Active Users:167 Time:17/05/2024 07:00:20 AM
No, the fragment is either Gnostic or a forgery. Tom Send a noteboard - 20/09/2012 11:28:53 PM
"Inauthentic" is a loaded term. My point is that it's either (1) Gnostic because of the use of "wife" instead of "bride" due to Biblical terminology or (2) a forgery.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.

ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius

Ummaka qinnassa nīk!

*MySmiley*
Reply to message
So, about this silly "Jesus' wife" story making the rounds... - 19/09/2012 10:55:55 PM 1174 Views
That's right! Jesus' position on marriage was "One man, no woman." *NM* - 19/09/2012 11:05:55 PM 517 Views
What is the context? The canonical bible says Christ has a wife: The Church. - 19/09/2012 11:25:19 PM 796 Views
Oh please...don't confuse "wife" with "bride" - 19/09/2012 11:35:09 PM 762 Views
What word do the Prophets use for Israels relationship to God? - 20/09/2012 12:38:20 AM 770 Views
BRIDE - 20/09/2012 03:39:30 PM 748 Views
That makes sense for an eternal God, but sounds like a wife who remains a bride. - 20/09/2012 08:56:07 PM 824 Views
It's "bride" in the Old Testament as well. - 20/09/2012 09:48:37 PM 760 Views
The distinction is important for preserving the newlywed condition, but not for this fragment. - 20/09/2012 11:21:52 PM 810 Views
No, the fragment is either Gnostic or a forgery. - 20/09/2012 11:28:53 PM 754 Views
Fair enough; for my money it could easily be both. - 21/09/2012 12:10:57 AM 707 Views
Two things why it is important - 20/09/2012 04:24:37 AM 745 Views
There is a very good reason no one dismissed the illegitmate gospels as illegitimate until 180 AD: - 20/09/2012 09:15:05 PM 681 Views
The Gospel of Thomas was written before 180 AD. - 20/09/2012 09:33:44 PM 694 Views
What is the oldest extant text of or reference to it? - 20/09/2012 11:11:03 PM 767 Views
The Oxyrhynchus fragments were dated to c. 200 AD, and they are copies - 21/09/2012 12:18:33 AM 664 Views
I would buy 200 AD, of course. - 21/09/2012 12:58:32 AM 745 Views
It's not about "buying" it - it's essentially proven at that point. - 21/09/2012 03:26:50 AM 707 Views
Yes; all I meant was that I never disputed a date around 200 AD. - 22/09/2012 12:25:41 AM 722 Views
I don't think any of the gospels were written by their purported authors. - 22/09/2012 03:36:32 AM 663 Views
Not even Mark or Luke? - 22/09/2012 01:21:24 PM 682 Views
Well, but everyone knew Peter didn't speak Greek - 22/09/2012 09:46:57 PM 638 Views
What about those who postulate a mid-to-late 1st century composition? - 22/09/2012 02:21:18 AM 779 Views
Elaine Pagels ceased to be an impartial academic a long time ago. - 22/09/2012 03:41:41 AM 713 Views
Suspected as much, but wanted to see if you thought so as well - 22/09/2012 03:47:05 AM 855 Views
Let's not get started on Funk - 22/09/2012 09:48:05 PM 659 Views
So true - 22/09/2012 10:23:08 PM 764 Views
don't these people have anything better to do? - 20/09/2012 11:39:35 PM 691 Views
Clearly not. - 22/09/2012 12:27:29 AM 603 Views
then i'll escape this thread before anyone twigs - 22/09/2012 08:12:37 PM 767 Views
Too late, I have already twigged, branched and treed. - 22/09/2012 08:58:39 PM 749 Views
I know! - 21/09/2012 06:48:33 AM 870 Views
See, Tom, you made a mistake. - 22/09/2012 10:25:22 AM 730 Views

Reply to Message