Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 June 2015
This article is concerned with material aspects of the ‘Jesus’ Wife' fragment. Following an analysis of the papyrus which confirms that it is indeed of ancient manufacture, the scientific tests carried out on both the papyrus and the ink are critically assessed and shown to be of little or no value in determining the date of the writing.
We take this opportunity to thank Emanuel Kindzorra, who performed the measurements. Our thanks also go to Stephen Emmel for fruitful discussions and Stephen Goranson for his critical reading of the manuscript.
3 Similarly, in Codex Berolinensis Gnosticus 8502 the right sheet overlays the left one in all the preserved sheet joins. See Krutzsch, M., ‘Beobachtungen zur Herstellungstechnik früher gnostischer Kodizes’, Zugänge zur Gnosis, Akten zur Tagung der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft vom 2.-5.1.2011 in Berlin-Spandau (Leuven 2013) 285–93Google Scholar.
4 See M. Krutzsch, ‘Criteria of Dating Papyrus Material’, Workshop on Dating Early Papyri and Manuscripts, Oklahoma 27 th–29 thMarch 2014 (forthcoming).
5 A comparison with the Nag Hammadi Codices and the Codex Berolinensis (Berlin P 8502) shows clear differences.
10 Rabin, I. and Hahn, O., Characterization of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Advanced Analytical Techniques (Analytical Methods 5; London: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2013) 4648–54Google Scholar.
11 Walton, M., ‘The Pitfalls of Using Science to Authenticate Archaeological Artifacts’, SAS Bulletin 37 (2014) 1–4Google Scholar.
13 A. Coccato, J. Jehlicka, L. Moens, P. Vandenabeele, ‘Raman Spectroscopy for the Investigation of Carbon Based Black Pigments’, 11th International GeoRaman Conference, held June 1–19, 2014 in St. Louis, Missouri, 5032, www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/georaman2014/pdf/5032.pdf.
14 I. Rabin, ‘Analysis of the Inks from a Roman Inkwell’, Gleanings From the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts of the Schoyen Collection (ed. T. Elgvin; forthcoming).
15 C. Askeland, ‘The Forgery of the Lycopolitan Gospel of John’, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.de, 27 April 2014.
16 S. Emmel, ‘The Codicology of the New Coptic (Lycopolitan) Gospel of John Fragment (and its Relevance for Assessing the Genuineness of the Recently Published Coptic “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” Fragment)', http://alinsuciu.com/2014/06/22/guest-post-stephen-emmel-the-codicology-of-the-new-coptic-lycopolitan-gospel-of-john-fragment-and-its-relevance-for-assessing-the-genuineness-of-the-recently-published-coptic-go-2/, 22 June 2014; slightly revised 2nd version: http://www.uni-muenster.de/IAEK/ (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Ägyptologie und Koptologie), 6 August 2014.
17 G. W. Schwendner, ‘The “Gospel of Jesus[’] Wife” as a Questioned Document: What Would Simulated Ancient Writing Look Like?', http://www.academia.edu/6860965/the_gospel_of_jesus_wife_as_a_questioned_document_what_would_simulated_ancient_writing_look_like, 24 April 2014.
18 Askeland, ‘The Forgery of the Lycopolitan Gospel of John’.