Tag: jesus wife papyri

My Explanation for the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife AND all New Testament Textual Variants (and gnosticism, too)

Ready?

Mark Goodacre.

What?!

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.

Jesus’ Wife Cribs the Internet?

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.

Scattered Talk about Jesus’ Wife

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.

Goodacre Rounds Up Diss-cussion of Jesus’ Wife

Mark also re-emphasizes the strength of Francis Watson’s argument against the papyri’s authenticity. It’s available here.

Another Day, Another Roundup of Jesus’ Wife Stories from McGrath

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.

Youtube Video on Problems with Jesus’ Wife Papyri

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!

Scholars Seriously Diss Jesus Wife; Some Treat Her Better Now

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.

McGrath Keeps Rounding Up Jesus’ Wife

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.

Francis Watson Sums Up His Thoughts on the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife

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.

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: A Composite Fake?

That is the suggestion of Francis Watson. Mark “Scoop” Goodacre has posted short papers by Watson explaining his theory on the Gospel’s modern creation:

A more technical article employing Coptic here.

An Intro and Summary using only English for non-scholars here.

Watson’s theory is the fleshing out of something many of us had noticed about the Coptic fragment. Still, one would prefer to have lab tests proving a modern fake rather than just this admittedly convincing paper. I say that not only because lab tests are more definitive, but also because a good skim of something like Stroker’s Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus does make one feel that the ancients borrowed and recombined a lot of sayings of Jesus (just not to the degree seen in this fragment).

UPDATE: Watson has added a third brief paper examining the line breaks in the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife and how they might indicate the fragment is a modern fraud. Watson also makes clear his stance that the best stance regarding the fragment is skepticism awaiting further proof one way or another.