[Peace-discuss] Truly a polymath

[E. Wayne Johnson]

No doubt it's some sort of quantum logic anticipatory interpretation 
with forward probabilities.

Depends upon what a nubby pen is.

On 9/20/2012 9:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote:
> It's all in the timing (as David Gill would appreciate).
>
> Unfortunately, even the FBI - with its unconstitutional, 
> Obama-provided FISA powers - doesn't have a pseudepigraph powerful 
> enough to determine whether it was written in the fourth, fourteenth, 
> or twenty-fourth (time-travel, ya'know) century.
>
> Can a nubby pen write straight with crooked lines (especially about 
> the White House child-killer)?
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:41 AM, "E. Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigsqq.org 
> <mailto:ewj at pigsqq.org>> wrote:
>
>> Whether a fake or simply pseudepigraphal what's the diff?
>>
>> The argument of a "nubby pen"  reminds me of Gill a little.
>>
>>
>> On 9/20/2012 8:27 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> A star even in the coptological community... (Despite his inability 
>>> to answer questions about how he'd vote in Congress.)
>>>
>>> [From 
>>> <http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2012/09/christian-askeland.html>]
>>>
>>> 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.* David Gill *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.
>>>
>>> In an update Dr Askeland announced that initial reactions among 
>>> the coptological community at the International Association of 
>>> Coptic studies conference were split.
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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".
>>>
>>> In the comments, among other things, Simon Gathercole notes:
>>> "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".
>>> Forum member chill was concerned about the state of preservation of 
>>> the object:
>>> 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.
>>> 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".
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Hat tip to David Gill
>>> Posted by Paul Barford at 04:58
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>    
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120920/d504d1dd/attachment.html>