Re: [GTh] Bernhard's New Essay on GJW
- 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.