Re: [GTh] More on Watson on the King Fragment
- [Mike]:> We cannot rule out the possibility that an ancient plagiarist
> might have had access to the Coptic ms as wehave it.[Mark]:
> I'd have though thatthis is possible but hardly likely, is it?
> Presumably, the point aboutmodern printed editions (or websites like
> yours!) is that they aremultiple editions of the same text, so to see
> the exact same line breakhere in the Jesus Wife Fragment makes it> far more likely to be based on a modern edition, doesn't it?
I'd have to say 'yes', but still it seems odd that the plagiarism in line 1is such that it could be so easily identified at the current time. Perhapswe should consider the possibility of a forgery dating well before mostof the material now currently available. Perhaps the early 80's? Thefacsimile edition of NH Codex II came out in 1977, followed some fiveyears later by Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which caused a great sensationat the time by positing a married Jesus. In his introduction to HBHG,Henry Lincoln wrote:> In 1972, I closed my first film with the words, "Something extraordinary> is waiting to be found ... and in the not-too-distant future it will be."In such a historical environment, could it be that someone who knewCoptic took it upon themselves to furnish this "something extraordinary"?Mike Grondin