<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Whether a fake or simply pseudepigraphal what's the diff?<br>
<br>
The argument of a "nubby pen" reminds me of Gill a little.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/20/2012 8:27 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:25FDD259-AD49-4DAA-BEAD-846FC638A42D@shout.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<div>A star even in the coptological community... (Despite his
inability to answer questions about how he'd vote in Congress.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
[From <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2012/09/christian-askeland.html">http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2012/09/christian-askeland.html</a>>]
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A lot of convincing arguments are now coming out which seem to
be pointing quite firmly to the conclusion that the so-called "Gospel
of Jesus' wife" is indeed a fake as I suggested in my first post here
about it.<b> David Gill </b>has pointed me to some interesting
discussion on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, in particular the
post by Christian Askeland which was begun from the conference in
Rome where this item was (prematurely it now seems) announced.<br>
<br>
In an update Dr Askeland announced that initial reactions among
the coptological community at the International Association of Coptic
studies conference were split. <br>
My initial perception is that those who specialize in Nag Hammadi and
early manuscripts are split with about four-fifths being extremely
skeptical about the manuscript’s authenticity and one-fifth is fairly
convinced that the fragment is a fake. I have not met anyone who
supports its authenticity, although I do not doubt that there must be
some. </div>
<div><br>
There is it seems now a growing list of prominent Coptologists who are
completely convinced that this is a fake. Dr Askeland himself says: "I
have no doubt that this fragment was not part of a literary document of
any kind (e.g. a codex). If I had to guess, I would have to say that
this manuscript is a forgery". He notes the appeal to authority to
support the authenticity in the absence of other information. He points
out that the script of the object in fact does not resemble manuscripts
of a known fourth century date, and he does not accept the "nubby pen"
argument. He also says "if an amateur with a basic knowledge of Coptic
were to forge a text, it would look like the text under question" and
asks "what other manuscripts (esp. literary) actually look like this
fragment? It looks like a fake".<br>
<br>
In the comments, among other things, Simon Gathercole notes:<br>
"the script is at least fishy [...] Most of it is paralleled in the
Gospel of Thomas, images of which are easily accessible on the web". <br>
Forum member chill was concerned about the state of preservation of the
object:<br>
Does anyone else think the ink in relation to the papyrus fibers looks
odd? (1) except for maybe the first 2 lines, the letters at the ends of
lines seem fitted to the fragment (2) what appears to be effacement of
the papyrus in a vertical strip about a third of the way across the
fragment seems to have affected the surface of the papyrus but not the
writing (3) I agree with Christian that it looks like it was written
with a brush. <br>
As one forum member sums it up: "No provenance, no ink testing,
unparalleled writing, grammatical errors, suspicious dependence on
Thomas, ductus doesn't look right. By day 3 there are significant
objections for this little scrap to overcome".<br>
<br>
Moreover, in contrast to some comments that were being reported
yesterday it emerges that it is against the 2007 ASP resolution that a
papyrologist should not add "significantly to the commercial value of
[stolen] papyri", which includes papyri taken out of Egypt after 1972.<br>
<br>
So how many other scholars are going to get misled by fake antiquities
surfacing from "underground" on the no-questions-asked antiquities
market where the unnamed collector who now wants to sell this fragment
to Harvard bought his stuff? In the light of this train-wreck, does
not the AIA resolution about its members getting involved in the
publication of such material make an awful lot of sense. This stuff is
double-dodgy. <br>
<br>
Hat tip to David Gill<br>
Posted by Paul Barford at 04:58 <br>
<br>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<hr width="90%" size="4">
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>