A New Twist in the so-called Gospel of Jesus's Wife Saga: Fake after All?

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

Yet another question about the so-called Gospel of Jesus' Wife

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the fragment is genuine. And let's assume that originally it was written somewhere in Egypt before the eighth century. Then we are still faced with a massive issue. Why does the fragment look so neatly rectangular?

The answer given by Roger Bagnall in the NYT is the following:

"The piece is torn into a rough rectangle, so that the document is missing its adjoining text on the left, right, top and bottom — most likely the work of a dealer who divided up a larger piece to maximize his profit, Dr. Bagnall said."

And in Professor King's draft paper Bagnall is referred to in these words:

"Initially the compact size and regular shape of the fragment led us to consider whether it might have been an amulet, but we excluded this possibility because it shows no folds, and it begins and ends in the middle of sentences that also extend into margins of unknown length on both the right and left [FN discussing the issue of amulets; DJ]. Alternatively, Bagnall suggests that the regularity may have been caused by an antiquities dealer cutting or tearing a larger page into sections in order to have more pieces for sale."

So clearly, Bagnall thinks that current shape of the fragment is modern, and that it was deliberately forced into its current shape 'to maximize profit'.

Is it too far-fetched to suggest that the lamentable loss of the words immediately following the famed words 'My wife' might not have been accidental, but perhaps made in order 'to maximize profit'?

We all have our own favourite examples of the enticing brochures advertising our perfect holiday homes, which fortuitously manage to miss the oil refinery on the horizon, the overhead power lines, or the motorway at the back of the property. Here we have a fragment which has been deliberately altered, 'most likely' by a modern dealer seeking to maximize profit, who gets rid of 'something'. And this 'something' might well be in the same league as the oil refinery – it might be a spoiler that affected the value of this fragment negatively. The fragment may have been torn in the shape it is now in order to coax the reader into a certain interpretation.

Whatever the reason, that even supporters of authenticity of the fragment such as Bagnall believe that there has been modern interference with this manuscript, should give some reason to pause and think again.

Gospel of Jesus's Wife (Updated)

I am typing this post in the midst of a session at the International Association of Coptic Studies in Rome.  Yesterday, a startling new Coptic fragment was presented during a conference session by Karen King, suggesting that Jesus had a wife.  One can find an image and details of the fragment here.  Read the New York Times article here.  King has a preliminary scholarly presentation, here. According to this article, Roger Bagnall and AnneMarie Luijendijk have verified the authenticity of the fragment.  The fragment is said to date to the 4th century.  I hope to post some more reactions to this as my conference schedule allows.

UPDATE: 
Is the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife a fake?

During the course of the last several hours, I have attempted to understand the reaction of various persons within the coptological community here at the International Association of Coptic studies conference.  My initial perception is that those who specialize in Nag Hammadi and early manuscripts are split with almost two-thirds (earlier four-fifths) being extremely skeptical about the manuscript’s authenticity and one-third (earlier one-fifth) is essentially convinced that the fragment is a fake.  I have not met anyone who supports its authenticity, although I do not doubt that there must be some.

If I had to guess, I would have to say that this manuscript is a forgery.  Consider the following points:

First, the 4^th century date is speculation.   I say this based on my own familiarity with similar datable texts (Nag Hammadi, Kellis, Melitian Archive) and with the wider issues of dating in general.  King’s argument’s in her article are based upon other speculatively dated manuscripts which additionally are not similar in appearance or format.

Second, this is not a literary codex leaf.  Everyone to whom I have spoken is agreed on this.  Gregor Wurst has publically noted that this fragment resembles the erratic nature of magical texts.

Third, letter formation is not literary, semi-literary or documentary.  I note only the example of Epsilon which is two strokes (not three) and which does not conjoin.  Contra Bagnall, I have a hard time explaining the script via a dull calamus.  It is not that hard to sharpen a calamus.  This text was painted or markered.

Fourth, if an amateur with a basic knowledge of Coptic were to forge a text, it would look like the text under question.  ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ̅ⲥ̅ … “Jesus said …”  Two omissions are bizarre and may reflect a weak knowledge of the language (missing ϫⲉ and zero article).  Most other weird gospel-like texts from the early period have non-Sahidic elements.

I mention one feature of the discussion which disconcerts me — the appeal to persons of status.  I am guessing that Shisha-Halevy and Bagnall may be wishing that they were not involved.  What is lacking is convincing evidence which could outweigh the absolute weirdness of the supposed manuscript.  What other manuscripts (esp. literary) actually look like this fragment?  It looks like a fake.

With permission, I reproduce the following email from Roger Bagnall (20/09/2012):
I think [the Wife of Jesus Fragment is] genuine, but I don't know how one could determine this conclusively without destroying the ink for C14 testing.  No one I have talked to has been able to cite a single instance of a fake papyrus that wasn't obviously so--i.e., scribbling that was of no language. So I think the burden of proof is heavy on anyone arguing that it is a fake.

 

Peter Rodgers, The Scribes, now on Kindle

The Scribes, A Novel about the Early Church, by Peter Rodgers is now available on Kindle as an ebook. (Updated print version will follow). It is regularly priced at $2.99, but is free for five days (Sept 30 to Oct 4). The book seeks to illustrate the principles and practice of New Testament Textual Criticism through a story about scribes who lived and worked in the late second century. I know of some teachers of New Testamnet who have recommended it for their courses, and one who has required it. The book can be accessed through the Amazon Kindle store.

NA28 officially launched

Representatives from the media and the German Bible Society are among those gathering today at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung to recognize and celebrate the arrival of the newest Novum Testamentum Graece.  Prof. Dr. Holger Strutwolf, the institute's leader, was kind to share about the new print edition in this short video.  In the next week or so, I will post again on the digital Doppelgänger version, which makes the text and apparatus freely available to anyone with an internet connection.

Top Ten Essential Works in New Testament Textual Criticism

What are the most essential works you should read if you want to get acquainted with the field of New Testament textual criticism? I have compiled a general bibliography and marked the top ten with asterisks. What are your proposals?

Introductions and surveys

• *Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Transl. by Errol F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, Mich./Leiden: Eerdmans/Brill, 1989.
• Black, David Alan ed. Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2002.
• *Ehrman, Bart D., Michael W. Holmes, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. The  Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. Essays on the Status Quaestionis. SD 46. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995. [An excellent overview of the field; a second edition came out in 2012, which is a  must read.]
• Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. [Important and controversial.]
• *Epp, Eldon J., and Gordon D. Fee. Studies in the Theory and Method  of New Testament Textual Criticism. SD 45. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993.
• Hull, Robert F. The Story of the New Testament Text: Movers, Materials, Motives, Methods, and Models. Atlanta: Society of  Biblical Literature, 2010.
• Metzger, Bruce M. and Ehrman, Bart D. The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4rd ed. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. [The third edition is better in many respects; see review by D. C. Parker in JTS.]
• *Parker, D. C. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. [This is a rather technical book, part of which could fit in the two categories below; it is very useful for more advanced readers, e.g., PhD students who want to know the resources for manuscript work; note that it is primarily focused on New Testament manuscripts, as the title says, and less on the practice of New Testament textual criticism]
• Parker, D. C. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge  University Press, 1997.
• Westcott, B. F., and F. J. A. Hort. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek. Reprinted from the edition by Harper & Brothers, New York, 1882. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988.  [A classic groundbreaking work laying the foundation for textual criticism in the following century and beyond.]

[Note that these introductions cover several topics which are treated in the specialized reading list below. For example, several of Fee’s essays in Studies in the Theory and Method relate to the use of patristic citations.]