Comments on: Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: Forgery Confirmed?

By: N.D.

N.D. — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:34:26 +0000

A forgery of a forgery would be a forgery.

By: The “Jesus’ wife” fragment is from the internet?

The “Jesus’ wife” fragment is from the internet? — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:31:05 +0000

[...] See Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: Forgery Confirmed? » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog. [...]

By: THURSDAY EVENING EDITION | Big Pulpit

THURSDAY EVENING EDITION | Big Pulpit — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:39:54 +0000

[...] Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: Forgery Confirmed? – Anna Williams, First Things/First Thoughts [...]

By: Theodore Seeber

Theodore Seeber — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:29:12 +0000

To me, this is just proof that Karen King, like most of her generation, doesn’t even understand technology enough to hide the traces of plagerism.

By: The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife…

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife… — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:12:02 +0000

[...] Stuff « Wow! The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife…October 11, 2012 By Mark Shea 3 Comments…is now a confirmed forgery. Replicates blunders from an online version of the gospel of Thomas it was ripped off from.Will the [...]

By: Of papyrus fragments. “Mrs Jesus” … getting a divorce! | Fr. Z's Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say?

Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:38:14 +0000

[...] saw this at First Things: Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: Forgery Confirmed? Thursday, October 11, 2012 Anna Williams In the weeks [...]

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:37:56 +0000

This is something it doesn’t take a Coptic scholar to understand. It made me think of the 60 Minutes report on the Chinese company Huawei in which it was said, “Cisco Systems once accused Huawei of copying a network router, complete with design flaws and typos in the manual.” It’s pretty difficult to deny you have copied something when your version has the same typos in it as the original!

I admit to being disappointed that it now appears extremely likely that the fragment is a forgery, not because I think it would have changed anything at all if it had been genuine, but because it seemed to me so many people desperately wanted it to be a forgery for foolish reasons, and now they feel vindicated. I can certainly see why a great many Christians would not want to see evidence that Jesus had been married, but this fragment, had it been indisputably authentic, would not have been evidence that Jesus was married. Karen King said that emphatically from the outset.