In Support of Christopher Rollston and Academic Integrity

I would like to express my gratitude to many colleagues and friends who have rallied in support of Prof. Christopher Rollston at Emmanuel Christian Seminary, and I would like to add my name to those protesting against the way that he is being treated by his institution.   For those unfamiliar with the details of the case, please see James McGrath's helpful post In Support of Christopher Rollston, which provides some context as well as many links to those who are similarly writing in support of Prof. Rollston.

As far as I am concerned, it simply beggars belief that a scholar of the stature of Prof. Rollston should be the subject to disciplinary proceedings for calmly and eloquently expressing his views on an issue that is important in both the academy and the church.  I think it is unacceptable that honest, erudite and carefully considered views like this should be regarded as damaging to the reputation of an academic institution like Emmanuel.

Earlier today I read an article on the topic by Prof. Paul Blowers on the Bible and Interpretation website and I have to admit that I was particularly upset by the following remark:

My criticism has focused not only on the imbalanced nature of this essay, which enjoys a huge public audience, but the lack of circumspection in putting something so un-nuanced into the public domain with no consideration of its reflection back on the integrity of the institution which Dr. Rollston serves.

What I find so troubling is the idea that Prof. Rollston's work reflects negatively on "the integrity of the institution".  On the contrary, the writing of an honest, thoughtful piece like this in fact reflected extraordinarily well on the integrity of the institution -- or so I had thought.

Without integrity, academics have nothing.  Wherever one is located, whether in university or seminary, academic honesty is everything.  It's not easy being a scholar of religion in a secular world.  The honest expression of nuanced views on a difficult topic in this context should be welcomed.  The idea that they might lead to disciplinary action is reprehensible.

Lost Gospels on All Things Considered

Yesterday's All Things Considered on BBC Wales featured an excellent discussion of "Lost Gospels".  It began with a discussion of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife and goes on to discuss Noncanonical Gospels more broadly.  You can download the podcast here; and this is the main podcast page:

All Things Considered: Lost Gospels

One of the guests is Simon Gathercole, who has recently published The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas.

Jesus Criteria Conference Day 2, live blog, #JesusCriteria

It's day two of the conference in Dayton, Ohio on Jesus, Criteria and the Demise of Authenticity. Details about the live feed and the programme are found in my previous post and here:

Conference Schedule

Conference Live Feed

Today is a full day, beginnng at 8.30 in the morning, so in a sense we are only one third of the way through the conference at this stage.  I have just realized that today's live blog is going to be more spotty than yesterday's because I am on the programme three times today, for the first time in a moment.

First up is Loren Stuckenbruck, talking about the criterion of Semitic influence. It is nice to hear him presenting in what he calls a "discursive" way, with some autobiography.  He mentions that he has a mistake in the chapter in that he refers to "Palestine" and that he should not be using that term for the first century.  Quick pic. of Loren Stuckenbruck in action:

My response should last for ten minutes or so.  After me comes John Poirier, also responding to Stuckenbruck. Live blog is paused for a while.

With my response to Loren Stuckenbruck's paper done, it's back to live blogging.  After my response, John Poirier also responded to Loren's paper, focusing mainly on Maurice Casey's particular use of the criterion. Loren then took some questions from the audience, and we had a half an hour coffee break.

First up after the break is Dale Allison.  As far as I am concerned, this is the keynote paper of the conference.  He is speaking autobiographically about his own use of the criteria in the past, and his disillusionment with them.  He speaks with authority and not like the scribes.  It's a great presentation and he gets a good laugh when he tells us that he told his wife, after writing Constructing Jesus, that he was done with Jesus.

Chris Keith is now responding; he says that it is difficult to provide a critique of a paper that is largely autobiographical.  Dale Allision has sat down at the front at the table and presumably both respondents will sit down next to him in a moment.

Chris Keith says that he does not know of anyone who utilizes the criterion of multiple attestation when they are discussing the resurrection.  I am wondering about Tom Wright, but I don't think I got that far in his 900 page book.

Chris has just mentioned my contribution to the book with respect to the pedagogical usefulness of the criteria.  He also mentions that I said to him that every year I teach them, and every year I believe in them less and less.   He suggests now that we prescribe the book for class.

Excellent response from Chris Keith, lively and right to the point  And I agreed with most of it.

