sci.archaeology
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Answer to Agamemnon Re: The Lost Gospel of Judas

Subject: Re: Answer to Agamemnon Re: The Lost Gospel of Judas
From: "IE J"
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:55:22 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, soc.history.ancient
Managed to send it before I had added my lines....see below/IEJ
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:ONy0g.118051$_c.42926@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Agamemnon wrote:
> > "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:444237a9$0$44652$dbd4f001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> IE J wrote: news:8gq0g.53090$d5.208115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >>> Agamemnon,
>
> >>> [...]
> >>> And you also better present differences or alikeness between early
> >>> handwritten text and later 'versions' of the Gospel to keep the
> >>> subject within topic for sci.archaeology.
> >>> Inger E
>
> >> Hey, this whole thread is off-topic in scia.
>
> > Says who ?
>
> > Archaeo-logy means the study of things that are ancient and since the
> > Gospel of Judas is ancient  it is therefore on-topic.
>
> Actually the thread has gotten into things which are not what
archaeologists do
> but after the constant intrusions of this into soc.history.ancient I don't
see
> there being much point in objecting as it never gets results.
>

Since neither you nor anyone else answered the question I asked in my
startarticle 'The Lost Gospel',
I asked for comments and I thought that at least one or two should have been
able to go to the analyse part of the handwritten text where dating
according to C14 as well as palography were presented, and ink analysed
I had at least presumed someone to take up the archaeologic parts which
definitely were there to be read and commented.,
since none of you did there definitely aren't any 'result' discussed at all.

Inger E



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>