10916Re: [GTh] Another Angle on the "Authenticity" Controversey
- May 9 2:43 AMOn Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:36 AM, 'Rick Hubbard' mainewoodsmith@... [gthomas] <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I found some interesting comments from Simcha Jacobovci via a link on James Tabor's blog. Jacobovci is not considered a specialist in these matters, for sure, but he does raise some pertinent questions.
He asks, " The other intriguing thing about all these claims of forgery is that no one has ever come up with a living, breathing forger. No one has ever pointed to a single deal going down. No one has shown any evidence whatsoever that anyone has ever profited from these Jesus related so called “forgeries”. What’s the motive? And who is selling these fragments, to whom and for what price? If someone actually wanted to forge Jesus related paraphernalia, why would they forge controversial Coptic fragments that throw theologians into a tizzy?"These questions would have a lot more traction if the identity of the anonymous collector wasn't so closely protected and we can research the chain of custody, so to speak, from the current owner back to the find. But given the amount of secrecy concerning the actual provenance of the piece (since the proffered provenance is falling apart), it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to claim our ignorance over how it was fabricated is somehow an argument for authenticity.Stephen Carlson
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>