to really track down word for word
where every word choice in Pursah's version occurs in the translated
material based on the historical text....
On yet another level, we might keep in mind that the entire Coptic
language, which died out in ca. the 7th century CE, consists of a
couple of hundred books, a few dictionaries, and a couple of hundred
modern scholars arguing over the fine points. So how easy would it be
to come up with yet another original new translation after forty
years? Not very, and sameness and hairsplitting differences tend to
prevail except for some fancy translations which are highly
interpretive. Along those lines, I feel that the Meyer/Patterson
translation is about the most neutral version that's out there, in
other words, if you weren't consciously trying to be unique and
different, you would end up with something along the lines of that
translation. The point is to address the content, and that is what
Pursah's version does, never mind if you agree with it or not. And
again, she states clearly that some of the Logia were pretty much in
tact, so a high degree of correspondence with existing translations is
to be expected. The crux of her argument is about the whole that
emerges with her edits, starting with paring back the collection from
114 to 70/71, and then doing some further edits, some of which are
pretty drastic and thought provoking. She is not trying to fix what
isn't broken, which is exactly the temptation that exists for
translators who have to somehow prove their originality.
Lastly, seen with the Course in mind, the accusation of plagiarism is
a classic ego ploy. The ego is a second stringer by definition, for it
is the thought: "What if I could play God by myself?" And since
projection is the primary defense, it will therefore always accuse
everyone else of plagiarism. Somehow magically believing that this way
it will get away with it, that nobody will notice that it is the very
ego thought itself which was not original at all. This is merely the
archetypical pattern of blaming others for what we secretly accuse
ourselves of, and as experience will show us, projection will not
solve the problem, but it perversely reinforces the cycle of sin,
guilt, and fear, and keeps us in the ego's hell. Once we recognize it
for what it is and instead of defending it, we turn it over to the
Holy Spirit, it becomes instead a step on the way Home to Heaven, a
miracle, that brings us closer to accepting the atonement for
ourselves. Conversely, it is a call for Love, and thus another failed
attempt to hide the self-accusation of utter un-originality of the
ego, and worse, that nothing really happened, that the thought did not
even accomplish anything, which is the essence of Salvation, of
accepting the atonement for ourselves.
Meanwhile, in other news, as seen this morning in my travels in the
Fordham section of the Bronx, I saw on the safety helmet of a
construction worker the following summary:
1 cross
3 nails +
----------
4 given
Of course it's up to us if we want to spend our time with the cross
and the nails or with the forgiveness. (Posted by Rogier on April 21
of this year.)
Gary again: And so we see that the value of Pursah's version lies in
its differences, not in the similarities. And how great are the
similarities? Lucia Espinoza, the author of Spoken Miracles: A
Companion to The Disappearance of the Universe, published by Hay
House, writes about MacDonald's article:
"Most translations of any document into any language are going to be
similar in contents, and even in form. But there are quite a number of
these sayings that are not even close between these two versions
(Pursah vs. Stephen Patterson / Marvin Meyer)... nope. Not the same. I
checked it out myself....This guy is WRONG."
Gary again: And even if these two versions were as similar as
MacDonald pretends (which they are not) it brings up an interesting
question: If one person translated a phrase from the Coptic language
into English and it came out, "Mary had a little lamb," and someone
else translated the same phrase from the Coptic language into English
and it came out, "Mary had a little lamb," is the second translator a
plagiarist? Does anybody really believe that? They're the same phrase!
Dah!
I wonder if Bruce MacDonald is aware of the forgiveness thought
processes in Your Immortal Reality and the lives they have saved? I
wonder if he has a clue about the clarification that Pursah's Gospel
of Thomas brings to people as a bridge between Thomas and A Course in
Miracles? That's highly doubtful.
At a time when you have people masquerading as Course teachers,
passing along any false rumor on the Internet as though it's true, I
call on students of the Course to wake up and start doing the Course
instead of pretending to. I call on Bruce MacDonald and Robert Perry
to apologize to me and take down their slanderous articles from their
websites. I call on Robert Perry to STOP attacking other Course
teachers. Or do you need an official intervention? Just because
American culture has become completely uncivilized, it doesn't mean
the Course community has to go the same route. At the end of the day,
this is all about love and forgiveness. I have more than my share to
forgive, but I will do so.
