Posted on 05/05/2014 4:53:00 AM PDT by Gamecock
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 ...
Jesus was not an epileptic.
That was the assertion. That is what I have to prove.
I can’t. No way to do it that I can see.
Jesus had a wife.
That was the assertion. That is what King had to prove.
She couldn’t. No way to do it that I can see.
Accurate enough, but evasive.
I dealt above board with the issues I suggested
I couldn’t prove as authentic the fact that Jesus was an epileptic.
I know of no previous information to that effect.
I can’t prove any of it, so it should be assumed to an inauthentic writing.
In your post 37 you made the following statements:
"...should have to be proven authentic and not disproven as inauthentic."
"...there is no previous information to that effect..."
"...should automatically be assumed to be inauthentic with a huge burden of proof on anyone claiming such to be the case..."
In my post 40 I wrote: "So, can you prove your statements:" followed by the list of your statements recorded directly above this paragraph. I was not asking about the "epileptic" or the "wife" parts. I was asking about your statements.
You responded with your post 41 which I found accurate enough, but evasive because it did not respond to what I was asking about in my post 40.
“However, the Harvard group that analyzed it was not careful enough.”
What a dilemma, as it is their “education” that is responsible for their carelessness.
Same institution which allowed Obama to pass no is exposed to another fraud.
You're the one who is giving reality a way to stretch itself into something else.
I made those statements about Ms King’s claim that Jesus was married.
She would have prove that claim by those methods.
Are you asking me to prove that those standards I came up with are valid or rational?
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.