We all know at some point Mark gets/got/ is getting (tenses are hard) a ride in the TARDIS. (See here, for example). I think he dropped his Ipad (Maxi or Mini, I wonder?) in Jerusalem 33 AD or Alexandria 49 AD and some scribe(s) spent the life of the battery copying out what he recognized, NA28 or NA29, Nag Hammadi, Gospel of Jesus’ Wife, etc. These things spread and we have the remaining bits and pieces of Goodacre’s Bible (so to speak) today.
This is too much, you say? Well, remember there are no more Time Lords to clean these things up, and the Doctor and the Missus probably get a big laugh out of the whole thing. So the timey whimey mess still stands.
So, Mark Goodacre is one giant time loop, as it were, giving himself and the rest of Bible scholars employment. Mark being a modest fellow, he won’t want you to mention it at conferences, meetings, etc. Especially the ones he attends. But the cat is out of the bag now….
“Come along, Goodacre”, it seems, are some of the most important words ever spoken.
That’s the breaking story today. The gospel fragment has been accused of being a modern forgery, dependent on the one copy of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas available to us. Now some scholars are going further, claiming they know which transcription of Thomas the forger used.
Mark Goodacre has the heart of the story here, while Andrew Bernhard has a preliminary article with several points against Jesus’ Wife here.
This is going to get a lot of coverage today. Strap yourself in.
Including Peter Head addressing some of Karen King’s arguments for the authenticity of the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife papyri. McGrath the Roundup dog has this and a few more links here.
Mark also re-emphasizes the strength of Francis Watson’s argument against the papyri’s authenticity. It’s available here.
Or that’s my conclusion from James McGrath’s latest roundup about the controversial papyri.
I have suggested we have a thumb wrestling contest between the gospel and fake crowds and settle this once and for all. Steel cage optional. Either that or figure a way to ask The Machine from Person of Interest what it knows. Maybe Siri can fix it up for us.
The woman must have gotten around with all these stories….
McGrath links the web so the rest of us don’t have to, here. No Doctor Who refernce, but the day’s young yet.
Because you deserve a better video than the one I just did, and this is Christian Askeland‘s field.
Aimed at non-scholarly audiences. Hurrah!
For those under a rock the last half day or so, Harvard Theological Review has apparently decided not to publish Karen King’s article on the Jesus’ Wife papyri, citing the doubts of four Coptic scholars who reviewed it. Scholars are piling on Jesus’ little wife in a big way now, so much so that some people are cautioning that maybe the dismissal of the fragment is premature.
It’s all here from James “I Live; I Roundup” McGrath, who has already found a way to connect this to Doctor Who. Star Trek will apparently take longer.
His latest collection of links about his fourteen day wonder is here, much of it focused on how the papyri might have been composed from bits of the Gospel of Thomas.
Watson tells us why it is potentially important, why it is at this point likely a modern fraud, and why being skeptical of the papyri’s seeming claims make sense, all in a brief article in Bible and Interpretation.