Guest Post by Andrew Bernhard
[
Unicode Coptic Font available here. If you are having trouble seeing the Coptic, there is also a
PDF of this post available here.]
Building on the work of Francis Watson and a number of other scholars,
I argued in an article in the July 2015 issue of New Testament Studies that the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife is essentially a “patchwork” of words and short phrases culled from the lone extant Coptic manuscript of the
Gospel of Thomas (Nag Hammadi Codex II), prepared by a forger using
Michael W. Grondin’s PDF edition of this manuscript that was posted online on November 22, 2002. I suggested that someone had basically “cut and pasted” Coptic text from Grondin’s edition, switched third-person masculine singular pronouns (“he,” “him”) to their feminine equivalents (“she,” “her”), and placed two key Coptic words (meaning “Mary” and “my wife”) into the “patchwork” text to give it “sensational” content.
As I pointed out, in addition to the overwhelming textual similarities between the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife and the
Gospel of Thomas, the Coptic text of the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife contains at least five tell-tale signs of its modern origin – including the apparent replication of a typographical (and grammatical) error from Grondin’s 2002 PDF edition. For a concise summary of my article, please see pages 351–355 of
my article (especially Figure 6 on p. 352 and Table 1 on p. 353 for information about the tell-tale signs of forgery in the Coptic text of the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife).
The Release of the Owner’s “Translation”
Professor King has graciously made the translation that the owner of the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife provided her available online within the last day, and I wish to express my sincere appreciation to her for doing so. I believe this critical document that the owner gave her provides further decisive evidence that the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife is indeed a modern forgery derived from Grondin’s 2002 PDF edition. I hope that the regrettably divisive debate that has taken place over the past few years about the antiquity of Gospel of Jesus’ Wife can now conclude – hopefully, with a unanimous consensus that the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife is indeed a modern forgery.
My analysis of the English translation that the owner gave Professor King indicates that it is not an actual translation of the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife; it seems to have been prepared by someone relying directly on the English translation provided in Grondin’s 2002 PDF.
At the outset, I must note that both the owner’s “translation” and Grondin’s 2002 PDF edition of the Gospel of Thomas have a rather surprising similarity: both are interlinear translations (that is, they include English translations in between the lines of Coptic text). The figure below places the owner’s translation beside the pertinent excerpts from Grondin’s Interlinear (see Figure 6 on p. 352 my of article for the key to which passages from Grondin’s Interlinear are presented in the figure). Both the “translation” and Grondin’s Interlinear have been annotated to facilitate understanding of the commentary beneath.
Preliminary Observations
Line 1. The “translation” includes the word “for,” but
there is no corresponding Coptic word for in the text of the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.
Grondin’s Interlinear includes “for” in parentheses in the same spot as the “translation” because the Greek loan word
γάρ (“for”) follows
ⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ (“my mother”) in the
Gospel of Thomas (and Grondin presumably preferred English word order for his translation). It seems clear that “for” in the “translation” has been copied directly from the English of
Grondin’s Interlinear rather than actually translated from the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife papyrus fragment.
Line 2. The “translation” glosses that
ⲇⲉ (
sic ϫⲉ) means “this.” In the present context, the Coptic conjunction
ϫⲉ should function something like a comma and a quotation mark at the start of a direct statement in English, and
ϫⲉ would never be translated as “this” in any context.
Grondin’s Interlinear uses the English word “this” as “filler” translation for
ϫⲉ (i.e. to fill blank space beneath the word and indicate that it had not merely been overlooked). It seems clear that “this” in the “translation” has been copied directly from the English of
Grondin’s Interlinear rather than actually translated from the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife papyrus fragment.
[The person responsible for the “translation” does not seem to have been familiar enough with Coptic to distinguish between the letter delta (
ⲇ) and the letter djandja (
ϫ), as delta has been incorrectly used in place of djandja in the words
ⲡⲉϫⲉ and
ϫⲉ.]
Line 3. The “translation” renders
ⲁⲣⲛⲁ as “abdicate.” While the word might (rarely) be translated this way if warranted by context (and translator preference), it would ordinarily be translated as “deny” (cf. Karen King’s translation). It seems clear that “abdicate” in the “translation” has been copied directly from the English of
Grondin’s Interlinear rather than actually translated from the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.
