Littlejohn

Yes, balsamic vinegar of Modena really tastes delicious! Given its cost, we do not use often it. However, from time to time my wife buys it, especially when we have guests.

Regarding the Mortadella, unfortunately the current product, even if well done, does not do justice to the original, which was made up, for the most part, by donkey meat! .. Unfortunately, now the donkeys for slaughter do not breed any more, and so today is used, for the current Mortadella, only pork's meat .

"..I wasn't aware that the Smithsonian channel had postponed the broadcast until tests from the ink come back.."

I am not an expert and my assessment isexclusively based on mere and rational speculation, returning to repeat, always from a logical point of view, that if it is a fake the author would be very naive, because he should knows that the fragment, whatever it be its origin, would have been then subjected to all the tests that modern technology allows, and I do not think a fake like that, no matter how well packaged, can escape to the critical examination of the experts ....


Greetings

________________________________

(*) - however things go, for me it is practically MATHEMATICAL that Jesus was married and, incredible as it may seem, there are traces about it even in the new-testamentary literature, as well as in that patristic. In addition, there are also traces of the fact that the mother of Jesus, the socalled 'Virgin Mary', has had TWO HUSBANDS!


Littlejohn S

.

Toto

Mrs. Messiah? - Robert M. Price's essay on the question.

Littlejohn

By the Robert M. Price's essay:

"..A fake after all, or at least so likely a fake that no one wanted to make the Review and its editors look like fools should the hoax one day be exposed (if it hasn’t already)..."

What I can not understand is if Price says everything from the point of view of 'denial', ie one who denies the historicity of Jesus, or one that recognizes the historical existence of a man named Jesus who lived about 20 centuries ago, then mythologized for script requirements by those who wanted to give life to the worship catho-christian. Because if you do not understand this, then one do not even understand how much importance gives it Robert Price to the fact that a document, supposedly ancient, supposedly genuine, affirms that Jesus was married....

Littlejohn S

.

stephan huller

I guess this settles it. http://www.simchajtv.com/jesus-wife-papyrus-authentic/ Simcha says the fragment is authentic. His argument for the authenticity of Mar Saba is so bad it almost makes me believe Francis Watson.

stephan huller

I don't usually promote things I've done here but I was just interviewed by Miguel Conner on this topic (the Jesus Wife Fragment) and many other things. I aspire to be the clown prince of Biblical scholarship. I really thought it was a lot of fun being interviewed. There are of course so many more worthy people out there - but in all fairness few of the scholars are more entertaining. I will hope you will agree. The one confession I have to make is that in the interview I said I was reading a book about John Cassian when in fact I am reading Andrew Criddle's summary here at the forum. I was talking a mile a minute. I think Miguel spoke for less than a minute asking me all of five questions. It's hard to keep track of what you are saying when you are speaking 200 words a minute. http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com/ (next weekend)

Littlejohn

From: http://www.simchajtv.com/the-jesus-w...with-no-proof/

.

As I already said, I'm not an expert and I can only rely on logic and rationality, as should happen also for all the 'mythicists'. The fact that Mrs. Karen King and prof. Roger Bagnall are two expert papyrologists, whose professional value is recognized, I think I understood, by all the erudite world, is the basis of my rational speculations. However, I even, like other people of common sense, I'm waiting the final 'verdict' of experts', which, by scientific means, are carrying out serious analysis on the findings.

Now I would like say a few words in order to draw a quick profile about the category of those who are always ready to accuse of 'forgery' everything that is contrary to the interests of the catholic-christian church, such as, for example, the case of Morton Smith and now what concerning Karen King.

In the Italian city of Turin is kept a 'sacred' relic called SHROUD. It is useless that I spent of the time to talk what it is, because surely the argument is known by all those who are interested in these issues.

A few years ago, the Vatican agreed to let analizare a fragment of this finding, of course of just proportions, by a team of industry experts. The fragment was divided into three parts and, in order to enhance the objectivity of the results reported, the three pieces were given to three different and independent laboratories. The results from the three laboratories were practically HOMOGENEOUS: the relic (ie the cloth or Sindone, from the root 'sind', ie India) was confenzionato in fully Middle Ages, between twelfth and thirteenth centuries! ...

Despite the inevitability of these results, the Catholic Church 'jealously' continues to preserve this relic, persevering in saying that it is a 'authentic' relic (sic!!): namely a towel packaged in the first century of our era and who served - listen listen! - to wrap the body of Jesus crucified (OTHER COLOSSAL LIE!)

I think it is unnecessary to say more ....


Littlejohn S

.

stephan huller

From Mark Goodacre's blog, new evidence it is a modern forgery with a timeline for the purchase of the manuscript

http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/10...idence-of.html

from Stephen Goranson

entative chronology (corrections welcome):
2nd century claimed date of Greek "gospel"
2nd-4th c. claimed date of a Coptic Gospel of John ms
4th century claimed date of ms
1960s claimed date Laukamp purchased in East Germany
1961 G. Fecht in Orientalia suggests Gospel of Truth was composed in Coptic not Greek
1982 July 15 letter from Munro to Laukamp
1982-1983 K. King at Free Uni, Berlin
1983 Egyptian antiquities law
1987 Fecht FS
1997 claimed purchase from German-American collector
1997ff copyright dates of Mike Grondin online Coptic Thomas
2001 Hans-Ulrich Laukamp death
2006 Gerhard Fecht death
2008 Peter Munro death
2010 July 9 email, collector to K. King
2011 Dec. ms to K. King

Please take a look. This is a close up of the first line of the Jesus' Wife fragment, focusing in on that odd missing ⲙ̅ (M+supralinear stroke). Look at the top line:



And here is a close up of Mike Grondin's Interlinear (PDF version) of Coptic Thomas 101.



Yet as Peter Head notes "Co-incidence in omission is perhaps less telling as a smoking gun."

stephan huller

My take on this is that the ink test will settle everything. I couldn't care less if a late Coptic text referenced 'Jesus's wife.' Although I would buy everyone at this forum a beer if the ink tests prove antiquity. Can anyone guess why?

stephan huller

And if it did prove it was a modern forgery we should start promoting an equally silly theory in the manner of these fellows that a group of them DELIBERATELY developed this text to prove that modern forgeries exist thereby indirectly supporting their arguments of Mar Saba 65. Of course its complete nonsense but these are the kinds of 'conspiracy theory fumes' their engines have run on for decades.

Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.

Vorkosigan

The ink tests won't settle anything. The alterations need only take place in a few places.

More interesting is how so many people who saw this object, which threw their ideologies into doubt, are the same people who embraced the James Ossuary, which buttressed their ideological positions. Skepticism is selective.