“Jesus’ Wife Gospel” Update: Harvard Won’t Publish Paper

By Nigel Tomes

Since writing the earlier piece I’ve become aware of further developments, which cast further doubt on the authenticity of the (so-called) “Jesus’ Wife Gospel.” In the face of this accumulating evidence comes a report (yesterday) that Harvard has decided against publishing Dr. Karen King's paper on the “Gospel of Jesus' Wife.” So it looks like this incident is rapidly flaming out!

“Forgery is virtually a certainty”—Dr. Craig A. Evans

Craig A. Evans, Prof. of New Testament at Acadia University reports that the Harvard Theological Review (HTR) has decided against publishing Dr. Karen King's paper on the “Gospel of Jesus' Wife.” Prof. Evans summarizes the reasons for this; he wrote, "After the analyses of Francis Watson, Mark Goodacre, Gesine Robinson, & others, I think forgery is virtually a certainty." [Near Emmaus Blog, Sept, 25, 2012] Plus a number of respected scholars in Coptic studies--Helmut Koester (Harvard Univ.), Bentley Layton (Yale Univ.), Stephen Emmel (Univ. of Münster), & Gesine Robinson (Claremont Grad. School)–have weighed the evidence and found the “Jesus’ Wife” fragment wanting.

“Extracted from the Gospel of Thomas”

Prof. Evans asks “Is the Coptic papyrus, in which Jesus speaks of his ‘wife,’ a fake?” He responds, “Probably. We are far from a ‘consensus,’ but one scholar after another and one Coptologist after another has weighed in pointing out serious problems with the paleography, the syntax, and the very troubling fact that almost all of the text has been extracted from the Gospel of Thomas (principally from logia 30, 101, and 114). I suspect the papyrus itself [the “paper”] is probably quite old, perhaps 4th or 5th century, but the oddly written (or painted) letters on the recto side are probably modern and probably reflect recent interest in Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The decision of the editors of Harvard Theological Review not to publish Karen King’s paper is very wise. Perhaps we will eventually learn more about who actually produced this text.” [Near Emmaus Blog, Sept, 25, 2012]

“A modern forgery”-- Prof. Francis Watson

Under the headline “Gospel of Jesus' Wife is fake, claims expert” The Guardian (UK) reported the results of an analysis by Prof. Francis Watson of Durham University (UK). Professor F. Watson concludes “the ‘Jesus’ Wife’ fragment, is a patchwork of texts from the genuine Coptic- language Gospel of Thomas, which have been copied and reassembled out of order to make a suggestive new whole...Watson argues that all of the sentence fragments found on the [Jesus’ Wife] papyrus fragment have been copied, sometimes with small alterations, from printed editions of the Gospel of Thomas.” [Andrew Brown, The Guardian (UK) Sept. 21, 2012] [The Gospel of Thomas is accepted as a “genuine Coptic-language document” in the sense that it dates back to the 1st or 2nd century. However, it’s not accepted as part of the New Testament canon.]

Modern Collage from pieces of Coptic Text

The Daily Mail (UK) carried a similar story under the heading, “Now British scholar pours water on 'fake' papyrus text that claimed Jesus had a wife.” The Mail quotes Watson’s words, “The [Jesus’ wife] text has been constructed out of small pieces – words or phrases – culled mostly from the Coptic Gospel of Thomas... and set in new contexts.... 'The author has used a ‘collage’ or ‘patchwork’ compositional technique, and this level of dependence on extant pieces of Coptic text is more plausibly attributed to a modern author, with limited facility in Coptic, than to an ancient one.” [Damien Gayle & Alex Ward, Daily Mail (UK), 22 Sept. 2012]

A Modern Forgery?

Simply put, Watson thinks the “Jesus’ Wife Gospel” fragment is a modern forgery. He concludes that the text of the “Jesus’ Wife” fragment is a “cut and paste job,” plagiarized in pieces, from the Gospel of Thomas. Dr. Watson says "I think it is more or less indisputable that I have shown how the thing was composed," he said. "I would be very surprised if it were not a modern forgery, although it is possible that it was composed in this way in the 4th century," Watson said. [Andrew Brown, The Guardian (UK) Sept. 21, 2012]

‘Too good to be true’

A few voices—e.g. Prof James F. McGrath—have urged caution. He says, “I would like to suggest that that judgment [that it’s a ‘fake’] is premature. [Patheos.com] But McGrath’s voice seems to be a minority view. The respected scholar, Richard Bauckham responded to these latest revelations by saying, “Watson's argument shows is how easy it would have been for a modern forger to produce this text. In my mind that combines with the other reasons for thinking this papyrus text is very suspicious, …and ‘too good to be true’ …It is just too good to be true that this tiny fragment happens to preserve the words in which Jesus says ‘my wife’ and thereby feeds into all the popular feeling about Jesus and Mary Magdalene that has been swirling around since at least the Da Vinci Code.” [Richard Bauckham, Comment on “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” Thread, on Mark Goodacre's NT Blog.]

So evidence is rapidly accumulating that the “Jesus’ Wife Gospel” is a forgery, a fake.

Nigel Tomes, Sept. 26, 2012