Re: [GTh] Bernhard's New Essay on GJW
- Hi IanJust to clarify my position.If the handwriting on the note closely resembles the known handwriting of say Professor Munro then I agree I was being too dismissive.However I don't think King's article claims this.Nor do the other documents mention such a note.The mere presence of such a note among a collection of other documents dating back to the 1980's is not sufficient to establish that this note itself dates from the 1980'sAndrew Criddle.----- Original Message -----From: Ian BrownSent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 9:28 PMSubject: Re: [GTh] Bernhard's New Essay on GJWAndrew, I'm afraid dismissing evidence without addressing it is not a good way to form an argument. So the note was unsigned. The fact that it is part of a larger collection, which includes a signed note, seems to suggest it is part of the same review. Additionally, if we want to argue for GJW's dependence on Mike's interlinear, then we must posit not only a forged ancient Coptic text, but also a forged 1980s German text. This seems to me to be EXTREMELY special pleading given that the ONLY REASON anyone would argue that a note that seems for all intents and purposes to belong to a set of notes on a papyri collection first reviewed in the 80s was forged, is that they are already assuming that papyri is a forgery. Kinda circular reasoning, I think.Ian Brown
- [Ian]:> What I sought to illuminate was that GJW was almost certainly NOT composed> based on Mike's interlinear since there is evidence of it existing in the 80s, well> before Mike made his site."Almost certainly?" Nah. What's interesting to me that this is the very positionthat I took back on Sept 26th, before the two pieces of evidence of possibleborrowing from my interlinear became known. The collector's note constitutesprima facie counter-evidence, to be sure, but its authenticity and dating have sofar been only presumed (King's word), so it seems a bit odd that you would putso much weight on it. But what is your position? That it might have been a forgeryfrom the 80's? OK, then we need to weigh the likelihood that the forger accidentallydropped a letter from two different lines, against the likelihood that he/she thoughtthat the spelling was correct, because that's what was in the source being used.Mike Grondin
- Quoting Mike "But what is your position? That it might have been a forgeryFair question, Mike. No, I don't think it was a forgery from the 80s (although I understand how my last post might have led you to think that, that's my fault for being unclear). My position is as follows, and takes into consideration the following evidence available to us all.from the 80's? OK, then we need to weigh the likelihood that the forger accidentallydropped a letter from two different lines, against the likelihood that he/she thoughtthat the spelling was correct, because that's what was in the source being used."
1. We have a text that seems to have known parts of (or traditions that influenced) the Gospel of Thomas (except where is doesn't) on a credit card sized fragment.
2. Karen King, who initially thought this text a fraud, worked with it for several months before determining it likely dates, both papyri and ink, to the 4th century CE.
3. King did not simply come to this conclusion on her own, however, and enlisted the help of several papyrologists, including Roger Bagnall, one of the most well respected papyrologists in the world.
4. Bagnall concluded that the handwriting found in the fragment is consistent with the handwriting of 4th century Coptic scribes. Additionally the papyri itself is carbon dated to the 4th century.
5. Following this King introduced the fragment to the world at a scholarly conference for Coptic Studies, NOT via National Geographic, or CNN, or some other sensation forum.
6. Neither Bagnall nor King have anything to gain from supporting a fake document, King especially. In a world where biblical scholars aren't exactly the most famous people in the world, King is one of the most well known outside of the academy and gains nothing from being part of a sensation.
What I find most troublesome about the arguments for GJW being a modern document (as I mentioned early, although perhaps less clearly) is that these arguments are not engaging with the most significant points FOR this fragments 4th century dating, namely Bagnall's handwriting analysis and the 4th century date of the papyri. Is it still possible it is a modern production? Sure, but we are now dealing with a modern scribe who, far from bumbling his/her way through Coptic, has enough training to perfectly mimic the handwriting of a 4th century Coptic scribe, thus fooling one of the world's foremost experts on ancient handwriting. Is this really the simplest solution? No, it is not.
It seems to me that what we have here is a 4th century text which used, or knew Thomas, or shared traditions about Thomas, especially re: female disciples.
- Hi Ian,I agree that there has been little engagement with the evidence on eitherside. The essays of Peppard and Paananen are outdated, since they wereresponses to the first version of Watson's essay. The revised versionof Watson's paper is also outdated, but there hasn't been any responseeven to that. Andrew B's latest essay is now the one to look at, and Imust say that your characterization of it doesn't do it justice. The linkagesto CGT are much more precise than your wording suggests. But turningto the other side of the coin, Stephen Carlson has made a good start bysuggesting that the supposed Munro note about the fragment be carefullychecked for authenticity (though the date of it will still remain in question.)Here's some other points of contact:1. It is evident that the papyrologists who initially examined the fragmentwere not well-versed in CGT. They spotted some similarities, but wereunaware of the extent of agreement. It was only when this became obviousthat the HTR article was delayed, and additional tests called for. Had theHarvard people not thought that the forgery case was strong, I doubt ifthis would have happened.2. The dating of the papyrus is irrelevant. As you no doubt know, oldpieces of blank papyrus (or with faded writing) can be obtained. Evenink consistent with antiquity can be produced. (What happened to thatscheduled ink-test, BTW?)3. "consistent with the handwriting of 4th century Coptic scribes":Well, in the first place, there were a variety of styles. Secondly, itdoesn't strike me as particularly difficult to copy one of those styles.What you don't mention is that the writing instrument used was not acommon one, nor is the blunt lettering very common either. ChristianAskeland has also drawn attention to the unusual shaping of the omega.Which is not to say that it's impossible for the inscription to have beendone in antiquity, but that the evidence isn't as strong as one might think.It would be good if Bagnall and/or HDS/HTR would make analogousexemplars available, but to my knowledge they haven't. Indeed, thesilence of Bagnall and the whole King team since the initial publicityhas been curious.Such are the first thoughts that come to me, anyway, in responseto your comments.Mike Grondin
- On 12 November 2012 15:28, Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
> 1. It is evident that the papyrologists who initially examined theYes, it's clear from King's HTR article that she and the others had
> were not well-versed in CGT. They spotted some similarities, but were
> unaware of the extent of agreement. It was only when this became obvious
> that the HTR article was delayed, and additional tests called for. Had the
> Harvard people not thought that the forgery case was strong, I doubt if
> this would have happened.
not realized the full extent of the borrowing from Coptic Thomas.
This is not criticism of King or others -- I didn't spot it at first
either; it was only after prolonged staring at it that it became
clear. This is just the natural progress of scholarship -- sometimes
it takes time and many pairs of eyes to see things that in the end are
The breakthrough in Watson's piece was in realizing that the links
were not simply those of the natural relationship of literary works to
one another (as, e.g. intra-Synoptically or Thomas-Synoptics) but
specifically in Coptic Thomas from Codex II and the Jesus' Wife
> 2. The dating of the papyrus is irrelevant. As you no doubt know, oldIan may be right that there has been carbon dating of the papyrus, but
> pieces of blank papyrus (or with faded writing) can be obtained. Even
> ink consistent with antiquity can be produced. (What happened to that
> scheduled ink-test, BTW?)
I have not seen reference to this. The ink test is still pending. The
most recent statement I have seen on this is the recent Boston Globe
article (which I'll blog shortly).
Department of Religion
Gray Building / Box 90964
Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530
- A well written article from the Boston Globe on Karen King.