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

New GJW Links 'n Quotes

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    I managed to get in a little mind-work this evening after spending most of the day cleaning the basement (boss orders). Checking in at FB, I had a chat (my
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 21, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I managed to get in a little mind-work this evening after spending most
      of the day cleaning the basement (boss' orders). Checking in at FB,
      I had a chat (my first) with Andrew B., who inquired about the Bagnall
      quote I had been referring to lately with Bill. Took me a couple hours
      to find it on my ancient and cranky XP system, but here 'tis:
       
      > All in all, Bagnall said, “The preponderance of evidence is clearly
      in
      > favor of authenticity, both because it is so hard to imagine who
      could
      > have faked it and how, but also because there is nothing
      inherently
      > suspect about it,” Bagnall said. “You’ve got the physical object,
      the
      > handwriting, the language, and the content. There’s not a single
      one
      > of those that seems to me suspect.”
       
      Hmm. Wonder what he thinks now. In any case, this came from a very
      detailed Boston.com story that appeared Sept 18, based on interviews
      conducted prior to the fragment's presentation, but help up till then. I've
      now added a link to this story to my timeline:
       
       
      Shortly after finding this, I friended David Trobisch. As some of you may
      know (and certainly Andrew B. and Rick), Trobisch was the person that
      Andrew and Rick and I were in conversation with back in 2002, in hopes of
      getting a joint Coptic/Greek interlinear published. That idea eventually fell
      through, but I did meet David at the SBL meeting in Toronto, and gave him
      a copy of my interlinear. He hadn't previously commented on the fragment
      on FB, though several folks had asked him about it. Well, as it happens, he
      did comment on it about the same time I friended him (coincidence?). If
      you're an FB friend of his, you can see his remarks at:
       
       
      If not, here's a recap: At the outset, he says that "It seems that a copying
      error from an online source [c'mon David, gimme some publicity] will
      carry the burden of proof that it is a forgery." He then links to:
       
       
      ... a very fine article (posted Oct 16) perhaps not mentioned here previously.
      In any case, Trobisch, having left the matter somewhat ambiguous, is pressed
      by questioners to state his own opinion. He has some interesting comments,
      but the bottom-line is this:
       
      Truth is, I don't know as a scholar. But as a gambler: I put my money on the forgery side.
       
      Sorry for interrupting the Arnal thread, but I had to get this off my mind.
       
      Best,
      Mike G.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.