In closing, I ask, is it really Gary Renard's stolen Gospel? The
answer is no, not at all. Bruce and Robert, the book is called, Your
Immortal Reality, chapter 7 is called, Pursah's Gospel of Thomas, and
unlike your work, people will still be reading it two thousand years
from now.
by Gary Renard
The purpose of this article is clarification, not defense. It is
written mostly for the people who are personally involved, in order to
correct the phony "controversy" that is based on an absurd article
that was written by an unknown author named Bruce MacDonald, who
claims that I "stole" Pursah's Gospel of Thomas, which is part of
chapter 7 in my second book, Your Immortal Reality: How to Break the
Cycle of Birth and Death. The deliberately slanderous and libelous
title of MacDonald's article is "Gary Renard's Stolen Gospel." This
latest, ludicrous controversy is being championed and promoted by
Robert Perry and the so-called "Circle of Atonement." Robert has a
long track record of attacking other A Course in Miracles teachers,
including Ken Wapnick and myself. For 15 years, Robert has been the
most divisive force in the A Course in Miracles community. His actions
over this long period of time are an insult to everything that A
Course in Miracles stands for.
Let me point out that I feel no need to defend myself. First of all, I
am not a body. And secondly, on a purely practical level, the bond
that exist between my readers and I is such that the likes of Robert
Perry and Bruce MacDonald do not understand it, and they probably
never will. They cannot have an effect on it. Robert Perry has tried
to destroy my career at least 3 times in the last 4 years. It's not
working for him. Maybe if he spent more time developing a real message
instead of attacking other teachers he'd be more popular. His goal is
controversy, mine is clarification.
I used a quote from the Course in 2006 in a response article at that
time. Robert Perry had talked two other Course teachers into ganging
up on me and putting out 3 simultaneous negative articles about my
books. MacDonald actually mentions those scandalous articles in his
article. Rogier Van Vlissingen, the author of, Closing the Circle:
Pursah's Gospel of Thomas and A Course in Miracles, published by O
Books, whose blog I will be relying on heavily in this article because
he knows more about the Gospel of Thomas than I do, recently described
those articles by saying of MacDonald, "Curiously, the author (of the
article, MacDonald) relies once again on the discredited journalistic
drive-by shooting that appeared in the form of a series of articles in
Miracles Magazine a few years ago." And indeed it was a now
discredited journalistic drive-by shooting. Dr. Michael Mirdad, the
author of You're Not Going Crazy, You're Just Waking Up! wrote at the
time about my response article (titled "My Response to the Witch Hunt
that is Currently Going On Among Some in the Course Community") that,
"For the most part, Gary recently offered his detractors, and all
interested parties, a brilliant blow-by-blow defense that exposes many
inconsistencies and un-truths." What those articles were saying about
me was not true, and the article by MacDonald is simply not true. It
is a call for help and a defense against truth. The quote I speak of
from the Course that I used three and a half years ago, and which also
applies here, says, "....those who seek controversy will find it. Yet
those who seek clarification will find it as well. They must, however,
be willing to overlook controversy, recognizing that it is a defense
against truth in the form of a delaying maneuver." (Clarification of
Terms, page 77.)
As for Robert Perry, his jealousy of me is so severe I think at this
point the only thing that would stop him from trying to attack me
would be if someone drove a wooden stake through his heart. I remember
when I first met him. We were at a Course Conference is Salt Lake
City. I was the keynote speaker. Of course he thought he should be. I
went up to him, shook his hand and introduced myself. His response? He
wouldn't even talk to me. He wanted to have the next hit book about
the Course, and I had it instead. Imagine snubbing a new Course author
who is getting people excited about the Course again (which Robert had
turned many people off about with his grim intellectualism, lack of
humor, and approach that was totally devoid of spiritual experience?)
He's an emotional cripple. I didn't know he had whined like a baby to
someone who had been connected with the publication of my first book,
The Disappearance of the Universe, exclaiming "How could you do this
to me? How could you do this to me?"