Anthony Le Donne is now responding and he begins by quoting James McGrath's concern that they might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Joel Watts is also live-blogging the conference, and he very kindly plugs my new book too, so that was money well spent.

Anthony Le Donne concludes an entertaining response by speaking of sweat and humility and how they can achieve some results.

It's the Q&A now, beginning with Dale Allison's responses to Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne.  Nice to hear Dale Allison responding to Michael Barber's question submitted online.  Nice feeling that there is a broader audience out there!  Here's a pic of Allison, Le Donne and Keith in this Q&A session:

Barry Schwartz is asking a question that reminds me a little of the old cartoon, "We'd now like to open the floor to shorter speeches disguised as questions".

This live blog ceased for an hour between 11 and 12 while I took part in a "Round Table" discussion with Dale Allison, Loren Stuckenbruck and Dagmar Winter, and chaired by Anthony Le Donne, sitting at that blue-clothed table that you see above photographed earlier.  Then lunch and now the afternoon session begins with Anthony Le Donne speaking about the criterion of coherence.  He's the first speaker to use a nice visual aid.  I'll try to get a pic:

Anthony says that the PCC (Perrin criterion of coherence) is completely bankrupt and needs to go away.  Here's his graphic for Perrin:

Anthony talks about the "two columns" of authentic and inauthentic and explains his problems with this way of saying things, including the multitude of different cognitive states that these things go through.  If I get the chance to ask the question, I want to question whether historical Jesus scholars are using "two columns", one for authentic and one for inauthentic.  Is it not a bit more nuanced than that?  Even the Jesus Seminar has shades of grey (literally) and shades of pink.

Dagmar Winter is presenting now her piece which deals with the criterion of dissimilarity.  She begins with a humble statement about how she feels that she is dining out on a good idea that she had twenty years ago, in the book she co-wrote with Gerd Theissen, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus. She also pays tribute to Eugene Boring who translated the book.  She goes on with a delightful analogy from a BBC story about whether or not Italian food has "lost its authenticity".  Here's a pic:

Joel Watts continues to live blog the conference too and includes this nice pic. from the round table discussion earlier, from left to right: Anthony Le Donne, Dagmar Winter, me, Loren Stuckenbruck, Dale Allison:

But back to the matter at hand, Dagmar Winter suggests that the value of the term "plausibility" is that it reminds us of the relative nature of the enterprise, in which certain elements are more or less plausible.  She ends with a nice line about the value of Jesus research when it is conceptualized as "a quest and not a conquest".

Jens Schröter is responding to the two papers.  I must admit that the fact that my own presentation is looming is making it harder for me to concentrate at this point. Schröter is now summing up. It looks like there won't be much time for questions though Anthony Le Donne and Dagmar Winter are sitting at the blue table ready to be joined by Dr Schröter.

Oh, look at me, I'm asking a question! I didn't see that coming.  Well, I did really; it's something I've wanted to ask -- about the idea that we are separating things into "two columns" (cf. above). Nice answer by Anthony Le Donne, who points to Sanders, and that's always going to go down well with me.

I'm going to go off-line for a bit now because my paper is coming up soon.

Rafael Rodriguez did a nice job summarizing his paper on the criterion of embarrassment, and then I spent a little time presenting my stuff on the criterion of multiple attestation.  Loren Stuckenbruck responded; we had a few questions and then broke for tea.

The conference is almost over now.  It's the final round table discussion, this one featuring Jens Schröter, Chris Keith, Barry Schwartz and Rafael Rodriguez.  The audience has thinned out a bit and the live feed has now finished.  But the live blog goes on!

Chris Keith answers a question about the future of Historical Jesus research and he says that he avoids using the word "historical" in front of "Jesus".  We don't, after all, talk about the historical Abraham Lincoln, etc.; we just use their names.

Joel Watts has continued to live blog too.

Barry Schwartz pours cold water on the idea that there is anything at stake here.  He doesn't like talk of a paradigm shift and he does not see any clashes, no theoretical advances.

4.20pm: conference is over!

Jesus Criteria Conference Live Blog, #JesusCriteria

The good news is that there is WiFi here at the Dayton Conference on Jesus, Criteria and the Demise of Authenticity, and I have my blogging machine with me, so I'm going to have a go at live-blogging.  I'll keep updating under this same blog title, so you'll have to refresh to see the latest.  Or follow #JesusCriteria on twitter for the latest.

