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

Controversey? What Controversey?

Expand Messages
  • rickhubbardus
    I m dazzled by the furor the GJW fragment has created. Lots of folks, completely unimpeded by the absence of their qualifications to pass judgment, simply
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 21, 2012
      I'm dazzled by the furor the GJW fragment has created. Lots of folks, completely unimpeded by the absence of their qualifications to pass judgment, simply dismiss the fragment as a "fake". Here is one person who has made an effort to be somewhat more empirical in his assessment. Still, I'm not 100% convinced he has done such a rootin-tootin job of proving his assertion that the fragment is "a patchwork of texts from the genuine Coptic-language Gospel of Thomas, which have been copied and reassembled out of order to make a suggestive new whole."



      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/gospel-jesus-wife-forgery?newsfeed=true



      On the page referenced above there is a link to a 6 page "paper" describing his analysis.
    • Mark Goodacre
      Thanks, Rick, for the link. The Guardian moves quickly on this -- I only uploaded that paper this morning! All best, Mark ... -- Mark Goodacre Duke
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 21, 2012
        Thanks, Rick, for the link.  The Guardian moves quickly on this -- I only uploaded that paper this morning!  All best, Mark

        On 21 September 2012 14:57, rickhubbardus <rhubbard@...> wrote:
         

        I'm dazzled by the furor the GJW fragment has created. Lots of folks, completely unimpeded by the absence of their qualifications to pass judgment, simply dismiss the fragment as a "fake". Here is one person who has made an effort to be somewhat more empirical in his assessment. Still, I'm not 100% convinced he has done such a rootin-tootin job of proving his assertion that the fragment is "a patchwork of texts from the genuine Coptic-language Gospel of Thomas, which have been copied and reassembled out of order to make a suggestive new whole."

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/gospel-jesus-wife-forgery?newsfeed=true

        On the page referenced above there is a link to a 6 page "paper" describing his analysis.




        --
        Mark Goodacre           
        Duke University
        Department of Religion
        Gray Building / Box 90964
        Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
        Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

        http://www.markgoodacre.org


      • Bob Schacht
        ... Mark s blog has posted this 6 page article demonstrating (to Mark s satisfaction) that The Gospel of Jesus Wife is a fake.
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 21, 2012
          At 12:10 PM 9/21/2012, Mark Goodacre wrote:


          Thanks, Rick, for the link. Â The Guardian moves quickly on this -- I only uploaded that paper this morning! Â All best, Mark

          Mark's blog has posted this 6 page article demonstrating (to Mark's satisfaction) that The Gospel of Jesus' Wife is a "fake."
          http://markgoodacre.org/Watson.pdf

          The author (Watson) praises King's careful scholarship, and provides a quite detailed examination of the text. The bottom line:
          "The text has been constructed out of small pieces – words or phrases – culled mostly from the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (GTh), Sayings 101 and 114, and set in new contexts." And Watson  thinks it is a modern fake.

          Bob Schacht
          Northern Arizona University


          On 21 September 2012 14:57, rickhubbardus < rhubbard@...> wrote:
           

          ...Still, I'm not 100% convinced he has done such a rootin-tootin job of proving his assertion that the fragment is "a patchwork of texts from the genuine Coptic-language Gospel of Thomas, which have been copied and reassembled out of order to make a suggestive new whole."

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/gospel-jesus-wife-forgery?newsfeed=true

          On the page referenced above there is a link to a 6 page "paper" describing his analysis.




          --
          Mark Goodacre          Â
          Duke University
          Department of Religion
          Gray Building / Box 90964
          Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
          Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

          http://www.markgoodacre.org




        • sarban
          I m not certain whether this article demonstrates that this papyrus is modern. What it does seem to demonstrate is that the papyrus is an original work in
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 22, 2012
            I'm not certain whether this article demonstrates that this papyrus
            is modern.

            What it does seem to demonstrate is that the papyrus is an original
            work in Coptic composed by someone who knew the Coptic translation
            of the Gospel of Thomas.

            I.E. it seems unlikely that this is a Coptic translation of a Greek
            original.

            Andrew Criddle


            On 2012-09-21 22:06, Bob Schacht wrote:
            >
            > Mark's blog has posted this 6 page article demonstrating (to Mark's
            > satisfaction) that The Gospel of Jesus' Wife is a "fake."
            > http://markgoodacre.org/Watson.pdf
            >
            > The author (Watson) praises King's careful scholarship, and provides
            > a quite detailed examination of the text. The bottom line:
            > "The text has been constructed out of small pieces – words or
            > phrases – culled mostly from the Coptic _Gospel of Thomas (GTh)_,
            > Sayings 101 and 114, and set in new contexts." And Watson thinks it
            > is
            > a modern fake.
            >
            > Bob Schacht
            > Northern Arizona University
            >
          • Mike Grondin
            Francis Watson has now added an addendum to his online paper, posted by Mark Goodacre at http://markgoodacre.org/Watson3.pdf. Noting that samples of the NH
            Message 5 of 5 , Sep 22, 2012
              
              Francis Watson has now added an addendum to his online paper,
              posted by Mark Goodacre at http://markgoodacre.org/Watson3.pdf.
              Noting that samples of the NH codices contain around 25 letters
              per line, and that GTW has around 19, Watson writes:
               
              If a hypothetical intact GTW contained lines of around 25 letters, this would 
              make space for an additional 3 letters at either end of the extant lines, and the
              connecting passages would then be confined to around 6 letters each. One might
              of course double the available space by envisaging longer lines of around 31 letters;
              but even 12 additional letters might not be enough to close the gap between Jesus’
              defence of his wife’s discipleship and his condemning an unnamed evildoer to an
              inflationary future. If that is the case, then GJW has never been anything other than
              a damaged fragment. Or rather: it was designed to resemble or impersonate a
              damaged fragment.
               
              I myself had been thinking of the matter of line-length, but from a
              different starting-point. I start with Bagnall's conjecture that a dealer
              had divided a codex-page into parts so as to sell the parts separately,
              thus increasing his profit. If that had happened, how would the dealer
              likely have proceeded? I can think of no reasonable alternative other
              than that he would have torn the page vertically into at least two parts.
              If this had occurred, then the fragment contains about half the length of
              the original written line, which of course implies that the original line
              contained around 38 letters. That would be too long for the length
              of a page in any NH codex unless the letters were tightly compressed,
              which they aren't. So it seems that if the GJW fragment was the
              result of basically tearing a codex page vertically in half (to start), the
              breadth of the page must have been significantly greater than that of
              any NH codex. (Based on this scenario, one can get a rough idea of
              what the breadth of the page must have been by multiplying the
              breadth of the fragment by two and adding some space for margins
              right and left.) This isn't good news for Watson's thinking, since a
              line-length of 38 letters allows significantly more room to provide
              what is missing, but it casts doubt on the authenticy of the fragment
              from another direction. Why, for example, didn't the dealer leave
              the margin, if he was simply tearing the page vertically in half?
              Why go to the trouble of trimming off the margin? And why cut
              or trim the top of the fragment horizontally, but not the bottom?
               
              Mike Grondin
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.