‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’—More Nails in the Coffin

Harvard Theological Review delays Publishing King’s Claims Nigel Tomes, October, 2012 Prof. Karen L. King A month ago Harvard Prof. Karen L. King unveiled the “Jesus’ Wife Gospel,” to great media fanfare. The previously unknown papyrus fragment bore the words (in Coptic) “Jesus said …my wife.” Here, she alleged, was the 1st evidence that some early Christians believed Jesus was married. Dr. King’s claims were buttressed by the Harvard Theological Review’s [HTR] endorsement — her research paper (we were told) would be published in the Jan. 2013 issue of HTR. Harvard’s promotional blitz also said the Smithsonian TV Channel would premiere a special documentary about the papyrus & King’s research on Sept. 30. First the TV documentary was shelved. Now the Harvard Theological Review has delayed publication. The script surrounding the “Jesus’ Wife Gospel” seems to be unraveling; what happened? Skeptical Scholars find Forger’s Fingerprints From the very beginning scholars questioned the document’s authenticity. Initially their voices were drowned out by the media’s feeding frenzy over the possibility that Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Codemight be supported by a shred of truth! But evidence to the contrary began to mount. Prof. Francis Watson (Univ. of Durham, UK) & Prof. Leo Dupuydt (Brown Univ. US) demonstrated that the new "Jesus’ Wife Gospel" is a “cut-&-paste job,” a collage of words & phrases from Coptic Gospel of Thomas. Dr. Watson also suggested that a line break had been copied from Thomas’ Gospel onto the “Jesus’ Wife Fragment,” a tell-tale sign of an amateur forger.Added to this, researchers believe they’ve found a “smoking gun” in the form of a rare typo copied from the online PDF interlinear Gospel of Thomas onto the “Jesus' Wife Gospel.” This suggests it’s a very modern forgery. This discovery is credited to Andrew Bernhard of Oxford University, author of "Other Early Christian Gospels." "It's remarkable that a forger could have forged something like this using a simple tool on the Internet," Bernhard said. “Scholarly Consensus …some sort of Forgery” Taken together this accumulated evidence has convinced most scholars that Dr. King’s fragment is a modern forgery. Dr. Robert R. Cargill, Univ. of Iowa, states, “the scholarly consensus …appear[s] to be leaning toward declaring the unprovenanced document, acquired from an anonymous antiquities dealer, as some sort of forgery.” [Dr. Robert R. Cargill, Oct. 17, 2012] Dr. Mark Goodacre of Duke Univ., says "I would have already put money on this thing being problematic, given the links between the fragment and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, but the link with the online Interlinear version of the Gospel of Thomas really makes, for me, the case of authenticity a very difficult one." Put more plainly, it’s a fake. How is the Harvard Theological Review responding to these developments? HTR Postpones Publication Kevin Madigan, the Harvard Theological Review’s co-editor, issued the following statement: “Prof. King has informed us that she is making arrangements to submit the [Jesus’ Wife] fragment for extensive testing, and the specialists she has contacted have indicated that testing, with the specific expertise needed to produce & interpret reliable results, will possibly take several weeks, if not months. Yes, HTR has postponed publication of the article, so that she will be able to incorporate results of the testing. In the interests of furthering scholarly debate, we are waiting on the testing.” [Dr. Mark Goodacre’s NT Blog, Wed., Oct. 17, 2012] Spectroscopy Test Kit Dodgson, Harvard Divinity School’s director of communications, states that "The owner of the [Jesus’ Wife] papyrus fragment has been making arrangements for …testing by independent laboratories with the resources & the specific expertise necessary to produce & interpret reliable results. This next phase is likely to take several weeks, if not months." Sources say the papyrus fragment will likely be tested by the Straus Center for Conservation & Technical Studies (at the Harvard Art Museums). The Center will employ Raman spectroscopy (& other technologies) to analyze the ink's ingredients—whether they include modern artificial compounds. This test won’t indicate the ink’s age. The results might well be inconclusive, unless the forger was dumb enough to use a modern marker! [Bain Wellington, Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog, Oct. 12, 2012] Diverse Reactions—HTR “Cowardly…Shameful” Hershel Shanks Harvard’s delay in publishing King’s paper generated strong reactions. Hershel Shanks  wrote a provocative article in the Bible History Daily [16, Oct, 2012] entitled, “Is the Harvard Theological Review a Coward or Did Dr. Karen King Do Something Wrong?” Shanks’ title offers readers only two options—either (a) “the HTR is Coward” or (b) “Dr, King is wrong.” That’s a false dichotomy. It’s obvious this isn’t a scholarly article; it’s more like tabloid news. In the tabloid style, Shanks previously argued the “James Ossuary” inscription was genuine [“’Brother of Jesus’ Inscription Is Authentic!” BAR 38:04, Jul/Aug 2012] He doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. Shanks began his latest piece, “Poor Karen King. The prestigious HTR has withdrawn her article …What did she do so wrong?” After portraying Dr. King as a victim—“what did King do so wrong to deserve this? — Shanks concludes, “What is wrong ...is for the Harvard Theological Review to suspend publication because of the dispute about authenticity... HTR [ought] to publish King's article, not to cowardly suspend its decision to publish …This is shameful." So Hershel Shanks accuses the HTR’s editors of “cowardly” & “shameful” behavior— not charges frequently leveled at journal editors from a Divinity School! Clearly, in some quarters, this issue is generating “heat,” along with “light.”       HTR “Academically Responsible” In Shanks’ view Harvard should publish Prof. King’s paper and worry about its authenticity later. That’s a tabloid approach — make sensational claims which sell articles & movies; disregard the scientific evidence when convenient. Loren Rosson responds to Shanks: “No, Herschel. When a text has enough tell-tale signs of being fake it is academically responsible to hold off; …it costs nothing.But if it turns out [after you’ve published, that it’s] a fraud …you've been played a fool…. Faking is the cancer of scholarship.” [Loren Rosson, 18, Oct. 2012] “Watershed Moment in …Scholarship” Some observers applaud the process by which the “Jesus’ Wife Gospel” has been scrutinized.  Oxford’s Andrew Bernhard sees this as a “watershed moment in …scholarship.” He states “My personal opinion is that Karen King & Harvard Theological Review have significantly improved the traditional peer review process by utilizing the Internet," Bernhard told Live Science. "In fact, this could potentially be a watershed moment in the history of scholarship where the academic process becomes more open and transparent." [Jeanna Bryner, “Gospel of Jesus' Wife' Faces Authenticity Tests,” LiveScience, 19 Oct., 2012] Instead of a peer-review process confined to a select group of scholars, the draft version of Dr. King’s paper was posted on the Internet. Given the publicity surrounding the “Jesus’ Wife” fragment many scholars with various fields of expertise contributed to its analysis. This generated a kind of “Open Source” review process with the results available online to editors, scholars & the general public. If the goal is establishing the truth—is the “Jesus’ Wife Gospel” a genuine 4th-century artifact or a fake?—the process of scrutiny via public forums is to be welcomed, not rejected. In the case of the “Jesus Wife Gospel,” the results so far suggests that, “the jury is out still, but it’s not looking good for authenticity,” as New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, states. Meanwhile, we await the result of an analysis of the ink's ingredients.