tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post3898790686539938432..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Jesus' Wife Fragment Round-upMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-60296541982104345872014-05-22T18:40:03.579-04:002014-05-22T18:40:03.579-04:00"King has remained silent on the new evidence..."King has remained silent on the new evidence." ...something I suspect will remain true for a number of years. Sometimes toothaches go away if they are ignored; on the other hand....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-80029437191119954902014-05-07T17:55:50.939-04:002014-05-07T17:55:50.939-04:00Bagnall's colleague [from Princeton?]...what d...Bagnall's colleague [from Princeton?]...what did she say? That it was IMPOSSIBLE it was a forgery? [!] Perhaps she believes it is authentic, MUST be authentic, because....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-23353507413067787592014-05-07T05:35:59.397-04:002014-05-07T05:35:59.397-04:00This is my comment of May 1, 2014 at 21:59 in Alin...This is my comment of May 1, 2014 at 21:59 in Alin Suciu's Blog: http://alinsuciu.com/2014/05/01/guest-post-joost-l-hagen-possible-further-proof-of-forgery-a-reading-of-the-text-of-the-lycopolitan-fragment-of-the-gospel-of-john-with-remarks-about-suspicious-phenomena-in-the-areas-of-the-lac/#comment-11847Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-58573388517399930552014-05-07T05:33:58.143-04:002014-05-07T05:33:58.143-04:00Dear Friends... In Alin Suciu's Blog I writed ...Dear Friends... In Alin Suciu's Blog I writed this:<br /><br />Dear Friends :<br /><br />I made a brief comparative analysis of the letters , before meeting Mr Schwendner work . Now, I’m even more convinced . They are two different counterfeiters. I see a clear uniformity between all letters in the ” GJohn ” and that are better written . It could almost be considered as authentic Coptic text , were it not for the discovery of Askeland . However, the types of letters in the ” GJW ” are not homogeneous with each other. There’s more variety, were written more slowly and awkwardly. While the text of ” GJohn ” , the letters were written by someone far more dexterous, skillful , better pulse.<br /><br />I have no doubt ( although difficult to prove this point) they are two different counterfeiters. The author of ” GJohn ” wrote Coptic Top quality and homogeneity , a more correct way . While the author of ” GJW ” is much more awkward. This is a mediocre forger merely trying to imitate letters ” GJohn ” . I guess , I hope ( do not lose hope ) that one day the whole truth comes out . So counterfeiters know if there are two , or if there was a single forger.<br /><br />As it can achieve very high resolution photos , I can make a much more accurate opinion. Until then , this is my hypothesis : two different counterfeiters<br /><br />Kind Regards,<br />Georgeos<br /><br />http://www.agonfilosofia.es/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=176&Itemid=15 (Georgeos Díaz-Montexano, “Mary, Jesus’ Wife. A IV Century Coptic Papyrus. True of False?”. The first paleographical study published.) [End quote]<br /><br />PS. Pi, Taw, Shay, Hōri and Janja are very different. Different enough to decide that it is not a same hand. And when the team of Dr. King make a study thoroughly, with microscopes, the result will be, just that already warned from the outset that analyzed the Palaeography and the layout of the letters of both texts, i.e. that they were not written by the same person.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1298056142212853332014-05-05T14:42:51.937-04:002014-05-05T14:42:51.937-04:00One thing that we must aware of is that the report...One thing that we must aware of is that the reporter must have had a lot more material from Bagnall in her interview with him, and this is one of the few things that made it into print. We don't have the context, whether there were disclaimers around it, or what kind of question is was in response to. It's possible that the quote accurately reflects how he feels but it's also possible that it is not the full picture.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-71650239388682500262014-05-05T12:53:27.855-04:002014-05-05T12:53:27.855-04:00Good to see Peppard get an airing. I really liked ...Good to see Peppard get an airing. I really liked his book (recommended by Vridar). The foreword was offputting, of course, but aside from a touch of reticence about drawing the obvious conclusion here and there, the book didn't show any particular bias.Jens Knudsen (Sili)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14078875730565068352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-23497982336449504742014-05-05T09:45:47.903-04:002014-05-05T09:45:47.903-04:00Thanks, AKMA. I quite agree. I wrote something s...Thanks, AKMA. I quite agree. I wrote something similar on Tony Burke's blog the other week - one's desire for authenticity is sometimes the very thing that sets off the sceptical impulse. It's facile to suggest a straightforward correlation between an alleged dislike of the fragment's contents with the case for forgery.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-55464813948203888542014-05-05T01:33:28.463-04:002014-05-05T01:33:28.463-04:00“Most of the people taking this view wanted it to ...“Most of the people taking this view wanted it to be a fake” — but of course, the question of what one <i>wants</i> when venturing an interpretive judgment cuts both ways. It's good to see Bagnall broach the topic, but it gets much more complicated than he suggests, as I <a href="http://akma.disseminary.org/2014/04/desire-and-interpretation/" rel="nofollow">wrote last week</a>.AKMAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16776029549322473374noreply@blogger.com