Arrived at South Park United Methodist Church for the conference, with lots of friendly greetings on the way in, after a nice burrito for lunch at a place called Chipotle.

It's strange having a conference in a church building.  Don't think I can recall having done this before. It is making people behave a little differently, speaking a little more quietly, walking a little more reverentially and so on.  I wonder if it will end up making me less inclined to say something naughty?

David Watson introduced the conference; Anthony Le Donne then speaks about the topic, with some nice reflections on the meaning of "authenticity" in different quarters.  He introduces his co-convenor, Chris Keith, who is now speaking about problems with the criteria of authenticity.

Chris Keith has some great autobiography.  He notes how he found out that this great new idea he had had were anticipated by Morna Hooker -- and forty years ago!

Here's Chris Keith speaking:

Chris explains his view that the criteria are just form criticism under a different heading.

I should of course mention that you can watch the conference on live streaming here.  I've just checked out the link and it looks like it's working well.  It's a UStream feed so you can discuss it on Fb and all the rest.

Chris says that he doesn't want to pick on Anthony Le Donne because he's had a rough year!  Mentions witch-hunts and pitchforks.  But he engages critically with Le Donne's hopes to find a continued role for the criteria.

And the full conference programme is here, by the way.

2.45pm: The conference is racing along.  Within the first hour and we are already seeing the fourth face at the front, Dr Jens Schröter.  He is introduced by Anthony Le Donne, who says that his work is the reason he learned to read German!  Dr Schröter apologizes for the fact that we have to "endure" his German accent.  As far as I am concerned, it is more than compensated for by the fine red shirt he is wearing, with a mellow, darker tie.

Time for another pic. This one shows Dr Schröter but I've taken it a little further back so that you can get the whole church vibe that is going on here:

Actually, it looks like Dr Schröter  is a fan of sporting red shirts. Interesting critique of Crossan's attempt to present a coherent picture of the Historical Jesus, which he regards as having failed.  Words used in his paper include ""bifurcation", "etymological presuppositions" and "objective historiography".  I don't think I'd have been able to say the German equivalents so clearly.

As usual on such occasions, we are already a bit behind schedule. But Anthony Le Donne makes an adjustment to the schedule on the fly. I'd be inclined to chair things a bit more formally, though,or tomorrow's schedule is going to be tough since things are a bit tighter.

A representative from Logos Bible Software, Victor Dela Cruz, is demonstrating the delights of Logos Bible Software.  He mentions that one can be standing in the queue at the supermarket (AmE: in line at the grocery store) and access the Nag Hammadi Library.  Nice illustration.  Of course, I don't need to have the delights of Logos sold to me.

After an hour's break from 3.30--4.30, we are now resuming with responses to Chris Keith, Anthony Le Donne and Jens Schröter.  First up is Dale Allison.  Great comment about how Gerd Lüdemann once told him in a debate that he (Lüdemann) was indeed a scientist and that he had no use for the imagination.

Allison thinks that Jesus' father was called Joseph but not on the basis of the historicity of this story or that in the Synoptics. He also talks about the effortless use of the criteria in his earlier book on the historical Jesus -- it enabled him to deal with the issues in a speedy way and move on to what he really wanted to talk about.  He is now a better historian and so has no real criticism of Keith's and Schröter's essays.

Dale Allison brief, clear, to the point and a nicely composed piece, with several good laughs of recognition. He has now sat down and Dagmar Winter is responding.  Quite a theological response and one that I would need to spend a little more time digesting -- she speaks about worldviews and ends with a comment about "taking the incarnation seriously".

Both Allison and Winter keep well within allotted time, which is promising for the prospect of discussion later.  Barry Schwartz is the third responder.  He is not one of the authors in the volume, so it is a good chance to get another perspective. He has banged the lectern a few times.

Twenty minutes left for discussion. Anthony Le Donne invites Chris Keith to respond to all three, and then there will be Jens Schröter, and then some time for questions from the floor.  Chris Keith comments on his plan to get Barry Schwartz behind a Christian pulpit and notes how he banged the lectern like the best of them.

