I would like to assert categorically that if someone used your Interlinear to create a forgery: IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT!
In fact, I see things quite differently: if your Interlinear was in fact used, it shows how widely used a resource it has become over the years. I know of a lot of scholars who've used it (and acknowledged their use of it) in preparing their own translations of Thomas over the years. I admit, the fact that you disseminated it at SBL is an interesting twist to everything. But still, there's just no shame in creating a very useful tool (or a minor typo)!
Anyway, let's talk about this more after I release my article tomorrow. You and Mark have both now seen the near final draft now, and Mark has graciously agreed not to blog about it until then.
More soon . . .
--- In email@example.com, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:
> Oh my goodness, Mike. I am afraid that this might just be the smoking gun.
> Well spotted. And thank you for that typo! No shame attached there; we
> all do that all the time, and you corrected your text in the main website
> version. This definitely needs blogging. Cheers, Mark
> On 10 October 2012 13:02, Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
> > **
> > ï»¿**
> > [from Mark Goodacre, 09/28]:
> > > (1) Why is the M missing in front of PWN2 on line 1 of the fragment?
> > Could
> > > it be that the forger wrongly thought it was dispensable?
> > Mike's interlinear
> > > has "(the)-Life" under MPWN2 in 101 (http://gospel-thomas.net/log101.htm
> > ).
> > > Could the forger have thought that the bracketed "(the)" in the
> > interlinear
> > > rendered the M superfluous to requirements?
> > > (2) Line 3 has MARIAM rather than Thomas's MARI2AM, which is unusual
> > given
> > > the extensive parallels to Thomas in the fragment. But Mike's
> > interlinear gives
> > > "Mariam" in translation in both 21 and 114 (
> > http://gospel-thomas.net/log114.htm)
> > > so the author might have chosen to delete the hori?
> > I haven't wanted to say anything about this topic previously, because,
> > well, it makes me uncomfortable. But my attention has recently been
> > drawn to the fact that the *page-by-page* version of my interlinear (as
> > opposed to the interactive *saying-by-saying* version) is missing the 'M'
> > preceding PWN2 at line 50:01 - which is the line that has been linked
> > to line 1 of the fragment. This must have been something that I fixed
> > in the one version but not in the other. The spelling 'Mariam' is also
> > suggestive, since no other translation I'm aware of used that.
> > I feel that I should also mention something that I did at my first (of two)
> > SBL conventions - in Toronto, late November 2002. Naively thinking to
> > impress Thomas experts, I had prepared maybe 6-8 copies of two types
> > of handout. One was a packet of loose papers which included copies of
> > GThomas messages I'd written, containing the URL of my website. The
> > other was a copy of my page-by-page interlinear (as evidenced by its date
> > of Nov 22, 2002). I don't recall everyone I gave this stuff to, but it was
> > to
> > people who had spoken about or were interested in Thomas. Not that I
> > suspect an SBL member of being involved in forgery, and it would have
> > been easy enough to find my site through other means, but I guess there's
> > an outside possibility - assuming the thing is a forgery - that these materials
> > might somehow have played a role.
> > Mike Grondin
> Mark Goodacre
> Duke University
> Department of Religion
> Gray Building / Box 90964
> Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
> Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530