Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Contents:

Information:

  • Access
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Askeland, Christian 2015. A Lycopolitan Forgery of John's Gospel. New Testament Studies, Vol. 61, Issue. 03, p. 314.


    Bernhard, Andrew 2015. The Gospel of Jesus' Wife: Textual Evidence of Modern Forgery. New Testament Studies, Vol. 61, Issue. 03, p. 335.


    ×

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        The Gospel of Jesus's Wife: A Preliminary Paleographical Assessment*
        Available formats
        ×
        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        The Gospel of Jesus's Wife: A Preliminary Paleographical Assessment*
        Available formats
        ×
        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        The Gospel of Jesus's Wife: A Preliminary Paleographical Assessment*
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

It is the simple truth that paleographical analysis alone is sometimes not sufficient to settle questions of authenticity.1 In the present case, while further conservation is required for a final judgment on some issues,2 I have not found a “smoking gun” that indicates beyond doubt that the text was not written in antiquity, but nor can such an examination prove that it is genuine. I do, however, believe the present case is less straightforward than some proponents of forgery have assumed.3 I confine myself here to a few observations.

The hand suggests an informal context of production.4 The handwriting is not similar to formal literary productions of any period and should be compared rather to documentary or paraliterary texts (though it does not closely resemble typical fourth-century Coptic documentary hands).5 While I cannot adduce an exact parallel, I am inclined to compare paraliterary productions such as magical or educational texts.6

The way the same letter is formed sometimes varies.7 Thin trails of ink at the bottom of many letters, multiple thin lines instead of one stroke,8 and the forked ends of some letters could suggest the use of a brush, rather then a pen: one may compare Ptolemaic-period Greek documents written with a brush.9 The brush had largely ceased to be used by the Roman period10 and should not be encountered in this context. However, one can observe analogous phenomena in later texts that are neither presumed to have been made by a brush nor suspected of being forgeries.11

I have been unable to confirm that there is any ink on the lower layer of fibers in the start of lines →2–5 or inside the damaged area of what has been read as the second mu of in line →3 (which would surely indicate a modern forgery). Further conservation of the papyrus is required to confirm this beyond doubt. It is, however, clear that some issues that have been brought forward as evidence of forgery are apparent only on the digital images that were originally made available: this primarily concerns cases in which holes in the papyrus appear to be ink in the image12 and where pooling of ink is not apparent on the papyrus itself.13 The text in line →7 is also clearly under the “blob” of foreign matter (some type of wax?).14 The “oblique stroke” before in →4 is more likely the remains of a letter than a mark of punctuation.15 One can also note that the lack of ink on the left two-thirds of the “back” is clearly caused by the loss of most of the upper layer of fibers at this point and that, while the top edge of the papyrus does give the appearance of having been cut, not broken,16 such a clean straight break is not unknown in genuine papyri.17

Overall, if the general appearance of the papyrus prompts some suspicion, it is difficult to falsify by a strictly paleographical examination. This should not be taken as proof that the papyrus is genuine, simply that its handwriting and the manner in which it has been written do not provide definitive grounds for proving otherwise.

1Witness most obviously the continuing controversy over the Artemidorus papyrus. I do not take any account here of analysis of the textual content or scientific testing, both of which are also required to make a judgment on authenticity.

2Specifically, correct positioning of the dislodged fibers at the beginning of lines 2–5 on the “front”; see further below.

3As the discussion concerning this fragment has taken place almost exclusively online or via the media since it was made public, I respond here inter alia to points that have been raised by various commentators both in conversation (which I have not attributed) and in fora such as blogs: the latter include Peter Head, “More questions on Jesus’ Wife Fragment,” Evangelical Textual Criticism [blog], October 3, 2012, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/more-questions-on-jesus-wife-fragment.html; Hugo Lundhaug and Alin Suciu, “On the So-Called Gospel of Jesus's Wife: Some Preliminary Thoughts by Hugo Lundhaug and Alin Suciu,” Patristics, Apocrypha, Coptic Literature and Manuscripts [blog], September 26, 2012, http://alinsuciu.com/2012/09/26/on-the-so-called-gospel-of-jesuss-wife-some-preliminary-thoughts-by-hugo-lundhaug-and-alin-suciu/; and the remarks of Christian Askeland on the fragment (“JesusWife,” video clip, 9:43, September 28, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LtRVtLXpkQ). See also Michael Peppard, “ ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’—One year later,” dotCommonweal [blog], December 5, 2013, https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/gospel-jesus-wife-one-year-later. I should emphasize (with apologies to others who have contributed paleographical observations) that this list is not exhaustive and that I do not respond here to every point made in these blogs.

