Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T06:41:03.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to Leo Depuydt, “The Alleged Gospel of Jesus's Wife: Assessment and Evaluation of Authenticity.”*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Karen L. King
Karen L. King*
Affiliation:
Harvard Divinity School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 107 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 190 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

An advance copy of my critical edition published above was given to Professor Depuydt before he submitted his essay, and I was then shown a copy of the final version of his essay.

References

2 Depuydt writes, for example: “The deviations do not in the least affect the striking individuality of the phrases as distinct from all other possible phrases of the Coptic language” (180). In the line-by-line analysis, he himself repeatedly notes that not every word or phrase in the text comes from GJW.

3 For further discussion, see my article above, 144.

4 For example, regarding GJW →5, Depuydt writes: “The conclusion is obvious. If just about every word and phrase in the Text [GJW] was taken from the Gospel of Thomas as I am convinced it was, then the masculine ‘he (will be able)’ must have been changed into the feminine and the negation must have been removed” (185). The “obvious” conclusion here, however, follows only if one accepts his premise. The analysis is not evidence of forgery but results only from the premise of forgery.