Simcha J. is suggesting that all the learned people calling into question the authenticity of the ‘Jesus Wife’ fragment are nothing more than vultures and ‘c-list’ scholars.
First, I didn’t know Simcha had a website and apparently neither does the rest of the world as Alexa ranks him in the 10,000,000 plus range (which means that the only people who visit his page are himself and his mom).
Second, I didn’t know there were various ‘lists’ of scholars but I suppose when you’re an unlearned journalist who makes a living making and promoting D-List films featuring absurd claims and unsupported and unsubstantiated rubbish you like to construct lists so that you feel better about yourself.
And third, Simcha exposes himself for the person he really is and his true aims when he writes on his virtually unknown page
But here’s the scoop: the naysayers are losing this war. 1,600 years ago one group of Christians decided that theirs is the only legitimate version of Christianity. They impaled their opposition and they burned their texts. Thereafter, anything that contradicted the official version became first “heresy” and now “forgery”. It would have been a perfect crime except for archaeology and that terrible bugaboo – a free press. They keep resurrecting the voices of the dead. And the story they tell is not only not a “forgery,” but it’s what the rest of us call “history”.
‘Scoop’? Only of poop. Simcha has been out with his super dooper pooper scooper again and dredged up yet another silly claim in an attempt to bolster his pseudo-scholarship. No one is trying to hide the truth or cover things up and it isn’t the ‘free press’ which has exposed the very fraud-ridden fake findings featured in Simcha’s films, it’s scholars.
But of course he HAS to say such things doesn’t he. He’s got a film in the works on the fraudulent patently faked piece of farcicalness and if scholars have already managed to persuade the public that they needn’t waste their time on it, then no advertiser will be willing to buy time when it airs because, let’s be honest for a second, Simcha is as interested in authentic scholarship as Emmanuel Christian Seminary is.
Money is the bottom line, the middle line, and the top line. So Simcha can screech down his silent well as loudly as he likes. He won’t persuade anyone who knows anything about the subject. He can call Francis Watson and Mark Goodacre ‘c list’ scholars all he likes but we all know the truth, don’t we.
With thanks to Mark Goodacre for the tweet informing me of the Simcha-esque nonsense.
Posted by Jim on October 15, 2012
You can read the revised essay here. Take note as well of the appendix. Carlson is at the top of his form. And once you read it, you’ll get off the fence, and you’ll stop ‘limping between two opinions’.
Posted by Jim on September 27, 2012
McGrath cites Ehrman who
… is quoted as saying what I think most appropriately cautious scholars would say based on the currently-available evidence: “[T]he jury is out still, but it’s not looking good for authenticity.”
In fact, James, and Bart, the decision is made BEFORE the jury comes out. The decision, in the matter of the people of planet responsible scholarship v. the ‘authenticity’ of the ‘Jesus Wife’ fragment, has been made, just not announced (by everyone). Suggesting that those who have offered their verdict are somehow not cautious enough is a red herring.
We are the jury. And we have seen enough evidence to decide. Please, James, and Bart, don’t allow your own indecision to allow you (or any of you other indecisive lot) to foist upon the rest of us your own irrational uncertainty. Francis Watson has really, genuinely, and authentically PROVEN the case. The fragment is guilty, as charged, of fraud.
Posted by Jim on September 27, 2012
Professor Watson offers a piece with the general audience in mind in Bible and Interpretation. It’s brilliant. Seriously brilliant. Inassailably brilliant.
For Christian traditions that place a high value on celibacy, Jesus is the supreme celibate; and he retains this status even when, in Protestantism, celibacy is no longer seen as a mark of the truly holy life. The Christ who offers salvation to all, the incarnate divine Son, can, surely, never have uttered the words, “My wife”? Yet it is just these words that some scribe, ancient or modern, has put into his mouth. That scribe knew exactly what he or she was doing: subverting deep-seated assumptions about Jesus in the most effective way possible, by challenging them out of Jesus’ own lips. The Jesus of this text renounces not only his celibacy but also the community for which that celibacy is integral to who he is. No Christian institution – not the Vatican itself – could withstand such a challenge, if it really is Jesus who speaks here.
God willing this nail in the heart of the vampire-esque-nuttiness-that-will-not-yet-die will finish it off for good.
Posted by Jim on September 24, 2012
Posted by Jim on September 22, 2012