Schröter now responding too.  He helpfully asks Dagmar Winter what adding the word "criterion" does to "criterion of plausibility", which should produce some useful discussion.  Mind you, time is running away and Schröter has taken ten minutes to respond to the responders.  In my view, perhaps a mistake not to have a formal chair sitting up front with everyone to direct the discussion.

Ooh, online question from Michael Barber!  Asks about third quest, and Dale Allison says that the term needs to be abandoned (in line with his published work on this, with which I wholeheartedly agree).  Another online question about social memory.

It's 5.30 and so the end of the this afternoon's proceedings.  Great first afternoon, but looking forward to more tomorrow, and especially the chance for some discussion.

Jesus Criteria Conference begins today -- and you can watch live!

I'm in Dayton, Ohio, for the conference on Jesus, Criteria and the Demise of Authenticity, organized and led by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, and featuring also Dale Allison, Rafael Rodriguez, Jens Schroeter, Loren Stuckenbruck and Dagmar Winter.

I have brought my blogging machine with me and I hope to blog trough the conference. I also have my tweeting machine too, so will live-tweet too, I think with the hashtag #JesusCriteria.

The good news for those who can't be here is that it is going to be live streamed over the net here:

Conference Live Stream

Further details and full conference schedule is available over on the Jesus Blog.

The Gospel of Jesus' Wife Latest

I realize that the story is now beginning to die down, and that large parts of the media are saying, "Nothing to see here; move on, move on", but there are a few things I would like to mention before the story drops out of everyone's consciousness, not least as my time has been a bit too limited to blog about it over the last few days.  Today's Chronicle of Higher Education is already looking to learn the Lessons of Jesus' Wife, but I am not ready to give up on the story yet.

There is one post in particular that rewards careful consideration.  In addition to Christian Askeland's video, which I mentioned the other day, there is an important post by Alin Suciu and Hugo Lundhaug, On the So-Called Gospel of Jesus’s Wife. Some Preliminary Thoughts (and see also the comments and the fresh post on a Peculiar Dialectical Feature).
For full round-ups of the latest material, James McGrath has continued with his excellent summaries and comments in Dating Jesus' Wife, and he also published a parody of Watson's article by Timo Panaanen.  All of his posts the topic can be found here.

It was interesting to see how the cumulative weight of the sceptical reaction from among many scholars was enough to cause some serious questioning of the fragment's authenticity.  At one stage, it looked like Harvard Theological Review were pulling back on the publication of Karen King's article originally scheduled for January 2013 but the confusion about this was eventually clarified with a statement that underlined the provisional nature of any decision (God and the Machine, with links, and elsewhere).

Nevertheless, what did become clear was that Smithsonian Channel were also anxious about some of the scholarly reaction and decided not to air the documentary last night.  I must admit to a little disappointment not to see it, especially after all the hype, but Bob Cargill is surely right to give them kudos for putting it on hold, at least for the time being.

I must admit that my own view on the fragment has further crystallized into outright scepticism.  I am cursed with a sceptical mentality, I know, and so you do not -- of course -- want to listen to me on these things.  Heck, I don't even believe in the existence of mainstream stuff like Q, or the independence of Thomas.  But the more I spend time studying what is available on the fragment, and the more I reflect on the studies by Watson, Askeland, Suciu and Lundhaug (and others), the tougher I find it to to slay the sceptical spirit.

In fact, I was even quoted in Lisa Wangsness's excellent piece in the Boston Globe, Scholars begin to weigh in on ‘Gospel of Jesus’s Wife’, to the effect that the problem with the fragment is that it appears to be dependent not just on the Gospel of Thomas (the work) but on our Coptic Gospel of Thomas (the textual witness).

One point keeps rearing its head in all of this.  It is repeatedly said that the fragment could have been dependent on the Gospel of Thomas in antiquity, and so the parallels between the fragment and Thomas do not tell us anything about the authenticity of the fragment.  Those who are making this point have either failed fully to understand Watson's case or they are failing to articulate their own counter-argument effectively.

