tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post6506304840152356037..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: Jesus was married! ...is what folks write about in the information ageAnthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-53525198742457483852012-10-20T16:14:02.032-07:002012-10-20T16:14:02.032-07:00Thanks for your comment hopebeyondreason,
I'm...Thanks for your comment hopebeyondreason,<br /><br />I'm not sure that imaging technology had much to do with this particular controversy, but I can imagine that this will add further complications in the future.<br /><br />As for scholars being "fooled", I'll wait to see if Peter's comment above ends up bubbling to the top. <br /><br />What remains interesting to me is that HTR hasn't yet (to my knowledge) decided to publish the essay that was provisionally accepted. Have the folks at HTR been influenced by blogs and youtube? If so, I find this a fascinating development in the peer-review process.<br /><br />-anthony<br />Anthony Le Donnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-4795267814807650252012-10-20T15:21:50.643-07:002012-10-20T15:21:50.643-07:00Though I suspend judgement about whether the Copti...Though I suspend judgement about whether the Coptic fragment was a forgery, it wouldn't be the first time that very reputable scholars have been fooled. Old examples from evolutionary palaeontology like 'Piltdown Man' come to mind. <br /><br />Anthony, you've touched on some very crucial blind-spots or vulnerabilities in the dissemination of scholarly information. First, it is getting harder to spot forgeries as imaging technology advances. Top-notch scholars are not necessarily experts on the image software that can be used to generate forgeries. Moreover, the desire for academic acclaim can be a distorting bias that makes even the best of us more susceptible to ignoring the usual checks on academic publishing.<br /><br />Anyway, for these reasons, i am not surprised if the fragment fooled qualified scholars, if in fact it was a forgery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-75219971079026319942012-10-19T03:37:50.811-07:002012-10-19T03:37:50.811-07:00I was dealing with the written text of King's ...I was dealing with the written text of King's (provisionally accepted) article: http://news.hds.harvard.edu/files/King_JesusSaidToThem_draft_0917.pdf (see p. 3-4).Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-41435435584749728652012-10-19T00:50:22.670-07:002012-10-19T00:50:22.670-07:00Thank you Peter, it looks like you and I are worki...Thank you Peter, it looks like you and I are working with variant strands of the oral tradition. I sincerely hope (and wouldn't be surprised at all) that yours is correct. It would assuage my concerns a great deal. <br /><br />As for this waiting for the ink test business, nobody with whom I've spoken seems confident that the ink will prove conclusive one way or the other. Of course, I've only spoken with three people on this matter.<br /><br />again, thanks.<br />-anthonyAnthony Le Donnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-48933737100897787142012-10-18T01:30:02.145-07:002012-10-18T01:30:02.145-07:00Two out of three of the HTR peer reviewers express...Two out of three of the HTR peer reviewers expressed doubts about the authenticity of the fragment. On that basis HTR required further consultation and scientific analysis of the ink. So I wouldn't worry about that aspect of peer review - it comes out of this looking reasonably robust. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.com