Jesus’ wife fragment ‘n vervalsing.
In hierdie publikasie van Prof. Larry Hurtado gee hy die bewyse dat hierdie fragment wat die afgelope jare soveel opslae gemaak het, ‘n vervalsing is. Met soveel ernstige werklik toegewyde Christen geleerdes en Bybelkennesrs wat elke moontlike stukkie manuskrip of fragment tot in die fynste bestudeer, kan ons met vertroue die meer as 5,600 Griekse manuskripte en meer as 18,000 manuskripte van antieke vertalings wat wel hul intensiewe bestudering deurstaan het, vertrou. Daarom moet ons ‘n bewys uit die verlede met erns bestudeer, en nie net vassteek by die enkeles wat tot Desiderius Erasmus se beskikking was toe hy inderhaas sy eerste gedrukte Griekse teks in 1516 uitgegee het. Daaruit het die Textus Receptus ontstaan wat gebruik is om ons 1933/53 Ou Afrikaanse Vertaling daar te stel.
Dit is waarom ek liewer aan my lesers die volle spektrum van die beskikbare manuskripte aanbied met ‘n so objektief moontlike evaluering van die feite.
Lees gerus Hurtado se artikel en volg die skakels. Dis uiters interessant en insiggewend.
Simon Gathercole’s article, “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: Constructing a Context,” presents reasons why a reference to a wife of Jesus doesn’t really have a context in early Christian texts, contrary to Prof. King’s proposal. And he reiterates reasons why the GJW fragment is a pastiche of phrases heavily indebted to the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.
Christian Askeland, “A Lycopolitan Forgery of John’s Gospel,” gives in his article a full presentation of evidence that the putative fragment of a Coptic translation of the Gospel of John (another fragment in the small batch passed to Prof. King) is certainly a forgery (created through use of a 1924 publication), and why this means that the GJW fragment must be also. Among the reasons, the two fragments seem to be the same “hand,” so, if the one is a forgery, the other is also likely one.
Andrew Bernhard, “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: Textual Evidence of Modern Forgery,” presents fully the evidence that the GJW fragment was created by use of modern published versions of the Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas.
Christopher Jones, “The Jesus’ Wife Papyrus in the History of Forgery,” recounts previous examples of forgeries purporting to be genuine Christian texts, and shows how these typically are intended to reflect trends in culture and thought of their time. The GJW fragment seems now to be the most recent instance of this.
Myriam Krutzsch and Ira Rabin, “Material Criteria and their Clues for Dating,” address the tests of the writing material and ink used to create the GJW fragment, showing the limits of these tests and how they cannot adequately address the question of forgery (especially if a forger is sufficiently clever).
Gesine Schenke Robinson, “How a Papyrus Fragment Became a Sensation,” summarizes the grounds on which it appears that the great majority of scholars with expertise in Coptic early judged the GJW fragment a forgery and now do so with greater confidence.
As of today, the Harvard Divinity School web pages on the GJW fragment here appear not to have been updated since the April 2014 publication of her article in the Harvard Theological Review. The articles in the new issue of New Testament Studies,however, collectively give interested readers a rather full presentation of reasons why the GJW fragment is now widely regarded a hoax, Prof. King perhaps the scholar most seriously and cruelly the victim of it. It appears that surely now, however, the appeals of various scholars for a candid response to the collective judgment that the fragment is a hoax must be heeded, and (unless the combined judgments of the aforementioned scholars can be shown to be erroneous) an effort should be made to trace (and disclose) the process by which it was attempted.
Kommentaar, veral indien jy verskil, is baie welkom onder aan hierdie bladsy, of per e-pos aan: email@example.com