Francis Watson is making a case on why a large portion of this so-called gospel is actually taken from a modern edition of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. Though a few people have suggested that the grammar of this piece did not feel right, a modern pastiche style composition would explain all.
Here is the link, thanks to Mark Goodacre's blog
A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
Just a quick "Thanks" for keeping readers up to date on this "discovery". Fascinating stuff!
ReplyDeleteThanks from me too. I keep checking back for updates.
ReplyDeleteYes, thank you for the updates. I actually just found your blog through this controversy and look forward to other future posts.
ReplyDeleteFrom Dan Wallace:
ReplyDeleteNews flash: Harvard Theological Review has decided not to publish Karen King¹s paper on the Coptic papyrus fragment on the grounds that the fragment is probably a fake.” This from an email Dr. Craig Evans, the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia University and Divinity College, sent to me earlier today. He said that Helmut Koester (Harvard University), Bentley Layton (Yale University), Stephen Emmel (University of Münster), and Gesine Robinson (Claremont Graduate School)–all first-rate scholars in Coptic studies–have weighed in and have found the fragment wanting. No doubt Francis Watson’s comprehensive work showing the fragment’s dependence on the Gospel of Thomas was a contributing factor for this judgment, as well as the rather odd look of the Coptic that already raised several questions as to its authenticity.
http://danielbwallace.com/2012/09/26/jesus-wife-fragment-judged-a-fake/