Gospel of Jesus' Wife : 예수께서 그들에게 말씀하시기를 내 와이프가 블라블라~

[살점]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife

Text

One side of the fragmentary text reads, word-for-word:

...not [to] me. My mother gave me life...The disciples said to Jesus,...deny. Mary is (not?) worthy of it. ...Jesus said to them, "My wife...she is able to be my disciple...Let wicked people swell up...As for me, I am with her in order to...an image ...

The opposite side of the text reads, word-for-word:

...my moth[er]...three...forth ...

The next two lines of this side feature illegible ink traces.


https://youtu.be/vlmoILJmH4M

하바드 대학교 신학대 교수가 막달라 마라아복음서의 일부로 추정되는 콥트어 문서 파편 발견



Gospel of Jesus' Wife

The Gospel of Jesus' Wife is a papyrus fragment with Coptic text that includes the words, "Jesus said to them, 'my wife...'". The text received widespread attention when first publicized in 2012 for the implication that some early Christians believed that Jesus was married.


Authenticity
정통성

Initial eval‎uations

Before King published the discovery of the fragment, she asked AnneMarie Luijendijk and fellow papyrologist Roger S. Bagnall of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University to review the fragment. They determined that it was likely authentic, both because of the skills which would have been required to forge the fragment and because the papyrus seemed to have been in a collection for many years without having been announced. Luijendijk and Bagnall both doubted that the text was forged.

Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor of L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's official newspaper, dismissed the fragment as fake.


Immediately after King's presentation of the fragment in Rome, doubts began to be expressed about its authenticity. Further investigation of the language and the script and comparison with the clearly forged Gospel of John belonging to the same group of papyri corroborated the initial doubts. By the end of 2014, there was a general consensus that the papyrus was a fake.


Eventually, Ariel Sabar's tracing of the provenance to Walter Fritz in 2016 provided the final proof, and King conceded that the evidence "presse[d] in the direction of forgery."


Others noted that the handwriting, grammar, shape of the papyrus, and the ink's color and quality made it suspect.[29] Professor Francis Watson of Durham University published a paper on the papyrus fragment suggesting that the text was a "patchwork of texts" from the Gospel of Thomas which had been copied and assembled in a different order.

In summer, 2015, Professor Watson edited and introduced six articles in the journal New Testament Studies, all arguing against authenticity of the text; these articles have been put online by Professor Mark Goodacre of Duke University.


In defense of the text's authenticity, Ariel Shisha-Halevy, Professor of Linguistics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a leading expert on the Coptic language, concluded that the language itself offered no evidence of forgery. King also found examples from a new discovery in Egypt that has the same kind of grammar, showing that at least one unusual case is not unique. While some experts continue to disagree about the other case, King notes that newly discovered texts often feature grammatical or spelling oddities which expand our understanding of the Coptic language.



Scientific testing

Though two out of the three peer reviewers consulted by the Harvard Theological Review in mid-2012 believed that the papyrus was a probable fake, King declined to carry out scientific testing of the fragment before going public, in September 2012, at the academic conference in Rome. The omission of laboratory testing was a departure from customary practice for blockbuster manuscript finds, most recently the Gospel of Judas, which had undergone a battery of tests before National Geographic announced it in 2006.


King commissioned the first laboratory tests of the Jesus's Wife papyrus only after her 2012 announcement, amid sharp doubts about authenticity from leading experts in Coptic language, early Christian manuscripts, and paleography. A radiocarbon dating analysis of the papyrus by Harvard University and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found a mean date of AD 741.


This early medieval date upended King's and Bagnall's claims that the papyrus likely dated to the fourth century AD.Though King sought to claim that the eighth-century radiocarbon date was still evidence of probable authenticity, the date was historically problematic: By the eighth century AD, Egypt was in the early Islamic era and Coptic Christianity was orthodox, making it unclear why anyone in that period would be copying a previously unknown "heretical" text about a married Jesus. A Raman spectroscopy analysis at Columbia University found that the ink was carbon-based and in some respects consistent with inks on papyri in the Columbia library dating from 400 BC to AD 700–800. But more advanced, subsequent testing of the papyrus's ink by the Columbia team would find similarities to modern inks and differences from genuinely ancient ones.
In a presentation at the Society of Biblical Literature's annual conference in San Antonio, Texas, in November 2016, the Columbia scientific team would declare its findings about the Gospel of Jesus's Wife "consistent with manuscript as forgery."

Taken together, the various scientific findings are consistent with the scholarly community's prevailing theory that a modern forger took a blank scrap of old papyrus and wrote the Gospel of Jesus's Wife text on top of it, using a simple, carbon-based ink as easy to make today as it was in antiquity. In his 2020 book Veritas, Ariel Sabar reported that two of the lead scientists King had commissioned to make the case for authenticity had no prior experience with archaeological objects and that both of the scientists had undisclosed conflicts of interest: one was a family friend of King's from childhood, the other the brother-in-law of the only other senior scholar to initially believe the papyrus was authentic. Those interpersonal relationships weren't disclosed to the public or to the editors of the Harvard Theological Review, which published the scientific reports in April 2014.

Analysis of text

However, while the papyrus itself is medieval in origin, further analysis has suggested that the text itself includes additional errors that suggest it is not authentic.


In October 2012, Andrew Bernhard observed that there is a close resemblance between Grondin's Interlinear of the Gospel of Thomas and the text that the forger appeared to have used to compose the text of the Gospel. Karen King has now made available the interlinear translation provided to her by the owner of the papyrus, and Bernhard has shown that every line shows evidence of copying from Grondin's Interlinear.

Given the extraordinary similarities between the two different texts, it seems highly probable that Gos. Jes. Wife is indeed a "patchwork" of Gos. Thom. Most likely, it was composed after 1997 when Grondin's Interlinear was first posted online.

Leo Depuydt of Brown University found it ridiculous that in the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, the word "my" in the phrase "my wife" is written in bold, as if to stress the idea that Jesus was married. Depuydt also said that he had never seen bold writing used in a single Coptic text before. He wrote: "The effect is something like: 'My wife. Get it? MY wife. You heard that right.' The papyrus fragment seems ripe for a Monty Python sketch…. If the forger had used italics in addition, one might be in danger of losing one's composure."

Christian Askeland's linguistic analysis of the text shows that it is in a dialect which fell out of use well before AD 741. He concluded that the text must have been written on a fragment of medieval papyrus by a modern forger.

Dr. Askeland also found it suspicious that the author of the fragment wrote the same letter in different ways.


In addition, Askeland showed that the fragment is "a match for a papyrus fragment that is clearly a forgery." This second fragment, containing part of the Gospel of John, belongs to the same anonymous owner, and is now overwhelmingly considered a fake. This is because that fragment of the Gospel of John appeared to have been copied from every second line of an online translation of John's Gospel in an ancient Coptic dialect called Lycopolitan; also, the Lycopolitan language died out prior to the sixth century, and the John fragment was carbon-dated to somewhere between the seventh and ninth centuries. Askeland argues that the John fragment was written by the same person, in the same ink, and with the same instrument as the Gospel of Jesus' Wife.

Professor King felt that these concerns were legitimate, but that there was still a chance that the gospel was authentic. The Atlantic reported that despite King's reservations, the text was widely considered a fake.

King later conceded, saying that evidence suggests that the Gospel of Jesus' Wife is a forgery.