At the end of the same Conference I was having a meeting with people
from The Disappearance of the Universe online discussion group. Robert
talked another Course teacher into coming over to the meeting and
asking me in front of everyone if I was "delusional." He thought that
might get me upset and that I'd freak out or something. I kept my cool
so that didn't work for him.
Two years later I was scheduled to speak before the whole group at the
International A Course in Miracles Conference in San Francisco. I had
earned that right because more people enrolled for the Conference due
to my publicity than any other individual speaker. Robert called
people connected with the Conference and threatened to boycott the
Conference if I was allowed to talk! Never mind playing by the rules.
Never mind fairness or human decency. Let's just get Gary. Well, that
didn't work for Robert either. Next year will be my fourth consecutive
Course where I speak to the entire group. But now he's at it again!
MacDonald said at his website that he was "asked" to re-write a
portion of a book he did in the form of his article and to "change its
emphasis." I wonder who it was who asked him to do that? Robert then
posted the article at the Circle of Atonement website at the same time
Mr. MacDonald posted the article at his website. He then linked his
website to the Circle of Atonement. There is no doubt who was the
initiator of all this. It's the same person who always initiates
attacks in the Course Community.
Robert Perry will try to tell you this isn't personal with him. Don't
believe him. He'll try to tell you that he's a "scholar." A scholar?
That's odd. I don't see a PhD next to his name. How honest is that?
As for the content of MacDonald's article, we'll get into the
silliness of it. But first, let me say for the record that I have
never read the translation of The Gospel of Thomas by Patterson and
Meyer that MacDonald erroneously claims I "stole." I've been advised
that I should sue him for slander and libel. That decision has not
been made yet. An apology from him would go a long way toward healing
his mistake. He is not a student or a teacher of A Course in Miracles,
and as far as I know he doesn't claim to be. That's good, because at
least that's one false claim he is not making. However, it also
explains why he doesn't understand Pursah's Gospel of Thomas. It's the
same reason Robert Perry doesn't understand A Course in Miracles. He
can't see the forest through the trees. I teach the big message of the
Course, or the forest. Perry nitpicks the sentences and paragraphs of
it, or
the trees. His approach is intellectual, mine is spiritual. Robert
doesn't get it, and MacDonald doesn't get Pursah for the same reason.
So what do we really know about Bruce MacDonald? What other stupid
claims has he
made in the past? Why is he making these false accusations now? It's
simple. He has an ulterior motive. Read the following two paragraphs
very carefully.
As "MikyE" writes in Rogier's blog on April 29:
"Pursah recommends us to compare her version with the current version
to know which part is omitted and changed, and Meyer and Patterson's
is a most famous translation. That simple fact told me Bruce MacDonald
must have got it twisted. I surveyed MacDonald's other articles to
know what made him misunderstand the
simple fact, and I found his claim that he is a true reincarnation of
St. Thomas and Gary Renard was once Simon Magus. I don't care what he
believes in himself, it's free, but too absurd for me is that he
seriously insists Simon Magus (Gary, he means) made up A Course in
Miracles... Fortunately, that joke made it easy for me to forgive."
Excuse me? Bruce MacDonald has written (conveniently in a different
article than the one in question) that he is the real St. Thomas, and
I was really Simon Magus, and that I made up A Course in Miracles?
Isn't it interesting that neither Perry or MacDonald bothered to
mention that along with their spurious accusations? I don't blame
them. Can you say off the wall? Over the top? Out to lunch? It's very
clear that Jesus dictated A Course in Miracles to Helen Schucman. For
Robert Perry to be endorsing the writings of a man who says otherwise
destroys his credibility with the Course community, and for Bruce
MacDonald to be saying these things should do the same to any
credibility that may have been given to him by any serious student of
the Course.