[It is curious that the Coptic text of the “translation” has the second-person singular pronominal affix
ⲕ (translated correctly) instead of the third-person singular masculine pronominal affix
ϥ found in the
Gospel of Thomas. This is especially curious because it appears that
ⲕ was originally written on the papyrus and then the third-person feminine singular pronominal affix
ⲥ was written over it.]
Line 4. The “translation” includes the word “this”
for which there is no corresponding Coptic word; the “translation” also introduces a quotation idiosyncratically with a colon. In
Grondin’s Interlinear, the Coptic conjugation
ϫⲉ is separated from the phrase meaning “Jesus said to them” by a line break. It seems clear that whoever copied the papyrus accidentally omitted
ϫⲉ, and it seems equally clear that “this” (an incorrect translation – following
Grondin’s Interlinear, as in line 2) of the
missing ϫⲉ in the “translation” has been copied directly from the English of
Grondin’s Interlinear (complete with the colon also found there) rather than actually translated from the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife papyrus fragment.
[Again, the person responsible for the “translation” does not seem to have been familiar enough with Coptic to distinguish between the letter delta (
ⲇ) and the letter djandja (
ϫ), as delta has been used incorrectly in place of djandja in the word
ⲡⲉϫⲉ.]
Line 5. The “translation” indicates that
ⲛⲁϣ means “can,” but
ⲛⲁϣ is actually future tense and should be translated “will be able to.” Grondin has made a mistake in his translation, and the “translation” repeats the same mistake. It seems clear that “can” in the “translation” has been copied directly from the English of
Grondin’s Interlinear rather than actually translated from the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.
[The person who prepared the papyrus changed
ϥ to
ⲥ, changing the third-person masculine pronominal affix to its feminine equivalent. The “translation” consequently has “she” rather than “he.”]
Line 6. The “translation” indicates that
ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲣⲱⲙⲉ means “no man,” but
this is not an accurate translation of Sahidic Coptic. In standard Sahidic,
ⲙⲁⲣⲉ- is the prenominal jussive conjugation base; the noun
ⲣⲱⲙⲉ means “man.” So a translation of the Sahidic text
ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲣⲱⲙⲉ might be something like, “Let man...” But the
Gospel of Thomas does not use fully standard Sahidic orthography: it includes some dialectical features of Lycopolitan. As a result,
ⲙⲁⲣⲉ- can function as the prenominal negative aorist conjugation base (in place of the standard Sahidic
ⲙⲉⲣⲉ-), as it does in the pertinent passage in
Grondin’s Interlinear. Thus, Grondin has translated
ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲣⲱⲙⲉ with the functional equivalent, “no man.” It hardly seems plausible that a “translator” who could not distinguish between two letters of the Coptic alphabet (delta and djandja) would have understood
ⲙⲁⲣⲉ- as a Lycopolitan conjugation base in a text labelled as “Sahidic.” It seems abundantly clear that “no man” has been copied directly from the English of
Grondin’s Interlinear rather than actually translated from the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife papyrus fragment.
[The “translation” indicates a copyist error in line 6 of the papyrus with “(Sic!)” at the end of the Coptic text. The peculiar appearance of the third-from-last character in the line 6 was
first noted by Alin Suciu and Hugo Lundhaug in 2012. As argued in detail on pages 341-342 of the most recent issue of
New Testament Studies, the copyist appears to have made an uncorrectable mistake in attempting to write epsilon-iota.
It now seems undeniable that the line was intended to read ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲑⲟⲟⲩ ϣⲁϥⲉⲓⲛⲉ. Such a line of text is simply ungrammatical in Coptic because a single infinitive (ⲉⲓⲛⲉ) cannot be modified by two conjugation bases (ⲙⲁⲣⲉ- and ϣⲁϥ-) . . . but, when the pertinent Coptic words are juxtaposed from Grondin’s Interlinear, the line makes sense in English.]
