Posted on 05/02/2014 9:16:57 AM PDT by Kartographer
Then last week the story began to crumble faster than an ancient papyrus exposed in the windy Sudan. Mr. Askeland found, among the online links that Harvard used as part of its publicity push, images of another fragment, of the Gospel of John, that turned out to share many similarities—including the handwriting, ink and writing instrument used—with the "wife" fragment. The Gospel of John text, he discovered, had been directly copied from a 1924 publication.
"Two factors immediately indicated that this was a forgery," Mr. Askeland tells me. "First, the fragment shared the same line breaks as the 1924 publication. Second, the fragment contained a peculiar dialect of Coptic called Lycopolitan, which fell out of use during or before the sixth century." Ms. King had done two radiometric tests, he noted, and "concluded that the papyrus plants used for this fragment had been harvested in the seventh to ninth centuries." In other words, the fragment that came from the same material as the "Jesus' wife" fragment was written in a dialect that didn't exist when the papyrus it appears on was made.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
PING!!
It is perhaps understandable that Ms. King would have been taken in when an anonymous owner presented her with some papyrus fragments for research.
Victims of an elaborate ruse? Or committed an elaborate ruse? Funny that the NY Times was brought in on it, and it was released just in time for the usual atheist attack on Easter.
And who is this "anonymous owner"? Don't we deserve to know that, so we can trace this scam back to its origins?
We can all see what is happening here. The Pope got to them.
Thanks for posting. I’ve been following this story.
It was pretty clear from the beginning to everyone but the liberals at Harvard and their ilk that this was a hoax.
I’m glad to see that it has now been conclusively established while Harvard has egg on its face and some explaining to do.
Will Dr. King reveal her “source”? We shall see.
Kinda like using “African” for race on a bc when that term was not used back in 1961, lol.
2 Thessolonians 2:15
Libs will never accept this. They still claim, even though it’s been proven wrong, that the carbon dating of the Shroud proves that it’s fake.
haha!
I don't see why that is hard to understand.
” just in time for the usual atheist attack on Easter”
Right. This is the new Easter tradition. Time and Newsweek (are either still around other than 10 year-old copies in doctors’ waiting rooms?) usually dedicated a cover story to this kind of nonsense a week or two before Easter.
Ping to suspicions confirmed.
Evil on the Throne - Good (decency & truth) on the Gallows.
Amen.
The fact that so many people who don’t believe in Jesus spend so much time and effort trying to prove everything about Him is untrue, proves that satan is real.
Time to start working on my “Prophet Mohammed’s Sketch Book of Naughty Doodling” and see if anyone at Harvard will buy it.
I was unaware that the Shroud carbon dating (1988?) that suggested it was only about 1000 years old had been scientifically overturned.
When/where/who did that occur?
Can’t remember when and where, but it was years ago.
“Also, even if scientists eventually do date the Shroud to the time of Christ, they can never prove that it’s His image on the Shroud.”
True. But whoevers image it is, they still can’t explain how it got on the Shroud.
I guess this will wind up in the “Super-Sale, HUGE MARKDOWN” bin with the Gospel of Judas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.