As for details, I know from reading Rogier's blog that the translation
of Thomas by Patterson and Meyer is the standard, 114 Saying version
of that Gospel. Both MacDonald and Perry lie about Pursah's version of
the Gospel on the home pages of their websites by saying it was
"plagiarism" and "mostly unaltered." That is so far from the truth
it's bizarre. Pursah has heavily edited Thomas. She literally threw
out 44 of the sayings Patterson and Meyer and everyone else used,
saying they were added on later by others, leaving only 70. For anyone
who understands A Course in Miracles, Rogier says in his book that
Pursah's version makes more "intuitive sense." He says that Pursah's
Gospel is the "bridge" between The Gospel of Thomas and A Course in
Miracles. Of course MacDonald and Perry wouldn't see that. How could
they when MacDonald doesn't even study the Course and Perry teaches an
incorrect version of it? Pursah also edited many of the other sayings,
at one point combining two of them that were separate in the other
versions. Rogier, who calls MacDonald's criticism "unfortunate," says
in his blog, which is abridged for this article:
Spring has sprung, and criticism of Gary's work is circulating again,
and once more in connection with the Circle of Atonement. Predictably,
a number of people have come to me in recent days for comment on this
material, because of my own book on the subject - to which this blog
is dedicated. (I am slowly moving my material here, from my Xanga blog
at http://rogierfvv.xanga.com.) New blog address:
http://acimnthomas.blogspot.com/2010/04/gary-in-news-again.html
I have perused the website on MacDonald's book a bit, and it seems to
me that he comes from a very different frame of reference than Gary
does, and it's not clear to me what purpose could possibly be served
by his pretty pointless accusation of plagiarism. Simply put, it is
very hard to be original in these types of translations, and I say
that after following Thomas translations in 4 languages for the past
40 years. You either believe Gary's explanation of how he received the
translated text which is published in his books, or you don't. That
much is a personal decision. I have no truck with any one who chooses
not to believe Gary's story, but it does not overly bother me either.
For me at least, this gratuitous attack on Gary hardly enhances the
credibility of what Mr. MacDonald's book might have to say. On the
most practical level, it simply represents another viewpoint, and if
disbelief in Gary's work is part of that viewpoint, so be it.
Almost every word choice and turn of phrase in the Pursah version
could be traced to one translation or another, and I have most of them
here on my shelf, and have studied those differences in the process of
writing my book. However it was my conclusion at the time of writing
my book, that it was pointless to study a comparison of the Pursah
material with the historical texts, except to become aware of when she
makes deliberate changes, or offers unique and different word choices.
In other words, the informational value is in the deliberate
differences, not in the parts that are the same as, or similar to
other translations. Prior to the appearance of Gary Renard's Your
Immortal Reality, Gary once told me that Pursah's favorite translation
was actually Meyer's own translation, and NOT the one he did with
Patterson. Be that as it may, the controversy seems pretty petty to
me. Either you believe Gary's story or you don't, and the need to pick
an argument with him has little to do with the content of his books.
By the same token, MacDonald's book may contain valuable information
for some people, regardless of the controversy, it does however simply
come from a totally different frame of eference than does the Course.
I see no need to make a fuss over that.
Looking at the Pursah material as Gary has published it, and the way
she frames her historical argument, the state of the text, namely, her
point is that some of the Logia are more corrupted than others. It is
in line with that observation that I would suggest to pay attention to
the informational value of when Pursah chooses to make different
choices than the standard text, and/or different choices in terms of
the translation. The material contribution that the Pursah text makes
in that regard consists of the dismissal of about one third of the
collection which we have in the form of the Nag Hammadi text (which
dated from the 4th century CE), which she declares to be corrupted
beyond all recognition. For the rest of the material she simply thinks
that some of it was transmitted to us relatively unscathed, and in
that respect it makes complete sense that the only possible issue
could be about a word choice here or there, but in some instances she
makes some very interesting edits, which amount to a correction of the
historical Thomas text tradition. Her criticism is entirely focused on
the reliability of the Nag Hammadi text tradition, and not so much on
the translations, although, again, she makes some interesting word
choices here and there.
Aside from the above, which makes sense if you choose to believe it,
and no sense at all if you don't, there is really very little to say
about this matter. From a standpoint of the Course, there is really
nothing else to it, except that it may be another forgiveness
opportunity for some, or simply random noise for others. I would doubt
if it is worth anybody's while to really track down word for word
where every word choice in Pursah's version occurs in the translated
material based on the historical text....