4One might also note in this connection that the fact that there are six lines of text on the “back” and eight on the “front” is not uncommon in less formal contexts.

5Now well attested: see P. Lond. 6.1920–22, P.Ryl.Copt. 268–276, and the documentary papyri published in Coptic Documentary Texts from Kellis: P. Kell.V (P. Kell. Copt. 10–52; O. Kell. Copt. 1–2) (ed. Iain Gardner, Anthony Alcock, and Wolf-Peter Funk; Dakhleh Oasis Project 9; Oxford: Oxbow, 1999). For the abbreviations for papyrus volumes used here, see Roger S. Bagnall et al., Checklist of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets, June 1, 2011, http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html.

6See, e.g., the irregular and informal script found in magical texts such as P. Bad. 5.126 (VI–VIII), P. Mich. inv. 594r (VI–VII), or P. Köln inv 20806r (IV–VIII) and, among educational texts, papyri such as such as P. Rain. UnterrichtKopt. 15 (VIII/IX?), 268 (VII), or 279 (X–XI). I cite these papyri here only as examples of less formal hands, and I would not compare the hand of the GJW papyrus specifically to them, especially not for dating purposes.

7Sometimes letters are made very “chunkily,” at other times not: compare, e.g., the tau of in →1 with that in in →2.

8See, e.g., the nu of in →1; the final pi in →1; the ti in →1; and the first mu of in →2. See also especially the first epsilon (?) and the nu of in →6; many other examples could be cited.

9E.g., P.Cair.Zen. 2.59243r and P.Mich. 1.29. On the use of the brush in Ptolemaic texts, see William J.Tait, “Rush and Reed: The Pens of Egyptian and Greek Scribes,” in Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress of Papyrology, Athens, 25–31 May 1986 (ed. Basil G.Mandilaras; 2 vols.; Athens: Greek Papyrological Society, 1988) 2:477–81; WillyClarysse, “Egyptian Scribes Writing Greek,” ChrEg 68 (1993) 185201; Joshua D.Sosin and Joseph G.Manning, “Palaeography and Bilingualism: P.Duk. inv. 320 and 675,” ChrEg 78 (2003) 202–10.

10MarkDepauw, The Demotic Letter: A Study of Epistolographic Scribal Traditions against Their Intra- and Intercultural Background (Demotische Studien 14; Sommerhausen: Zauzich, 2006) 7677.

11See, e.g., P.Rain.UnterrichtKopt. 279, an educational text from the 10th or 11th cent. c.e.: the editor (Monika Hasitzka) remarks simply “Breiter Kalamos” in her introduction to the edition (compare the remarks on the GJW papyrus of R. S. Bagnall quoted by King: “the pen itself may have been blunt and not holding the ink well”). For an image of this text, see the Tafelband for P.Rain.UnterrichtKopt. (in which it is Taf. 100) or search for “P.Rain.UnterrichtKopt. 279” on the website of the Austrian National Library Papyrus Collection: http://aleph.onb.ac.at/F?func=file&file_name=login&local_base=ONB08.

12See, e.g., the first alpha of in line →3, where there is a tiny hole in the papyrus at the bottom right of the alpha.

13E.g., to the bottom right of the first alpha of in →3 and in the diagonal stroke before (→4), where I can see neither the hole that was noted in the draft edition, nor ink pooling around it.

14See especially the first of .

15Note that the scribe varies letter forms elsewhere (compare the upsila in → 4 and 5 [] with that in →6 []), and something like] or] ] might be considered.

16On the “front,” there appear to be no remains of a line above line →1: a trace of ink on a partially detached fiber above the second alpha of probably comes from the alpha itself.

17Such cuts are commonly made in modern times (e.g. to cut up a text to sell to different buyers), but similar breaks also occur in papyri discovered in archaeological context.