Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

King Concedes 'Gospel Of Jesus' Wife' is Forgery After Owner Exposed as Pornographer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
    I haven't done my usual diligence on this update, so please understand my comments here are off the cuff, based only on the short video from the Atlantic. In particular, I don't know what "provenance questions" had been raised, or what would be involved in engaging them.
    When you get some time, read the full Atlantic article. King apparently took Fritz's story at face value while doing very little to check his story, which is something I imagine most people in her position ought to do when they're publishing about a new discovery with potentially controversial overtones. Controversy that she helped along by naming it The Gospel of Jesus's Wife. Just asking for the names of those authorities who supposedly reviewed the fragment before she got her hands on it would have been something. If independent scholars were able to do some of the simpler leg work, and connect the dots on their own, it seems strange that the Harvard scholar who had the actual name of the owner couldn't be bothered to do even a bit of digging, or at the very least, show interest in those who were.

    Honestly, the perceived theology of the scholars is a non issue for me, something that would only come up if I perceived a contradiction in their assembled stories. Assuming a bias against Evangelical scholars is not helpful. You should be aware I am only familiar with "Craig" from a previous discussion of NT scholarship, and am even less familiar with Daniel Wallace.

    I've always been more interested in early Israelite religion than early Christianity, and more interested in the anthropology than the theology in any case. Does the theology of the scholars make a difference?
    In this case I imagine it might seeing as King is the Professor of Divinity at Harvard, which is literally a professorship in theology.

    It was clear from the beginning that, even if authentic, the fragment would never trace back to anything more than a minor splinter group less relevant to the mainstream Christianity of its time than the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses are to ours. With no hint of a wife in the canon or early church fathers, and no reason to believe the presence of a wife would create an embarrassment, the fragment itself never had a chance to move opinion on whether Jesus actually had a wife.
    Of course. Though, that isn't exactly the way the media punched it up to the lay reader/watcher. There were plenty of salacious headlines after the announcement about Dan Brown-style Catholic Church cover-ups and "what could this mean about female clergy" type bylines. Even the Atlantic video I posted wanders into that territory a bit.

    Racking my memory here, was that a portion of John? In any case, this is where I last remember the discussion.
    Correct.

    I understand this is a blog, but I'm still going to object to the language here, as in the triumphal partisanship of "becomes irrefutable." It's unnecessarily and unhelpfully combative. I just want to know if the fragment is a forgery.
    Compare the above with:



    And there you have it. Powerful arguments don't require the stomping of feet into faces.
    Huh. I have no problem with the wording. The evidence against it is, as far as I can tell, irrefutable. The details that Goodacre points out. The way the papyrus was cut. The newly identified orange dots on the GJW fragment, and one of the forged documents found on Fritz's website. The fact that John was also forged in the exact same style from the same source... I mean, it's airtight. I'm not sure I see any need to not call it like it is, and I don't see how that's unprofessional. I've heard scholars say far nastier words than "irrefutable".

    This would be a good point to mention why I prefer to use the indent tags:
    i think in part you have to separate Dr. King the scholar and Dr. King the theologian. She (and Harvard) in a way are forging a theology, one where Christianity is much broader and more inclusive than conservative Christian theology. as a theologian, her life work is validated by this evidence. so then she is as respectable as BYU professors when it comes to Mormonism. I think her reputation as a professor is really more on developing a palatable theology for modern (or post-modern) thinkers than as an academic with papyrus work. if you seriously consider their theology (even if they don't call it a theology anymore), must of it is not grounded in ancient history, but on how theology [of] the past can be useful in today's context.

    It's because they preserve the text when using the quote button.

    Directly to the post, honestly, it reads as two parts hand-waving, "in a way," to three parts conspiracy theory, "and Harvard," "even if they don't call it a theology anymore." I don't see any value in it. It doesn't address the authenticity of the papyrus in any way.

    Within bounds, there's always been a good deal of diversity within any religious tradition. I assume there will always be active debate on the extent of that diversity, and further, that new finds generally will increase the scope of that debate.
    Yeah, I agree that it doesn't address the authenticity of the papyrus in any way, but I still thought it was on point.
    Last edited by Adrift; 06-19-2016, 03:47 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
      This would be a good point to mention why I prefer to use the indent tags:

      It's because they preserve the text when using the quote button.
      Indent tags are good. Another alternative is to use the cite tags, like so:

      Source: poster from r/AcademicBiblical

      i think in part you have to separate Dr. King the scholar and Dr. King the theologian. She (and Harvard) in a way are forging a theology, one where Christianity is much broader and more inclusive than conservative Christian theology. as a theologian, her life work is validated by this evidence. so then she is as respectable as BYU professors when it comes to Mormonism. I think her reputation as a professor is really more on developing a palatable theology for modern (or post-modern) thinkers than as an academic with papyrus work. if you seriously consider their theology (even if they don't call it a theology anymore), must of it is not grounded in ancient history, but on how theology [of] the past can be useful in today's context.

      © Copyright Original Source



      Although indent tags do make the text a bit more reader-friendly IMO.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
        They're simple amazing (if Crawfish is lurking)
        It doesn't work anymore, I have become inoculated from reading too many of Leonhard's posts.

        ETA: I'm just going to point out my inconsistency in using contractions before the Jerk™ can do it.
        Last edited by JonathanL; 06-19-2016, 10:31 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          If memory serves me correctly, Mark Goodacre has also considered the mounting evidence irrefutable for some time now, I think since the line-break evidence was presented.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            If memory serves me correctly, Mark Goodacre has also considered the mounting evidence irrefutable for some time now, I think since the line-break evidence was presented.
            That's my recollection as well.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment

            Related Threads

            Collapse

            Topics Statistics Last Post
            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 05:38 AM
            0 responses
            9 views
            0 likes
            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
            Started by tabibito, 09-07-2023, 02:41 PM
            30 responses
            133 views
            0 likes
            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
            Working...
            X