On yet another level, we might keep in mind that the entire Coptic
language, which died out in ca. the 7th century CE, consists of a
couple of hundred books, a few dictionaries, and a couple of hundred
modern scholars arguing over the fine points. So how easy would it be
to come up with yet another original new translation after forty
years? Not very, and sameness and hairsplitting differences tend to
prevail except for some fancy translations which are highly
interpretive. Along those lines, I feel that the Meyer/Patterson
translation is about the most neutral version that's out there, in
other words, if you weren't consciously trying to be unique and
different, you would end up with something along the lines of that
translation. The point is to address the content, and that is what
Pursah's version does, never mind if you agree with it or not. And
again, she states clearly that some of the Logia were pretty much in
tact, so a high degree of correspondence with existing translations is
to be expected. The crux of her argument is about the whole that
emerges with her edits, starting with paring back the collection from
114 to 70/71, and then doing some further edits, some of which are
pretty drastic and thought provoking. She is not trying to fix what
isn't broken, which is exactly the temptation that exists for
translators who have to somehow prove their originality.
Lastly, seen with the Course in mind, the accusation of plagiarism is
a classic ego ploy. The ego is a second stringer by definition, for it
is the thought: "What if I could play God by myself?" And since
projection is the primary defense, it will therefore always accuse
everyone else of plagiarism. Somehow magically believing that this way
it will get away with it, that nobody will notice that it is the very
ego thought itself which was not original at all. This is merely the
archetypical pattern of blaming others for what we secretly accuse
ourselves of, and as experience will show us, projection will not
solve the problem, but it perversely reinforces the cycle of sin,
guilt, and fear, and keeps us in the ego's hell. Once we recognize it
for what it is and instead of defending it, we turn it over to the
Holy Spirit, it becomes instead a step on the way Home to Heaven, a
miracle, that brings us closer to accepting the atonement for
ourselves. Conversely, it is a call for Love, and thus another failed
attempt to hide the self-accusation of utter un-originality of the
ego, and worse, that nothing really happened, that the thought did not
even accomplish anything, which is the essence of Salvation, of
accepting the atonement for ourselves.
Meanwhile, in other news, as seen this morning in my travels in the
Fordham section of the Bronx, I saw on the safety helmet of a
construction worker the following summary:
1 cross
3 nails +
----------
4 given
Of course it's up to us if we want to spend our time with the cross
and the nails or with the forgiveness. (Posted by Rogier on April 21
of this year.)
Gary again: And so we see that the value of Pursah's version lies in
its differences, not in the similarities. And how great are the
similarities? Lucia Espinoza, the author of Spoken Miracles: A
Companion to The Disappearance of the Universe, published by Hay
House, writes about MacDonald's article:
"Most translations of any document into any language are going to be
similar in contents, and even in form. But there are quite a number of
these sayings that are not even close between these two versions
(Pursah vs. Stephen Patterson / Marvin Meyer)... nope. Not the same. I
checked it out myself....This guy is WRONG."
Gary again: And even if these two versions were as similar as
MacDonald pretends (which they are not) it brings up an interesting
question: If one person translated a phrase from the Coptic language
into English and it came out, "Mary had a little lamb," and someone
else translated the same phrase from the Coptic language into English
and it came out, "Mary had a little lamb," is the second translator a
plagiarist? Does anybody really believe that? They're the same phrase!
Dah!
I wonder if Bruce MacDonald is aware of the forgiveness thought
processes in Your Immortal Reality and the lives they have saved? I
wonder if he has a clue about the clarification that Pursah's Gospel
of Thomas brings to people as a bridge between Thomas and A Course in
Miracles? That's highly doubtful.
At a time when you have people masquerading as Course teachers,
passing along any false rumor on the Internet as though it's true, I
call on students of the Course to wake up and start doing the Course
instead of pretending to. I call on Bruce MacDonald and Robert Perry
to apologize to me and take down their slanderous articles from their
websites. I call on Robert Perry to STOP attacking other Course
teachers. Or do you need an official intervention? Just because
American culture has become completely uncivilized, it doesn't mean
the Course community has to go the same route. At the end of the day,
this is all about love and forgiveness. I have more than my share to
forgive, but I will do so.
In closing, I ask, is it really Gary Renard's stolen Gospel? The
answer is no, not at all. Bruce and Robert, the book is called, Your
Immortal Reality, chapter 7 is called, Pursah's Gospel of Thomas, and
unlike your work, people will still be reading it two thousand years
from now.