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

Re: [GTh] More on Watson on the King Fragment

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    ... I d have to say yes , but still it seems odd that the plagiarism in line 1 is such that it could be so easily identified at the current time. Perhaps we
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 24, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      
      [Mike]:
      > We cannot rule out the possibility that an ancient plagiarist
      > might have had access to the Coptic ms as we
      have it.
      [Mark]:
      > I'd have though that
      this is possible but hardly likely, is it?
      > Presumably, the point about
      modern printed editions (or websites like
      > yours!) is that they are
      multiple editions of the same text, so to see
      > the exact same line break
      here 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 1
      is such that it could be so easily identified at the current time. Perhaps
      we should consider the possibility of a forgery dating well before most
      of the material now currently available. Perhaps the early 80's? The
      facsimile edition of NH Codex II came out in 1977, followed some five
      years later by Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which caused a great sensation
      at 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 knew
      Coptic took it upon themselves to furnish this "something extraordinary"?
       
      Mike Grondin
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.