[posted to GThomas Yahoogroup May 2nd, 2014]
"Two Fragments - Reflections on a Hole"

Having previously declared that the debate is over, Alin Suciu posted
further apparent evidence of forgery in the John fragment yesterday.
It came from a study by Joost Hagen and was picked up by Mark
Goodacre in his blog. The evidence consists (in case you haven't been
paying attention) of the lettering surrounding a large hole in the papyrus.
On the recto, the lettering appears around the hole, while on the verso,
the lettering appears to have been done through the hole. (See Mark's
blog for a picture and a much better description of the situation.)
 
Is the debate over? Sorry, Alin, but it ain't over til the fat lady sings, and in
this case, the fat lady is Roger Bagnall. Is the evidence of the hole suspect
because it's an error too stupid to have been committed by a forger - as
James Tabor claims on Mark's blog? That's related to what was said in a
recent unposted GThomas note wherein the writer opined that (1) I was
equating error with forgery, but I was wrong about that because (2) a
forger would be unlikely to commit an error, because it was in the nature
of forgery to make everything look perfect. As to (1), it isn't the mere
existence of an error (there's plenty in authentic writings), but whether
the details of the supposed error are suspicious in the context of what
else is known (or not known) about the artifact. As to (2), errors do
occur in known forgeries. They seem to occur not only unintentionally 
(because a perfect crime is extraordinarily difficult to carry out), but also
intentionally (as some kind of weird joke in the mind of the forger).
 
What is the impact on JWF of a finding of forgery for the John fragment?
Well, April DeConick has warned against guilt-by-association, but it isn't
just that. A specific tie-in between the two fragments has been asserted
by Christian Askeland, who claims it's the same hand, the same ink,
and the same writing instrument. Those claims are subject to question,
however. With respect to the writing instrument, it may be shown to be
of the same type, but it's hard to see how it can be shown to be exactly the
same one. Same with the ink. As to the lettering, there are other experts 
who say that although it's similar, it's not the same. One such specialist
commenting on Alin's blog hypothesizes two forgers - one a copycat or
working in concert with the other. The only thing that seems agreed upon 
is that there are suspicious similarities between the two fragments. Is that
enough to ultimately move Bagnall away from his judgment of authenticity
for the JWF fragment?
 
Mike Grondin
Ref: www.gospel-thomas.net/x_gjw2.htm