tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post8329013738138997713..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: The Gospel of Jesus Wife and Grondin's InterlinearP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38201926624747288012015-10-13T11:25:55.251+01:002015-10-13T11:25:55.251+01:00"The brave man who may have risked his life i..."The brave man who may have risked his life in 1963 Germany for the Gospel of Jesus' Wife" is the headline in Deseret News of an imaginative scenario (by Herb Scribner, Oct. 11). <br /><br />http://national.deseretnews.com/article/6365/The-brave-man-who-may-have-risked-his-life-in-1963-Germany-for-the-Gospel-of-Jesus7-Wife.html<br /><br />Would it be fair to consider that scenario improbable and perhaps confirmation-bias influenced?<br /><br />Rather, as many have suggested, the ms was likely inked after the Nov. 22, 2002 version posting of Mike Grondin's Interlinear of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. And likely after the Dec. 6, 2002 death of H.-U. Laukamp (thanks to O. Jarus for that date). And likely after the 2003 publication of The Gospel of Mary of Magdala by Prof. King. And perhaps (if someone involved likes symbology) after Prof. King moved to Harvard (1997) and perhaps after taking a named chair (July, 2009). After all, the ms fragment is largely a combination of Gospel of Thomas snippets and a scenario borrowed from the Gospel of Mary--Berlin ms. <br /><br />A step that could help: not misleading science reporting, but making available the claimed provenance documents.Stephen Goransonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15300499142977120746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-27293584680561029862015-08-31T15:58:15.963+01:002015-08-31T15:58:15.963+01:00SC,
Good point. There is no Delta written in eith...SC,<br />Good point. <i>There is no Delta written in either fragment.</i><br /><br />SG,<br />Yes, although this new evidence further confirms forgery, it only leaves us with more questions about the modern history. IMO, the chief gain may be to further suggest that the fragment was created shortly before the owner shared an image with King. Notably, in 2010, <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20100823020540/http://gospel-thomas.net/x_transl.htm" rel="nofollow">the 2002 PDF version of the interlinear was still accessible</a>.Christian Askelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381441700351009913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-2981329158735118652015-08-30T16:41:49.425+01:002015-08-30T16:41:49.425+01:00It's plain that Munro and Fecht never saw this...It's plain that Munro and Fecht never saw this text. Were their names chosen to be recognized by Prof. King? Was Laukamp a random name pulled from a obituary list or somehow involved or known by someone involved? Laukamp reportedly died in 2002, the year of Grondin's November Interlinear--too early to be involved?. How many of the following, and which ones, are identical, and in what sequence: 1) the current owner, who reportedly "didn't read Coptic" (meaning zero or tiny knowledge?-- Harvard Magazine), but who obtained Coptic and Greek and Arabic [note the Arabic date range] papyri; and who reportedly had read King's 2003 Gospel of Mary Magdalene (Harvard Magazine); 2) the forgery author; 3) the papyrus cutter; 4) the papyrus surface obtainer; 5) the ink brusher; 6) the "translator"; 7) the computer keyer....Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44156497148415360752015-08-30T00:01:26.641+01:002015-08-30T00:01:26.641+01:00I'm trying to figure out how the forger could ...I'm trying to figure out how the forger could be so incompetent so as to confuse the djandja with the delta or whether the person who prepared/typeset the document is not the forger himself but an associate of the former. There is no delta in the GJW, right? Is there one in the John fragment?Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46969448982758378352015-08-29T23:56:21.968+01:002015-08-29T23:56:21.968+01:00The XML date is at best a terminus a quo for the c...The XML date is at best a terminus a quo for the creation of the image, and it could precede that the event for a number of years. It would be nice if we can use it to identify which (Adobe or licensee) product produced the version id, but the Adobe XMP Core may be too popular to narrow down the possibilities much.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-18029456809931338642015-08-29T23:45:24.715+01:002015-08-29T23:45:24.715+01:00I found tons of allusions to documents with the sa...I found tons of allusions to documents with the same XML date ... to the second. I am guessing that you are correct, Peter. The XML date is worthless, and may have no direct link whatsoever to the image.Christian Askelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381441700351009913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-83107036109498889202015-08-29T22:43:25.165+01:002015-08-29T22:43:25.165+01:00Peter - Does all that you've said indicate tha...Peter - Does all that you've said indicate that the image is 2007 or later? Thanks, AndrewAndrew Bernhardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00767144839895038640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-18854241687202523702015-08-29T16:42:47.216+01:002015-08-29T16:42:47.216+01:00For what it's worth, the other font in the doc...For what it's worth, the other font in the document is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arial#History" rel="nofollow">Arial</a> which has been licensed for Windows since 3.1 in 1992. Also the superscript "th" after the ordinal has been a common autocorrect feature of Word since at least version 2007 and maybe earlier. Also, apparently XMP 4.1 was <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/creativesolutionspr/2007/03/adobe_extends_xmp_capabilities.html" rel="nofollow">released in March 2007</a> but I'm thinking that the Feb 19 date here is the date of the XMP version not necessarily the date when this image was created. Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-6612774698697050922015-08-29T13:49:14.969+01:002015-08-29T13:49:14.969+01:00Thank you, Prof. King, for making this information...Thank you, Prof. King, for making this information available.Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74208373797612475572015-08-29T13:12:51.989+01:002015-08-29T13:12:51.989+01:00Thanks, Mike, for pointing this out!Thanks, Mike, for pointing this out!Christian Askelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381441700351009913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-56082643952191679952015-08-29T06:33:23.016+01:002015-08-29T06:33:23.016+01:00Thanks so much for your kind words, Christian. As ...Thanks so much for your kind words, Christian. As you know, I've preserved the 2002 page-by-page version of my interlinear for historical purposes, although I've made quite a few changes since then - including restoring the letter I inadvertently deleted in 2002 which played a rather significant role in this story some ten years later.Mike Grondinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11488296481232433553noreply@blogger.com