The difficulty is this.  Watson's analysis shows that the Jesus Wife Fragment appears to be dependent specifically on our Coptic Thomas from Nag Hammadi Codex II.  (Note: this is our only complete textual witness to Thomas.)  In other words, we are not talking about literary parallels between works composed in Greek (like Matthew and Mark or Egerton and John) but detailed parallels between one Coptic text (Jesus Wife fragment) and a Coptic textual witness of a Greek work (Coptic Thomas from Nag Hammadi).  The reason the verbatim agreements + line breaks are important is that they suggest dependence on this one specific textual witness, not on the work more broadly.

As I see it, there are two options here.  Either the author of the Jesus fragment got hold of Codex II before it went into the jar in Nag Hammadi in the late fourth century to be buried for 1500 years, or s/he got hold of it after it came out of the jar in 1945.  While we cannot rule out the possibility that s/he got hold of Codex II before it went into the jar, it is much more likely that the author got hold of it in the modern period with its multiple reproductions, in print and internet, of that one witness.

My disappointment with The Guardian

I know it's only a small thing, but for academics, the details do matter.  I have always praised the way that The Guardian, my favourite paper for many years, tries to correct errors in its articles when they are pointed out.

So when The Guardian's article on the Jesus Wife Fragment was published, I noted that it featured several errors, notably:

There are three errors in the piece; (1) "Karen King from Harvard university holds the papyrus fragment that has four words written in Coptic, which are believed to prove Jesus was married".  She does not believe that these prove that Jesus was married.  Rather, she holds that some Christians believe that this was the case in the second half of the second century.  The fragment has a lot more than "four words" too.  (2) In the second half of the article, Francis Watson is called "Martin" by mistake. (3) In Secret Mark, it is not correct that "Jesus spent the night with naked youths"; he spends the night, of the duration of this passage at least, with just one naked youth.

I also wrote to The Guardian, pointing out these errors.  I received an acknowledgement and then nothing.  Over a week later, all the errors are still present.

I know that it is naive of me to have expected The Guardian to make the requisite changes.  I know that it's not a big deal.  Heck, it's not like they plagiarized an obituary.  But I still can't help being disappointed.  It's the horrible realization that their claims to correct errors in a timely fashion, as soon as they are pointed out, is as worthless as a politician's pledge.  I wonder how often this happens?

Professor Emeritus Abraham Malherbe, New Testament scholar, dies at 82

I am grateful to Jeff Peterson for sending over this tribute to Abe Malherbe who, as many of you will have already heard, died on Friday:

Professor Emeritus Abraham Malherbe, New Testament scholar, dies at 82

The piece features a little history and several tributes from colleagues.

Jesus, Criteria and the Demise of Authenticity Conference this week!

Speaking of Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, I should mention that the conference on Criteria in Historical Jesus research is at hand.  It takes place in Dayton, Ohio on Thursday and Friday this week and there is still time to register:

Jesus, Criteria and the Demise of Authenticity

I will be there and I am planning to live blog the conference as far as possible.  It should be an excellent occasion.  I look forward to meeting some of you there too.

Update (2.54pm): the full conference schedule is available here, with thanks to Anthony Le Donne.

Interview with me on The Jesus Blog

Over on their thriving new Jesus Blog, Anthony Le Donne and Chris Keith have posted an interview with me in four parts.  It ranges from Historical Jesus research, with special reference to the forthcoming conference in Dayton, Synoptic Problem, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Jesus Wife fragment.  I like the Star Trek reference in part 4 below:

Part I

On Multiple Attestation in Jesus research

Part II

On using criteria in teaching

Part III

On the Gospel of Thomas and Q

Part IV (The Voyage Home)

Is the Gospel of Jesus' Wife a fake?

Thanks to Chris and Anthony for the opportunity to chat to them about these issues.

Christian Askeland on the Gospel of Jesus' Wife: Forgery?

This short video presentation from Christian Askeland on the question of the authenticity of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife fragment deserves a blog post of its own:

 

"This video attempts to graphically illustrate some peculiarities of the Jesus' Wife Gospel which have persuaded Coptologists that the fragment is in fact a modern forgery. The presentation is targeted to a non-academic audience."

The video is about the length of an episode of the NT Pod, so it won't take too much of your time.

Thomas and the Gospels out in the UK too

Thanks to Todd Brewer for this pic proving that my Thomas and the Gospels is now out in the UK too!

It has a slightly different title in the UK, Thomas and the Gospels: The Making of an Apocryphal Text and a different cover.  You can order it from Amazon (previous link) although they are still giving a release date of 18 October.

