Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10920RE: [GTh] Another Angle on the "Authenticity" Controversey

Expand Messages
  • Judy Redman
    May 12, 2014

      This is a very good point, John. The fact that something is not an authentic early document doesn’t necessarily mean that it was produced with the intent to defraud.





      Judy Redman
      PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
      University of New England
      Armidale 2351 Australia
      ph:  +61 2 6040 4571
      mob: 0437 044 579

      web:  http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
      email:  jredman2@...


      From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Monday, 12 May 2014 7:02 AM
      To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [GTh] Another Angle on the "Authenticity" Controversey



      I think i have been arguing against the TERM forgery, when there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of forgery (That is, the intentional deception by forging a document).

      Nothing is known about the intent of the author, or copyist.


      It could just as well be a study document, or merely a differing sect.or  mistaken. That is calling woman, or mother or sister, wife instead of the accepted reading.


      I do not understand the quick labeling of forgery as if they “know" the author and his intent.


      It seems to me that some want to slam the door on the study of these documents rather than give a slow and reasoned approach or write a scholarly paper refuting the documents authenticity.


      As for not knowing the source? Considering the response of the persons responding to King,

      is it any wonder they wish to be anonymous?


      Alone they (whoever it may be) would have been completely overwhelmed,


      I would think professor King more able to handle the response than anyone that might have collected this papyrus ever could be.



      John Moon [edited for clarity by MG]

      Springfield Tn



      On May 9, 2014, at 5:54 AM, Rick Hubbard mainewoodsmith@... [gthomas] <gthomas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

      I guess I'm not arguing for or against the question of authenticity but I do think these are questions that should not be ignored (although I concede that the facts pertaining to the question are well hidden). 


    • Show all 6 messages in this topic