Analyses of Jesus' Wife Fragment Finally Published

[Sparko]

Also, there is the matter of the church being the bride of Christ

I already mentioned that, but even so, that is a symbol. Unless you think Polygamy is a good thing since the church is all of the saints. Both sexes too. Taking that literally could lead to some very problematic theology.

[Teallaura]

Sure. Those who think it is very possible that Jesus was married would not necessarily think that Jesus planned on getting crucified and do not see most of the gospels as having much of a biographical or historical focus, at least not in the modern sense of the term. But, even with those assumptions, I would still think that Jesus was probably celibate and a few of his teachings suggest this.

Agreed.

[KingsGambit]

I already mentioned that, but even so, that is a symbol. Unless you think Polygamy is a good thing since the church is all of the saints. Both sexes too. Taking that literally could lead to some very problematic theology.

'Twas a joke

[Sparko]

'Twas a joke

I am reporting you to Mickiel.

[KingsGambit]

I am reporting you to Mickiel.

Harumph! Peace to you on your journey.

[Sparko]

Harumph! Peace to you on your journey.

I don't like being Harumphed! I am leaving.

[Juvenal]

The test results do not prove that Jesus had a wife or disciples who were women, only that the fragment is more likely a snippet from an ancient manuscript than a fake, the scholars agree. Karen L. King, the historian at Harvard Divinity School who gave the papyrus its name and fame, has said all along that it should not be regarded as evidence that Jesus married, only that early Christians were actively discussing celibacy, sex, marriage and discipleship.

[One Bad Pig]

I've been following this for a couple years. Here is a neat analysis of the evidence for the forgery of the fragment.

Here is Prof. Watson's response to the recent article. In sum, the new evidence largely doesn't address his reasons for finding it to be a forgery; the text seems to be dependent on a modern edition of the Gospel of Thomas (to the point of including typographical errors only attested in the modern edition).

[Paprika]

Here is Prof. Watson's response to the recent article. In sum, the new evidence largely doesn't address his reasons for finding it to be a forgery; the text seems to be dependent on a modern edition of the Gospel of Thomas (to the point of including typographical errors only attested in the modern edition).

Would it be possible to forge the ink?

[Teallaura]

Would it be possible to forge the ink?

Yep.

http://markgoodacre.org/Watson4.pdf

[Paprika]

Yep.

http://markgoodacre.org/Watson4.pdf

I've read the paper, but I was hoping for more confirmation that it could be so.

[Teallaura]

Shy of carbon dating how would you tell the difference between modern and ancient lamp black? It's an easy ink to make and reasonable care with the formula should keep all but radiocarbon dating from identifying it.

[One Bad Pig]

Shy of carbon dating how would you tell the difference between modern and ancient lamp black? It's an easy ink to make and reasonable care with the formula should keep all but radiocarbon dating from identifying it.

A really clever forger could even scrape ink off an ancient manuscript and reconstitute it.

[Juvenal]

Here is Prof. Watson's response to the recent article. In sum, the new evidence largely doesn't address his reasons for finding it to be a forgery.

The Jesus' Wife Fragment: How the Forgery Was Done

What's this "How the forgery was done" business? Has that been concluded already? I haven't seen that conclusion anywhere else. It can't possibly be a consensus, or I'd be seeing it elsewhere.

My first reaction is that this guy does not follow the usual standards of academic objectivity. The eyebrow has been raised.

And in fact his evidence is at best circumstantial, and at worst, made up of little more than personal bias.

Numbers 1 and 4 are circumstantial, but interesting in my view for another reason, apart from evidence of forgery, because they support GoThomas as a literary source for the author of GoJesuswife. Hey, GoJw's got to have been based on something, right?

Numbers 2 and 3, though, are just bad statistics. You can see the fragment in all of these articles. The available sample of words and contiguities isn't big enough for anything but garbage-out analyses. Number 2 is worse; it's bad logic.

Number 5 is beyond my ability to critique, but lays to rest any lingering doubts that Goodacre may be referring to a 4th-8th century forger, unless Grondin was an early church father. And that's where I stop taking Goodacre seriously, because the fragment's papyrus and inks are now dated with a terminus ante quem that removes Grondin from the picture entirely.

The papyrus fragment has now been analyzed by professors of electrical engineering, chemistry and biology at Columbia University, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who reported that it resembles other ancient papyri from the fourth to the eighth centuries. (Scientists at the University of Arizona, who dated the fragment to centuries before the birth of Jesus, concluded that their results were unreliable.)

And no, critiques of the dating techniques do not constitute evidence of a modern forgery. They do no more than give us reasons to be hesitant when beginning analyses with an understanding that this is a fourth to eighth century fragment.

Your immediate link is to Professor Watson's response (PDF) which includes a quote from Leo Depuydt:

[Paprika]

And that's where I stop taking Goodacre seriously, because the fragment's papyrus and inks are now dated with a terminus ante quem that removes Grondin from the picture entirely.

The papyrus was dated, but the ink wasn't.