10920RE: [GTh] Another Angle on the "Authenticity" Controversey
- 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.
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]
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).
- << Previous post in topic