I don't see the book yet on the SPCK website.

Meanwhile, if you are looking for the book in the USA, try Eerdmans (where it is now showing up as "in stock") or Amazon(which gives the release date as 24 Sept).

Revised versions of Francis Watson's Articles on the Jesus Wife Fragment

I am grateful to Francis Watson for sending over revised and updated versions of his short articles on the Gospel of Jesus' Wife fragment.  These revised versions take account of the new findings on lines 6 and 7.  Prof. Watson explains his revisions in the main article, note 1, crediting the various people responsible for them both there and at appropriate points later.  I have uploaded the pieces to the same places as before, so the old links will all work, but the links are gathered here again for convenience.

Of the three articles, the first is for the non-specialist and the other two include discussion of the language.  The second here is the main piece:

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: How a fake Gospel-Fragment was composed
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Francis Watson

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: How a fake Gospel-Fragment was composed
Francis Watson

Addendum: The End of the Line?

Francis Watson

My new book has arrived!

Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas's Familiarity with the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) arrived today!

A Fed Ex man personally brought a nice box full of copies to my office this afternoon.

That's my hand in the picture, just to prove that it's real and not just a pic from a catalogue.

Many thanks to the folk at Eerdmans who have done such a great job.  The British edition, from SPCK, should follow soon.

Thanks too to everyone who provided encouragement along the way.  As for me, I am not going to look at it now that I can't do anything about the contents.

The Gospel of Jesus' Wife: Latest News

When I was blogging about this last Thursday, just a couple of days after the announcement of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, I commented that "the story is moving fast!".  There has been no change in that pace over the last few days.  Francis Watson's three articles on the topic (plus Bible and Interpretation piece) made the papers and convinced many scholars that there is sufficient reason at least to question the authenticity of the fragment.

Watson's case is that the fragment is so clearly made up of a patchwork of pieces from our one complete Coptic textual witness of the Gospel of Thomas that scepticism about its antiquity should be the order of the day.  The issue of the parallel line break, in the very first line of the fragment, is particularly telling.  This is not a case of one text being broadly influenced by another.  It is a matter of a fragment that features a patchwork of agreement in Coptic with a specific textual witness of a work probably composed in Greek.

Watson's essay raised a couple of questions, though, about lines 6 and 7 of the fragment, which did not appear to be paralleled in Thomas.  I suggested last night that the last line is also from Thomas, something that Päivi Vähäkangas had also pointed out on Facebook (with thanks to Alin Suciu for pointing this out).  And then Oli Homron, in a comment here, noted the following parallel for line 6:

This meant that every line, practically every word, of the Jesus Wife Fragment appeared to have a parallel in Coptic Thomas as found in Nag Hammadi Codex II.

Meanwhile, Andrew Bernhard, author of Other Early Christian Gospels and the long time author of the gospels. net website, was working hard on a superb synopsis that illustrates clearly the parallels between the Gospel of Jesus' Wife and the Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas:

Synopsis of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas

And he has an article that discusses the parallels:

Could the Gospel of Jesus' Wife be a "Collage" of Words and Phrases Culled Exclusively from the Coptic Gospel of Thomas?
By Andrew Bernhard

It's a detailed, clear and also well-measured piece, that draws together others' discussions (above) though in discoveries that Bernhard made independently of them.  It also features the intriguing suggestion that a modern forger could have used not a printed edition of Coptic Thomas but Mike Grondin's interlinear edition on the net, alongside a rudimentary knowledge of the first few pages of Lambdin's grammar.  To keep up to date with Bernhard's postings, see his page at gospels.net:

The Gospel of Jesus' Wife

When a story like this is moving so fast, it is great to have James McGrath around.  He has continued to post updates and today has produced a great round-up with the amusing header:

Is Jesus' Wife Turning into Thomas?

I do not want to give the impression that opinion has all coalesced against the authenticity of the fragment, though.  Michael Peppard tonight adds the following thoughtful piece:

Is the "Jesus wife" papyrus a forgery? And other queries

And it's worth adding that the issue of whether or not the historical Jesus had a wife continues to be discussed, including this lively piece by Heather Hahn for the United Methodist Church:

Did Jesus have a wife?

