Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-18-2012, 08:45 PM

Another expert declares it a fake. Gregg W. Schwendner (http://wichita.academia.edu/GreggWSchwendner) commented at Alin's Facebook page:

Quote:

Good God! Someone thought that was a genuinely ancient hand? HA!

stephan huller · 09-18-2012, 08:49 PM

Some questions already raised by those King showed the MS:

Quote:

One of these reviewers also raised some questions about its grammar, but King said she and Shisha-Halevy were able to address those.

“I have no competence at all to decide whether this fragment is authentic or not,” Shisha-Halevysaid in a phone interview. But, he said, a couple of linguistic constructions pointed to by the reviewer “do not warrant considering this fragment a fake. Even if they are not usual … they are good Coptic.” (http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012...fQK/story.html)

stephan huller · 09-18-2012, 08:53 PM

Here is what her website says to answer the question of forgery (http://www.hds.harvard.edu/faculty-r...of-jesuss-wife):

Quote:

Many people may initially doubt whether this fragment really is an ancient text and not a modern forgery, primarily because its contents are so unfamiliar, or because they suspect someone might have an agenda to prove that Jesus was married or use the forgery to get rich. Scholars, however, use established procedures to determine if a papyrus is indeed an ancient document. In this case, Karen L. King, Hollis Professor Divinity at Harvard Divinity School, hand-carried the fragment to the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, in New York, where it was carefully examined by the Institute’s director, the renowned papyrologist Roger Bagnall, and AnneMarie Luijendijk, a scholar of New Testament and Early Christianity from Princeton University.

Since pieces of blank ancient papyrus might have been found and written on in modern times, authentication involves more than just affirming that the papyrus itself is ancient, which it surely is in this case. It also includes close study of the handwriting and of how the ink was chemically absorbed by the papyrus, especially in the faded and damaged areas, since it is almost impossible to reduplicate these kinds of patterns of interaction between ink and papyrus at such a very fine level. King and Luijendijk used high resolution digital and infrared photography and also examined the papyrus itself in different kinds of light and with magnification. In addition, questions were raised about particular use of grammar and spelling. Here Ariel Shisha-Halevy, Professor of Linguistics at Hebrew University and a leading expert on Coptic language, was asked to consider the text's language. He concluded that the language itself offered no evidence of forgery.

Thus, on the basis of the age of the papyrus, the placement and absorption of the ink on the page, the type of the handwriting, and the Coptic grammar and spelling, it was concluded that it is highly probable that the fragment is an ancient text. Although a final conclusion about the parchment's authenticity remains open to further examination by colleagues and to further testing, especially of the chemical composition of the ink, these assurances were sufficient for work on the analysis and interpretation of the fragment to begin in earnest.

stephan huller · 09-18-2012, 11:39 PM

Latest (cryptic) Facebook post from Alin:

Quote:

Right now I am at the Coptic congress in Rome. Once I am back in Hamburg, I shall answer on my blog to Karen King's claim that the new gospel fragment is authentic.

While we wait let us ask - what was Jamie Walters's character name on 90210? I think it was Ray Prewitt or something like that. He came on like a perfect boyfriend (as with all the males on the show) only to show his bad side later. I think he threw Donna down a flight of stairs.

Steven Carr · 09-19-2012, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The scholar is Karen King. "She repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said."

See how a responsible scholar uses arguments from silence as though it was as natural to use an argument from silence as it is to breathe.

While we all know that arguments from silence are pseudo-scholarly claptrap , only ever used by people who are in cloud-cuckoo land.

Toto · 09-19-2012, 01:39 AM

Alin Suciu on FB: https://www.facebook.com/copticmanuscripts

SLD · 09-19-2012, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

The great Christian western myth, JC pictured as white and blue eyed....

Remember, Joseph was not his father. God was. God has white skin, blue eyes, and, in his younger days, blond hair. I saw a picture of him on the Sistine Chapel. It must be true.

SLD

Tom Verenna · 09-19-2012, 08:29 AM

My thoughts:

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2012...-authenticity/

stephan huller · 09-19-2012, 09:18 AM

Yes I share the same concerns. It's not enough to prove anything. Yet one wonders why - with the issues raised by Mar Saba 65 - why the ink wasn't tested before the start of the circus. One would think that would be de rigueur in light of the controversies over the Letter to Theodore. Anyone trying to peddle a new - 'this is going to change the world' - manuscript, especially when that manuscript is in their possession, should start with forensic examination including testing the ink.

stephan huller · 09-19-2012, 09:21 AM

Some new postings at Alin's FB page. First the most recent confirmation of his position:

Quote:

The new Coptic apocryphal fragmentis a modern forgery. There is no way to make us believe that the script is authentic.

And then an AP article where Alin is quoted:

http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/education...tinized/nSFRz/

Quote:

Stephen Emmel, a professor of Coptology at the University of Muenster who was on the international advisory panel that reviewed the 2006 discovery of the Gospel of Judas, said the text accurately quotes Jesus as saying "my wife." But he questioned whether the document was authentic.

"There's something about this fragment in its appearance and also in the grammar of the Coptic that strikes me as being not completely convincing somehow," he said in an interview on the sidelines of the conference.

Another participant at the congress, Alin Suciu, a papyrologist at the University of Hamburg, was more blunt.

"I would say it's a forgery. The script doesn't look authentic" when compared to other samples of Coptic papyrus script dated to the 4th century, he said.

King acknowledged Wednesday that questions remain about the fragment, and she welcomed the feedback from her colleagues. She said she planned to subject the fragment to ink tests to determine if the chemical components match those used in antiquity.

"We still have some work to do, testing the ink and so on and so forth, but what is exciting about this fragment is that it's the first case we have of Christians claiming that Jesus had a wife," she said.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-19-2012, 01:39 AM	#36
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Alin Suciu on FB: https://www.facebook.com/copticmanuscripts

09-19-2012, 08:29 AM	#38
Tom Verenna Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 75	My thoughts: http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2012...-authenticity/

09-19-2012, 09:18 AM	#39
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes I share the same concerns. It's not enough to prove anything. Yet one wonders why - with the issues raised by Mar Saba 65 - why the ink wasn't tested before the start of the circus. One would think that would be de rigueur in light of the controversies over the Letter to Theodore. Anyone trying to peddle a new - 'this is going to change the world' - manuscript, especially when that manuscript is in their possession, should start with forensic examination including testing the ink.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.