Line 7. The “translation” indicates that
ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϯϣⲟⲟⲡ means simply, “I exist.” Usually when an unnecessary personal pronoun (such as
ⲁⲛⲟⲕ) appears in a Coptic text, a translator will indicate that there is some kind of special emphasis on the pronoun (cf. Karen King’s translation of the start of the line as, “As for me, I . . . ”); also, the infinitive ϣⲟⲟⲡ might be translated in a variety of ways (cf. Karen King’s translation: she translates it as “am,” indicating in a footnote that “exist” or “dwell” are alternative possibilities.) It seems clear that “I exist” in the “translation” has been copied directly from the English of
Grondin’s Interlinear rather than actually translated from the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife papyrus fragment.
[“Within” should presumably be just “with” (“within seems most likely to be a typographical error similar to “Gosple” or “Centruy” in the heading of the “translation.”) The person who prepared the papyrus changed
ϥ to
ⲥ, changing the third-person masculine pronominal affix to its feminine equivalent. The “translation” consequently has “her” rather than “him.”]
Summary
The connection between the owner’s “translation” and
Grondin’s Interlinear now seems undeniable. The evidence for the dependence of the Coptic text of the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife on
Grondin’s Interlinear was presented in
my article in New Testament Studies. Now, the newly available “translation” that the owner gave to Professor King provides astonishing additional evidence for the dependence of the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife on
Grondin’s Interlinear . . . in English!
All seven of the lines containing more than a single word in the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife in the owner’s “translation” appear to show clear evidence of dependence on Grondin’s Interlinear.
In line 1 of the owner’s “translation,” the English word “for” appears when there is no corresponding word in the Coptic text on the papyrus fragment from which it could have been translated . . . and the word “for” appears (in parentheses) in
Grondin’s Interlinear in the same place as it does in the “translation.”
In line 2, the Coptic conjunction
ϫⲉ is mistranslated as “this” . . . just as it is in
Grondin’s Interlinear.
In line 3, the Coptic infinitive
ⲁⲣⲛⲁ is translated oddly as “abdicate” (rather than “deny”) . . . just as it is
Grondin’s Interlinear.
In line 4, the Coptic conjunction
ϫⲉ is missing AND mistranslated as “this.” It appears that the forger forgot to copy
ϫⲉ onto the papyrus fragment because it is separated by a line break from the phrase “Jesus said to them” in the pertinent passage in
Grondin’s Interlinear . . . but the mistranslated word still appears in the “translation.” Also, a colon is used to introduce a quotation . . . just as in
Grondin’s Interlinear.
In line 5, the Coptic
ⲛⲁϣ is translated incorrectly as “can” (rather than as the future “will be able to”) . . . just as in
Grondin’s Interlinear.
[The person who prepared the papyrus changed
ϥ to
ⲥ, changing the third-person masculine pronominal affix to its feminine equivalent. The “translation” consequently has “she” rather than “he.”]
In line 6, a non-Sahidic translation of ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲣⲱⲙⲉ is given (“no man”) . . . just as in
Grondin’s Interlinear. The Coptic text on the “translation” indicates that there is a scribal error in the second half of the line . . . just as many have argued since
the error was first pointed out by Alin Suciu and Hugo Lundhaug. It now seems clear that the intended Coptic text for this line was
ⲙⲁⲣⲁⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲑⲟⲟⲩ ϣⲁϥⲉⲓⲛⲉ . . . grammatical nonsense in Coptic that only makes sense in the
English of
Grondin’s Interlinear.
In line 7,
ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϯϣⲟⲟⲡ is translated simply as “I exist” . . . just as it is in
Grondin’s Interlinear.
Arguing that
every single line of the owner’s “translation” can be connected to the English of
Grondin’s Interlinear (
via translations of phantom words, mistranslations of Coptic text, distinctive translations of Coptic text, and even usual English punctuation) by coincidence seems utterly absurd. It now appears certain that the owner’s “translation” of the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife was prepared directly from the English of
Grondin’s Interlinear rather than actually translated from the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife (it contains translations of two words that are not even present on the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife fragment!).
With the now overwhelming evidence that the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife is dependent on
Grondin’s Interlinear in Coptic . . . and English, I think it is now reasonable to assert simply that the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife was forged using
Grondin’s Interlinear. Given this assumption,
the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife papyrus fragment must have been forged sometime after November 2002 (when the PDF version of
Grondin’s Interlinear containing the typographical/grammatical error also found in line 1 of the
Gospel of Jesus’ Wife was put online)
and before the Summer of 2010 (when it was first brought to the attention of Karen King).