The piece even has a little quotation of me, and has other new material including quotations from Mark Chancey of SMU.

At this point, though, there does not seem to be much doubt about the way that the wind is blowing, and there does seem to be sufficient doubt about the authenticity of the piece for most to feel ill at ease with some of the more sanguine assessments that were being made only a week ago.

Then this evening it was reported that Harvard Theological Review had "decided against publishing Karen King's paper on the Gospel of Jesus' Wife" (Update on the the Gospel of Jesus' Wife (from Craig Evans), via Brian LePort on Near Emmaus).  If this report is indeed accurate, I suspect that this may be a good decision given the questions that have been raised about the fragment over the last week, but of course time will tell whether there will be further twists in the tale.

I'd guess that the impact of the Smithsonian Channel's documentary (Youtube clips) will be lessened in the light of the questions over the fragment's authenticity, but I will certainly be watching and hope to live blog it too.  It's scheduled for broadcast on Sunday at 8pm and again at 11pm, either side of a documentary about the Titanic.

Gospel of Jesus' Wife: the last line is also from Thomas

Francis Watson's essay, The Gospel of Jesus' Wife: How a Fake Gospel Fragment was Composed, argues, I think persuasively, that the Gospel fragment that has been at the centre of so much discussion over the last week or so was composed by means of collecting together a patchwork of pieces from the Gospel of Thomas.

Watson suggested that the last line of the fragment (line 7), however, was taken over not from Thomas but from Matthew.  I would like to suggest that in fact this line is also derived from Thomas.

Here is the last line of the fragment:

] . ⲁⲛⲟⲕ  ϯϣⲟⲟⲡ  ⲛⲙⲙⲁⲥ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡ [

" . I am with her on account of . . . "

This bears a striking resemblance to the last part of Thomas 30:

ⲡⲙⲁ ⲉⲩⲛ̅ⲥⲛⲁⲩ ⲏ ⲟⲩⲁ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϯϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ

"The place which has two or one, I am with him"

Here we have the same three words in Coptic in sequence, ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϯϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛⲙⲙⲁ(ϥ / ⲥ), "I am with her / him", with just the switch from male to female.  Moreover, even the last word and a bit of the line is found in the same context -- ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡ . . ., "on account of ?" comes twice in Thomas 29, ⲉⲧⲃⲉ  ⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲁ̅, "because of spirit" and ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁ, "because of the body".  

I would like to suggest, then, that Francis Watson is bang on the money in finding the Gospel of Jesus' Wife to be a patchwork of pieces from the Gospel of Thomas, and to offer this suggestion as extending and so confirming his excellent case.

Note: I have used a Coptic unicode font above.  If you can't see the Coptic, please see this PDF of the post instead.

Francis Watson, Addendum: The End of the Line?

Prof. Francis Watson has written another piece on the Gospel of Jesus' Wife which I am happy to post here:

Addendum: The End of the Line?

Francis Watson

There are therefore three articles in total, which I will gather here for the reader's convenience.  The first is for the non-specialist and the other two include discussion of the language:

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: How a fake Gospel-Fragment was composed
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Francis Watson

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: How a fake Gospel-Fragment was composed
Francis Watson

Addendum: The End of the Line?

Francis Watson

Update (Monday): Francis Watson has now written a fourth piece over at Bible and Interpretation, with thanks to both Francis and to Jim West for sending me the link:

Inventing Jesus' Wife
Francis Watson

The essay summarizes the case for non-specialists and goes on to answer several key questions that arise from the analysis.

Francis Watson's Introduction and Summary on the composition of a fake Gospel-fragment

I am grateful to Prof. Francis Watson for following up his earlier article, The Gospel of Jesus' Wife: How a fake Gospel-Fragment was composed, with a piece providing an introduction and summary, which will be particularly helpful for non-specialists:

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: How a fake Gospel-Fragment was composed
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Francis Watson

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: How a fake Gospel-Fragment was composed, by Francis Watson

I would like to thank Francis Watson, Professor in the Department of Theology and Religion at Durham University for the opportunity to publish the following short article:

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: How a fake Gospel-Fragment was composed
Francis Watson

Update (9.49): see now also Watson's Introduction and Summary for non-specialists.

