tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post915694639252474586..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: Interview with Caroline T. Schroeder re: Jesus' Wife FragmentAnthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-74993308746393184592014-04-29T13:51:57.992-07:002014-04-29T13:51:57.992-07:00Too often scholars have jumped to sensational conc...Too often scholars have jumped to sensational conclusions only to sell books and teevee time. Why are the same faces always appearing on these shows? Did King deceive herself? Yes, but she wanted to be deceived. Ideological conviction can only work provided they are accompanied by betrayal of fact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-90681357740953196382014-04-28T18:14:33.243-07:002014-04-28T18:14:33.243-07:00She makes the astute comment that "We need to...She makes the astute comment that "We need to develop better mechanisms for integrating our online scholarship and traditional scholarship."<br /><br />My suggestion, is that journals should post, on their blogs, draft versions of the articles that they intend to publish. This would allow everyone to post comments, making suggestions, pointing out mistakes, counter-arguments, ambiguities etc.. The authors and reviewers could then benefit from such comments and the final products would be stronger. This could accelerate the 'conversation' that is scholarship.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-84335448810665380292014-04-28T10:22:43.567-07:002014-04-28T10:22:43.567-07:00Mike, how kind of you to check back in on this poi...Mike, how kind of you to check back in on this point. Such thoroughgoing integrity is rare among blog commenters! <br /><br />-anthonyAnthony Le Donnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-19682482118066138402014-04-28T10:09:39.583-07:002014-04-28T10:09:39.583-07:00Apologies, Anthony. I have to retract my previous ...Apologies, Anthony. I have to retract my previous comment. I've just learned from Christian Askeland's latest blog entry that the John fragment failed to follow its pattern of every-other line on the last line of the verso. I hadn't seen this noted earlier, but it makes all the difference. I'm now persuaded that the John fragment is a fake.Mike Grondinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11488296481232433553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-40207414344015718402014-04-27T12:05:52.208-07:002014-04-27T12:05:52.208-07:00Thank you for your dedication to this project. Go...Thank you for your dedication to this project. God bless you abundantly.Friend of Jesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15928144917029124335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-22246328558650141952014-04-26T16:13:13.195-07:002014-04-26T16:13:13.195-07:00That certainly seems to be the case. Am I mistaken...That certainly seems to be the case. Am I mistaken or do the fb comments of Malcolm Choate indicate that he's tilting toward forgery for JWF as well?Mike Grondinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11488296481232433553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-37504450748602070602014-04-26T12:48:33.456-07:002014-04-26T12:48:33.456-07:00Thanks Mike. I suppose that it is the mounting odd...Thanks Mike. I suppose that it is the mounting oddity of this story that has convinced most folks that JWF is a fake. Perhaps rather than using the language of a "smoking gun," we should say that this new data has "tipped the scales" toward the strong probability of forgery.<br /><br />-anthonyAnthony Le Donnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-27457066462170558992014-04-26T11:08:54.412-07:002014-04-26T11:08:54.412-07:00It's ironic to me that some folks are now taki...It's ironic to me that some folks are now taking the JW fragment to be a forgery because they think that the Jn fragment is more certainly a forgery. To my mind, it's the other way round. The JWF has far more visible signs of forgery than the JnF. The evidence of line-breaks in JnF is less persuasive than first appears, for if it is a forgery, the forger went to extraordinary lengths to select exactly the right stuff to put on the back side of the fragment. What I mean by that is that the number of lines between the front and back of the JnF fragment is about 61 - which is a tall page, but proportional to the hypothetical line size, which is also larger than, say, NHCII. This would have had to have been done by a skilled person, unlike the JWF. So I have doubts that JnF is a forgery, but if believing so makes folks realize that JWF is, I suppose that's a net good.Mike Grondinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11488296481232433553noreply@blogger.com