New GJW Links 'n Quotes
- I managed to get in a little mind-work this evening after spending mostof the day cleaning the basement (boss' orders). Checking in at FB,I had a chat (my first) with Andrew B., who inquired about the Bagnallquote I had been referring to lately with Bill. Took me a couple hoursto find it on my ancient and cranky XP system, but here 'tis:
in> All in all, Bagnall said, The preponderance of evidence is clearly
could> favor of authenticity, both because it is so hard to imagine who
inherently> have faked it and how, but also because there is nothing
the> suspect about it, Bagnall said. Youve got the physical object,
one> handwriting, the language, and the content. Theres not a single> of those that seems to me suspect.Hmm. Wonder what he thinks now. In any case, this came from a verydetailed Boston.com story that appeared Sept 18, based on interviewsconducted prior to the fragment's presentation, but help up till then. I'venow added a link to this story to my timeline:http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/09/18/harvard-professor-identifies-scrap-papyrus-suggesting-some-early-christians-believed-jesus-was-married/dZJ1sIJCay8b8cra30wfQK/story.htmlShortly after finding this, I friended David Trobisch. As some of you mayknow (and certainly Andrew B. and Rick), Trobisch was the person thatAndrew and Rick and I were in conversation with back in 2002, in hopes ofgetting a joint Coptic/Greek interlinear published. That idea eventually fellthrough, but I did meet David at the SBL meeting in Toronto, and gave hima copy of my interlinear. He hadn't previously commented on the fragmenton FB, though several folks had asked him about it. Well, as it happens, hedid comment on it about the same time I friended him (coincidence?). Ifyou'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 copyingerror from an online source [c'mon David, gimme some publicity] willcarry 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 pressedby 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.