Update (15.24): The story has made The Guardian:

Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert
Scholar says papyrus fragment believed to provide evidence that Jesus was married is a modern forgery
Andrew Brown

(Note: there are three errors in the piece; (1) "Karen King from Harvard university holds the papyrus fragment that has four words written in Coptic, which are believed to prove
Jesus was married".  She does not believe that these prove that Jesus was married.  Rather, she holds that some Christians believe that this was the case in the second half of the second century.  The fragment has a lot more than "four words" too.  (2) In the second half of the article, Francis Watson is called "Martin" by mistake. (3) In Secret Mark, it is not correct that "Jesus spent the night with naked youths"; he spends the night, of the duration of this passage at least, with just one naked youth.)

The Gospel of Jesus' Wife: The Story is Moving Fast!

The internet age really has changed the way that news stories like this develop, for good and for bad.  It's only 48 hours since I last had a moment to blog about The Gospel of Jesus' Wife and in that time, the story has developed at a dramatic pace, with news outlets all over the world publishing stories on the find, with scholars attempting to analyze the new find, and the bloggers trying like mad to keep up with everything that is going on.

At times like this, I am really grateful for ninja-bloggers like James McGrath, who has updates that scour the blogs for comments, in 2 Jesus' Wife and 3 Jesus' Wife, with lots of links of interest (and he still has time to blog on Doctor Who too -- you've got to admire that), and Jim West who, while outspoken, is often the first to get to a story.

But I'd like to comment on four things that have got my attention tonight:

(1) There is no doubt that this story is massive.  I expected it to get some media coverage and interest when it emerged on Tuesday, but I did not expect the huge amount of interest that it has picked up. It is bigger, I would say, than the James Ossuary in 2003, the Gospel of Judas in 2006 and the Talpiot Tomb in 2007 and 2012.  This story, which enables journalists to use "Jesus' wife" in the title of an article, sounds totally compelling.   This can be a problem for scholars of early Christianity -- the phone rings, the emails pour in, and everyone wants to know what you think about "Jesus' wife".  And getting on top of the scholarship on the fragment in a short time frame can be daunting, especially if you are deep into teaching, meetings and other things.

(2) It is becoming clearer all the time that many of the experts doubt the authenticity of the fragment.  It seems "too good to be true" -- it fits the Zeitgeist (Jim Davila; see update) and it seems remarkable good fortune that so tiny a fragment now coming to light from a mysterious stranger just happens to talk about Jesus' wife.  Since papyrology is not my expertise, I am inclined to defer to the experts on this one, and it is troubling that so few people appear to want  to endorse the fragment's authenticity.  Christian Askeland's arguments, which incline towards the suggestion that it is a fake, sound persuasive to me (and read the fascinating comments thread). And he's not alone.  Stephen Emmel and Alin Suciu have both expressed their Doubts over Harvard claim of 'Jesus' wife' papyrus and I am looking forward to hearing more from them in due course.  This is how bad it is at the moment, on day 3: it is difficult to find any expert other than those involved with the publication of the piece who think that it is genuine.

(3) I must admit to a little disappointment in finding out tonight, after having praised the careful, sober, scholarly treatment of the release on Tuesday, that there is -- after all -- something of a dramatic, sensational TV documentary at hand.  It has clearly been in production for months and Smithsonian are branding it as a "sensational" find of  "Biblical proportions" that will cause people to "reassess Christian theology".  "She knew that it was a blockbuster."  Of course, this kind of thing is simply part of the publicity machine of the channel, but there is something a touch disappointing about finding out that after all, the press releases were timed to coincide with the the pre-publicity for the documentary (which airs on 30 September).  I may be being unfair here but I can't help feeling that this takes away from some of what I and others admired about Harvard's handling of the release on Tuesday.

(4) It is perhaps not surprising to see Simcha Jacobovici endorsing the new discovery as corroborating his claims about the Talpiot Tombs, which he alleges to have belonged to Jesus, his family, and some of his earliest disciples (Jesus was married.  Something has changed!).  I doubt that Karen King will be pleased with the endorsement, not least given her repeated caution about the fragment being useless for historical Jesus work.

There is certainly lots more to come.  I hope to find time to write about the fragment again tomorrow, and in particular to look at how the media misconstrues what scholars mean by "authenticity".

Note: Smithsonian are offering a trailer and a sneak preview of the documentary.