|
Post by sandwiches on Jul 28, 2015 21:16:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 30, 2015 13:57:34 GMT
Thanks for sharing the links. It's nice that the consensus that the fragment is fake will also be fully represented in print now.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Aug 24, 2015 21:22:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 11, 2015 16:42:20 GMT
That is some sorry tunnel vision. The arguments are that the chemical composition overlaps with texts from a very wide period, which includes early Christian texts, and that the way the ink has been applied somehow suggest authenticity. I don't have the skills to argue the paleography, but the first argument is hardly forceful. I can't for the life of it see how that little case overturns the arguments that it's a problematic anomaly because, just from the top of my head, (a) it is dependent on a few chapters from an online version of the Gospel of Thomas, (b) it's written in the same hand as a text in the Lycopolitan dialect and (c) it is written in the same hand as a manuscript of the Gospel of John of which the beginnings of each line correspond to every second line in a critical edition. Then there are the language errors on top of that. It appears that the scholars involved will fight the notion it's inauthentic tooth and nail. Edit: Link to earlier discussion: jameshannam.proboards.com/thread/1333/jesus-married
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 11, 2015 18:44:39 GMT
A very interesting guest post by Andrew Bernhard sums up the evidence for dependence on the PDF version of Grondin's Interlinear, which includes evidence that's new for me: the owner of the fragment had a translation that includes words that were present in Grondin's translation... but were completely absent in the fragment. ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-end-of-gospel-of-jesus-wife-forgery.html
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 11, 2015 8:14:37 GMT
Nuanced, somewhat sceptical news story about the Tahime fragment by Lisa Wangsness in the Boston Globe: www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/28/the-case-gospel-jesus-wife-still-isn-closed/gJo7KfDFywXEJ8dLFFjdrK/story.htmlThree years ago, Harvard University professor Karen L. King showed the world a tiny fragment of ancient Egyptian papyrus whose eight partial lines of Coptic script included one sensational half-sentence: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife . . .’ ”
It was big news. The Boston Globe and The New York Times ran front-page reports; the story went global as TV crews and bloggers and wire services joined the fray.
But doubt swiftly set in.
As critical takedowns of the fragment — which King provocatively named “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” — ricocheted across the Internet, a growing chorus of academics cast the papyrus as a fake.
|
|