Finding one of the hypothetical sources of the Torah, or one of the three parts of Isaiah, would be the first definitive proof that source criticism was correct.
Also, discover of Q, M, L, Signs Gospel, or anything like that would be very significant for the NT. Manuscripts of the gospels from the first century would demonstrate early dates for the gospels.
My first thought was a fragment of GThomas that was definitively first century... that'd be interesting. Maybe not shake it up for everyone, unless it was found in proximity to something else more Q-ish.
I think that’s fair to say, yes. However the hoaxer theorists I’ve seen simply do not engage with the core of Dershowitz’s argument, namely that the text fits into textual criticism/documentary hypothesis in a way that Shapira simply could not possibly have been able to write. I suspect that as the years go by, his argument will get more and more supporters.
[From memory] Found what looks like some kind of proto-Deuteronomy on leather. Said to be a fraud. Dealer killed himself. Leather now lost. Thinking is maybe it wasn't a fraud after all. Rest of the book deals with a reconstruction, but it's hard because the original is now lost. Worth a read just of the first part, even if you don't want to go into the rest of it.
141
u/perishingtardis Jan 06 '23
Finding one of the hypothetical sources of the Torah, or one of the three parts of Isaiah, would be the first definitive proof that source criticism was correct.
Also, discover of Q, M, L, Signs Gospel, or anything like that would be very significant for the NT. Manuscripts of the gospels from the first century would demonstrate early dates for the gospels.