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

Re: [Bulk] Re: [GTh] new gospel fragment

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    Jack, Ian, et al: Heaven knows I m not a fan of Fox News, but the folks quoted in the web article are all reputable, so I can t complain about that. The
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 20, 2012
      Jack, Ian, et al:
      Heaven knows I'm not a fan of Fox News, but the folks quoted in the web
      article are all reputable, so I can't complain about that. The lettering continues
      to be a major issue, but here's a couple three other points:
      1. The King quote on the Fox site seems really odd:
      "We still have some work to do, testing the ink and so on and so forth, but what is
      exciting about this fragment is that it's the first case we have of Christians claiming
      that Jesus had a wife," she said.
      I think she was probably misquoted here. She must have said, "We still have
      some work to do... but what is exciting about this fragment, if it's genuine..."
      She should have, anyway.
      2. One of the responses of conservative Christians on the web has been that
      it isn't clear whether the 'Maria' named in line 3 of the fragment is the "wife"
      that Jesus refers to in line 4. Indeed, it seems to me that the sequence of
      locution indicates that she isn't. This leaves it open (so CC's say) that the
      "wife" that Jesus is made to speak of may be the church, or something else
      other than a woman. (Line 7's "I dwell with her..." doesn't resolve the issue,
      since the 'her' there can be a reference to any feminine noun.) Given the
      possibility that a few words or letters missing on the edges of the fragment
      may have altered its meaning, some will certainly suspect (given that the
      fragment is genuine) that these were excised precisely because otherwise the
      fragment didn't support the idea of Jesus actually having a wife, making its
      value but a tiny fraction of what the owner surely hopes to realize.
      3. As to the fragment itself, the top has almost certainly been cut, but not in a
      straight line. Rather, it follows the lettering. (This suggests, IMO, that it was
      cut after the lettering was done, not before.) The bottom has surely been torn,
      but the edges are a mystery. They don't appear to have been eaten away by
      insects or otherwise ravaged by time (compared with the NH codices). The
      fiber-threads visible on the left-hand edge (of the recto) seem to indicate that it
      was torn as well, but there's no visible fiber-threads on the right-hand edge.
      It doesn't appear to have been either cut or torn or worn away. What does that
      mean? That the binding was on the right-hand edge of the recto, where it
      would have weakened the fibers to the point that they would tear more cleanly?
      That would be of some importance, I think, since I believe that it would indicate
      that whatever was missing (again, assuming genuineness, of course) would be
      on the left-hand side of the recto, where it does appear to be torn. Anyway,
      that's this layman's ruminations of the day. (Worth every penny you paid for it!)
      Mike Grondin
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.