Analyses of Jesus' Wife Fragment Finally Published

[KingsGambit]

And anyway, the joining of God to a human woman somehow seems repugnant to me - this isn't a union among equals! God speaks of marrying the church but symbolic language like that can't be really compared to the actual joining humans do with each other.

In general, I don't think most people realize how shocking the incarnation is if we really think about it.

[OingoBoingo]

Post #83 is a modern forgery of my post.

We'll need to run tests. We'll come back with results in a couple years. In the meantime, I'll start on the documentary. Just need a good sensational name for the "forged" post.

[Manw� S�limo]

How about "Goodacre? Hardly even KNEW her!"

Ugh, sorry, I'll get back to you.

[One Bad Pig]

And anyway, the joining of God to a human woman somehow seems repugnant to me - this isn't a union among equals!

What's wrong with that? Zeus did that all the time.

[carbon dioxide]

Yes. There doesn't seem to be any debate at all concerning the fact that the fragment tells us nothing about the historical Jesus. Prof. Larry Hurtado made the following (IMO insightful) observations to a commentor on his blog who also thought it likely Jesus was married.

I believe that Paul was married. First if he was not married he sort of voids out his statement in 1 Corinthians 11:8-12:

1 Corinthians 11:8-12: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God."

One could have responded to Paul. "Oh really. You believe that Paul? What is your problem then? Where is your wife or do you think you are special that you are exempt from your own teachings?" Apparently in some early Christian teachings it was understood that Paul was in fact married.

Ignatius: "For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men. For they entered into these marriages not for the sake of appetite, but out of regard for the propagation of mankind." (Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter 4 Ante-Nicean Fathers 1:81 see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vi.iv.htmlspouses went with them, not as wives, but as sisters

[OingoBoingo]

How about "Goodacre? Hardly even KNEW her!"

Ugh, sorry, I'll get back to you.

Ugh indeed. I see now why people are calling you the "horny doofus".

[OingoBoingo]

I believe that Paul was married. First if he was not married he sort of voids out his statement in 1 Corinthians 11:8-12:

1 Corinthians 11:8-12: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God."

One could have responded to Paul. "Oh really. You believe that Paul? What is your problem then? Where is your wife or do you think you are special that you are exempt from your own teachings?" Apparently in some early Christian teachings it was understood that Paul was in fact married.

I don't agree that one needs to be married to talk about marriage. Earlier in the same epistle, Paul quotes Jesus on marriage, and tells his readers that "I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I."

This implies that Paul was either unmarried or a widower.

Ignatius: "For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men. For they entered into these marriages not for the sake of appetite, but out of regard for the propagation of mankind." (Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter 4 Ante-Nicean Fathers 1:81 see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vi.iv.htmlspouses went with them, not as wives, but as sisters

I don't think so. If Ignatius or Clement of Alexandria have in mind 1 Cor. 9:5, then it seems they're missing the point. Paul is contrasting what the other apostles (including Peter and James) have a right to, but what he and Barnabas have renounced, so as to not be a hindrance.

1 Cor. 9:3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? 7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock.

1 Cor. 9:12 If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.

1 Cor. 9:15 But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. 17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

[carbon dioxide]

Oingo--Yes unmarried people can talk about marriage but it really loses its weight if they are at least looking to get married. Its like a man who lectures people about not beating their dog who then goes out and beats his dog in public. The words lose their effect. So I believe it is possible he was a widower and single during some parts of his ministry but for him to not to get married it waters his message down when he talks about marriage. As they say, actions speak louder than words.

[One Bad Pig]

Oingo--Yes unmarried people can talk about marriage but it really loses its weight if they are at least looking to get married. Its like a man who lectures people about not beating their dog who then goes out and beats his dog in public. The words lose their effect. So I believe it is possible he was a widower and single during some parts of his ministry but for him to not to get married it waters his message down when he talks about marriage. As they say, actions speak louder than words.

Analogy fail. I'm embarrassed for you - that's how massive a fail it is.

[OingoBoingo]

Prof. Mark Goodacre posted a side by side of Herbert Thompson's The Gospel of St. John According to the Earliest Coptic Manuscript page with the fragment of Coptic John found in the same collection as the Jesus' Wife fragment. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Source: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/illustrating-forgery-of-jesus-wifes.html

Herbert Thompson's Gospel of St John, page 7 (left); Coptic John fragment recto (right), illustrating how the forger copied every second line of this text of John 5.26-30, line breaks and all


Thompson's edition is based on the Cambridge Qau Codex and like Grondin's Interlinear Gospel of Thomas that appeared to have been used for the Jesus' Wife Fragment, it is available online. It is not clear from the ETANA website when the PDF was uploaded, but the properties of the PDF itself show that it was created in 2005 and modified in 2008, well within the time frame for the presentation of these fragments to Prof. Karen King.

The graphic above should speak for itself but essentially the point is this: the forger appears to have copied mechanically every other line from the Thompson edition. Every line break is the same. It is beyond reasonable doubt that this is a fake, and this conclusion means that the Jesus' Wife Fragment is a fake too.

© Copyright Original Source

How embarrassing for Harvard. I wonder if they'll continue to fight for authenticity. If I were them, I'd hire a private detective to figure out the origin of these fragments.

