TwitLonger

#GJW | « The bizarre sequence of events that led to… »…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.gospels.net/gjw/mighthavebeenforged.pdf
How The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife Might Have Been Forged: A Tentative Proposal
Andrew Bernhard, October 9-11, 2012.
14. Although the omission of ⲙ before [ⲛϩ in Gos. Jes. Wife (→).1 is not necessarily a grammatical error, it still might be considered evidence that a forger was dependent on a modern text (in this case, the pdf version of Grondin’s Interlinear). It should be noted that the ⲙ is correctly present in the online version of Grondin’s Interlinear: http://gospel-thomas.net/log101.htm (accessed October 9, 2011). The bizarre sequence of events that led to the realization that the ⲙ had accidentally been omitted in the pdf version of Grondin’s Interlinear was begun by: Mark Goodacre, email to Gthomas: The Gospel of Thomas Discussion Group mailing list, September 28, 2012, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/10310.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/10310
Re: [GTh] Did the author of the GJW use Grondin's website?(2)
Marksgoodacre, Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:20 pm.
(1) Why is the M missing in front of PWN2 on line 1 of the fragment? Could it be that the forger wrongly thought it was dispensable? Mike's interlinear has "(the)-Life" under MPWN2 in 101 (http://gospel-thomas.net/log101.htm). Could the forger have thought that the bracketed "(the)" in the interlinear rendered the M superfluous to requirements?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://alinsuciu.com/2012/09/27/alin-suciu-hugo-lundhaug-an-interesting-dialectal-feature-in-the-gospel-of-jesuss-wife-line-6/#comment-2928
Richard.Budelberger, October 9, 2012 at 02:53.
What astonishes me is that this omission agrees with the text found in Michael Grondin’s « Interlinear Coptic/English Translation of “The Gospel of Thomas” », where the direct object marker is missing. (Cf. http://twitpic.com/b2f1s2 against e. g. http://twitpic.com/b2f26i)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/10340
Re: [GTh] Did the author of the GJW use Grondin's website?(2)
Mwgrondin, Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:02 pm.
I haven't wanted to say anything about this topic previously, because, well, it makes me uncomfortable. But my attention has recently been drawn to the fact that the page-by-page version of my interlinear (as opposed to the interactive saying-by-saying version) is missing the 'M' preceding PWN2 at line 50:01 - which is the line that has been linked to line 1 of the fragment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/jesus-wife-fragment-further-evidence-of.html
Jesus' Wife Fragment: Further Evidence of Modern Forgery
Mark Goodacre, October 11, 2012.
I must admit that I never thought to look at the page-by-page PDFs, looking instead only at the web version. But yesterday, Mike Grondin himself made a telling observation on the Gospel of Thomas e-list.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.gospel-thomas.net/x_gjw.htm
A Question of Content: How I Saw the Internet Furor Over the Jesus' Wife Fragment
Michael W. Grondin, 10 Oct 2012 . Rev 19 Oct 2012.
Oct 11: Mark Goodacre posts a block-buster announcing Andrew Bernhard's new paper. Evidence has been found to support Bernhard's suggestion that a forger might have used my interlinear - in particular a pdf version dated 22 Nov 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.gospel-thomas.net/x_gjw_ps2.htm
Did A Forger Use My Interlinear?
Michael W. Grondin, 14 Oct 2012, rev. 19 Oct 2012.
Sept. 28th, Mark Goodacre presented two items of possible evidence: (1) the missing direct-object marker 'M' in front of 'life' on GJW line 1, and (2) the spelling 'Mariam' on line 3. (…) As to item1 - which later turned out to be major - none of us were aware at the time that there was in fact one version of my interlinear (but not the one we were looking at) wherein that letter was missing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/10351
mwgrondin, Oct 19, 2012 5:17 am
Item #1 (supposed missing direct-object marker) is the one that's been in the news since Oct 11, when Andrew posted his paper, and Mark announced it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://tl.gd/juc1v0 · Reply
Report post (?)