[OingoBoingo]

Another update on Christian Askeland's blog with 5 main points:



I'll admit upfront that I don't totally understand the significance of all that's being discussed here, but the 4th point stands out, because till yesterday, Michael Grondin wasn't convinced that the John fragment was also a forgery. It was Michael Grondin's online interlinear that scholars believe the forger used as a reference for his Jesus Wife fragment.

On the 26th Grodin wrote on Goodacre's blog:

It seems I'm in the minority in having doubts that the Jn fragment is a forgery, while still maintaining that JWF is. My reasoning on the Jn fragment is that the evidence is far less convincing than first appear. If it is a forgery, it doesn't have the visible signs that JWF does. Furthermore, unlike JWF, it had to have been exceptionally well done, for the contents of the back side of the fragment suggest a page-size of 61 lines, which is large, but proportional to what must have been a relatively large width (based on the typical size of two Qua lines). That having been said, I suppose it's a net good if some folks who had been on the fence about JWF are now coming over.

He repeated that sentiment on Anthony Le Donne and Chris Keith's blog where Le Donne has a terrific interview with Coptic expert Dr. Caroline T. Schroeder who took a wait and see approach on the Jesus Wife fragment forgery debate, but is also now convinced its a forgery based on the John fragment findings.

Today, based on point 4 of Askeland's blog, Grondin rescinded his previous sentiments:

As embarrassing as it is, I have to retract an earlier comment. I've just become aware (from Christian Askeland's latest blog post) that the Jn fragment failed to follow its pattern of every-other line on the last line of the verso - which happens to be the very spot where Thompson switches from one page to the next of Qau. My previous reluctance to support the forgery theory for Jn is now untenable.

Apologies, Anthony. I have to retract my previous comment. I've just learned from Christian Askeland's latest blog entry that the John fragment failed to follow its pattern of every-other line on the last line of the verso. I hadn't seen this noted earlier, but it makes all the difference. I'm now persuaded that the John fragment is a fake.

This is also noted in today's blog entry by Andrew Bernhard hosted on Prof. Goodacre's blog here: .



Based on all of the Jesus Wife discoveries swirling in the blogosphere, commenter lorenzo971 on Prof. Hurtado's blog makes this great point:
The media loves sensation, and Harvard, and the Smithsonian fed right into it. Honestly, I don't think Prof. King is blameless either. She knew precisely what she was doing when she named the fragment the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife", and released the discovery to the media before getting it properly analyzed and peer reviewed. In a way though maybe the media attention was a good thing, since it sparked the curiosity of a wide range of scholars who may have not paid it much mind. I'd hope that all ancient discoveries receive such thorough inspection, but somehow I doubt it. Instead of airing the Jesus Wife fragment documentary on May 5th that they've been holding onto since 2012, the Smithsonian would be better served airing a documentary on the subject of forgeries in modern academia. There's plenty of material to draw on from Morton Smith's Secret Gospel of Mark, to the James Ossuary (now thought to be legit by scholars like Ben Witherington), to King's Gospel of Jesus' Wife.

[OingoBoingo]

Off topic, but does anyone know how I can view Coptic characters in my browser?

[robrecht]

Off topic, but does anyone know how I can view Coptic characters in my browser?

What browser do you use? What page with Coptic characters are you trying to view but cannot? Or are you trying to write in Coptic on this website. The Coptic Orthodox Church and the Society for Biblical Literature websites have Coptic fonts that you can download for free:

http://www.copticchurch.net/coptic_fonts/

http://www.sbl-site.org/educational/...gacyfonts.aspx

[OingoBoingo]

Thanks robrecht. I was trying to view the Coptic on Christian Askeland's website, but it was just coming up as little squares, no matter which browser I tried. The font files you recommended worked. I can now see the characters in IE and Firefox, but still not in Chrome, which is okay.

[OingoBoingo]

So, more evidence for forgery in the Gospel of John fragment, the fragment that was included with the Jesus' Wife fragment. In particular, it turns out that the forger made one of his letters smaller in order to dodge a hole on one side of the fragment, but on the reverse side, he wrote characters as though no hole existed at all in ancient times.

Source: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/more-evidence-of-forgery-jesus-wife.html

...the scribe writes around a large hole in the fragment that was already present. As the scribe writes letters around the hole on the verso, his ⲛ (N), in particular, is almost comically small. In other words, the papyrus was already damaged before the scribe wrote on it. This is problematic because the writing on the verso goes into the hole and not around it, as if the damage happened after writing and not before. It is a scenario that only makes sense if we are dealing with a modern forger writing on an ancient scrap of already damaged papyrus.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/more-evidence-of-forgery-jesus-wife.html

It might be argued that the fragment was already damaged in late antiquity and that it is an eighth century scribe rather than a twenty-first century forger who wrote around the hole here. However, a hypothesis like this would run into problems in the light of the evidence from the verso, where the scribe appears to be writing as if there was is no such hole. It is the curious nature of the scribal behaviour here that is so striking, simultaneously acting as if there is a hole present and is if there is not.

© Copyright Original Source

Check out the comments by scholars debating the find as well. It includes 2 cents from robrecht's friend Prof. James Tabor, papyrologist Brice C. Jones, and Coptic expert Alin Suciu.

At this point, the forgery of the Gospel of John fragment is practically a foregone conclusion, even if this new revelation does not prove forgery, in of itself. This CNN article by scholars Joel S. Baden and Candida R. Moss seems to be picking up steam with the rest of the media. Now's the waiting game to see how Harvard and Prof. King will respond.