# Talk:Gospel of Jesus' Wife

see http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304178104579535540828090438?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304178104579535540828090438.html  Based on now near-unanimous consensus by scholars that the papyrus is not authentic, would be useful to re-title the article "Gospel of Jesus' Wife Hoax". 172.10.238.180 (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree.

The only authentic source for any discussion of the papyrus is the draft of Professor King's projected article for the Harvard Theological Review.  The text of the draft is available as a pdf download from the website of the  Harvard Magazine.  The news article in the Harvard Magazine includes photos of the obverse and reverse of the papyrus together with a transcription (and English translation) of the text. 
The following precisions need to be taken into account:-

(1) The papyrus (like all similar texts from that era) includes no punctuation, therefore it is misleading to insert quotation marks around the words "my wife" (as the wiki article currently does).
(2) the use of the term "gospel" by Professor King regards only the probable genre to which the papyrus belonged.  Therefore it is incorrect to assert without qualification that it is a fragment from a "gospel" (even as defined).  See footnote 2 to her draft article.
(3) Nothing in the newspaper article by Laurie Goodstein (a major source for the wiki article as currently written) justifies the claim in the wiki article as currently written that "Historians have suggested the line indicates Jesus may have originally accepted a female disciple. They suggest the line refutes assertions by the Roman Catholic Church that the priesthood should not be opened to women or married men because of the model set by Jesus."  If historians have made either or both of those suggestions there is no evidence of it in the source currently referenced for that alleged fact.
(4) All Goodstein's NYT article says on this point is that scholars say that debates "over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple" date to the early centuries of Christianity.  Professor King is emphatic that the papyrus fragment does not provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married (opening para. of her draft article – a precision unhelpfully relegated to the wiki section "Response", whereas it belongs in the section "Features").
(5) Accordingly, the papyrus contributes nothing to any discussion over the practice and tradition in the Roman Catholic Church with regard to a celibate priesthood reserved to men only.Ridiculus mus (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
All are valid points - thanks for your contribution. By way of explanation, the punctuation mirrors that used by almost every single source (including those that quote King directly). I thought it best to copy her punctuation, rather than get into WP:OR by using punctuation which is contrary to that in the sources. I do think it would be best for the article to reflect the sources until we get some sources we can use to support your argument (which sounds factually accurate). Any chance you have a source to put the punctuation question beyond doubt? Would be good.
The article evolved fairly quickly and the end result was that the response ended up near the end. But I agree entirely that at least the "primary" response from the scholar who published it should be included earlier on. I think putting it in where you have makes it a bit disjointed - I might have a play around with putting it in the introduction - could do with some fleshing out.
Your points 3 and 4 are absolutely right - I transposed Goodstein analysis and attributed it to "historians" rather than "media reports" or something more along those lines. I probably over-simplified the claims from that source (or, rather, over-complicated them). I was being particularly conscious of WP:NOTNEWS in trying to move away from "media reports" towards the more scholarly responses. Please feel free to slash and burn as you see fit. I certainly don't WP:OWN the article and won't be offended if you find a more eloquent (or accurate, as it were) way to rewrite any part(s) of the article. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC).
¶  I added King's English rendering of the fragmentary writing, using King's published article as the source, because I honestly felt that it was necessary to this article. Sussmanbern (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperative response, Stalwart111, and I congratulate you on getting the wiki-article out so quickly.  My own contribution was a bit hasty and not as thorough-going as I would have wished.  I don't resist your re-insertion of quote marks even though the fragment lacks what seems to be an enclitic-type of notation in Sahidic Coptic which apparently denotes direct speech (see King's draft article at pp.17f.).  
What exercises me more is the continued presence of references to "gospel" in the wiki-article when what is meant is the fragment.  So far as genre is concerned, King thinks it probable that the papyrus is a fragment of a gospel (broadly understood), but she doesn't by any means assert that it definitely is from one (see her draft article, p.20 under "genre" where she writes:- "With a fragment this small, it is impossible to claim too firm a conclusion regarding the question of genre. The evidence, however, points toward classification as a gospel, possibly a post-resurrection dialogue gospel").  Kind regards, Ridiculus mus (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

For sure, and the use of the word "gospel" was really more a matter of consistency. That's what was consistent with the article name and Secondary Sources (which is what we shoud be using, rather than our own interpretation of Primary Sources). I still think it's the most appropriate name (for now) but I can imagine a naming consensus might soon appear as more Secondary Sources do. Thoughts? Stalwart111 (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I made an early edit striking out some parts of Laurie Goldstein's NYT article that had been introduced into the discussion despite receiving no support from anything that Professor King said.  In other words, they were unsupported remarks added by Goldstein.  I now wish to remove some more of the same material.  It is this sentence in the wiki-article, adapted from Goldstein:- Debates over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple date to the early centuries of Christianity.
What Ms. Goldstein wrote in her NYT piece was:- Even with many questions unsettled, the discovery could reignite the debate over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple. These debates date to the early centuries of Christianity, scholars say.
Professor King does not suggest or imply anything of the sort. What she does say in her draft article is this:- This [the newly published fragment] is the only extant ancient text which explicitly portrays Jesus as referring to a wife. It does not, however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married, given the late date of the fragment and the probable date of original composition only in the second half of the second century. Nevertheless, if the second century date of composition is correct, the fragment does provide direct evidence that claims about Jesus’s marital status first arose over a century after the death of Jesus in the context of intra-Christian controversies over sexuality, marriage, and discipleship.
Ms. Goldstein's gloss therefore (appealing to conveniently un-named "scholars") actually contradicts what Professor King is saying here. She is not saying there was a debate over Jesus marital status in the "early centuries of Christianity".  Rather the opposite.  As for the supposed question of whether Jesus had female disciples, Professor King quite correctly concedes (draft article, p.29):- The tradition of Mary of Magdala as an honored disciple of Jesus is well attested from the first century [canonical] gospels, and is emphasized even more strongly in a variety of literature from the second and third centuries . .
So again, there is no question of there being any debate over that topic in the "early centuries of Christianity".  I shall now delete the offending material.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridiculus mus (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC) 

I didn't find the sentence offending.  Despite King's paper, the NYT article and the various AP reports on it are all going to reference the Magdalene and DaVinci Code mess, they're solid sources, and someone is going to put it back in eventually. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, as above, most of my text was based on Secondary Source interpretation (such as Goldstein's) of a Primary Source (King's report) rather than my WP:OR interpretation of the Primary Source. Whether we like Goldstein's gloss or not, hers is the interpretation we should use rather than our own. The line in question does appear in Goldstein's article, whether we like her prose or not. If we can find a Secondary Source that critiques that interpretation then we should consider it in line with WP:NPOV. Happy to discuss, Stalwart111 (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC).
I am very appreciative of the cooperative stance taken by other editors, but a point of principle is involved here.  Let's take it in stages.
(1) Firstly, the Da Vinci brouhaha is already in the wiki-article, and it is an unbelievably minor issue (as King and Witherington make very clear), so there is no justification for over-emphasising it.  Dan Brown's novel, of course, is not a reliable source and is not any kind of evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene or anyone else. The idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is totally unsupported except as a fringe theory.  See, for example, the citation of Bart Ehrman in Historical Jesus under the section "asceticism".
(2) Goldstein mentions "debates" and attributes them to unnamed "scholars".  King, a named scholar, in a scholarly paper, contradicts what Goldstein alleges.  It is agreed that King is here the primary source and Goldstein is the secondary source for unnamed and unreferenced "scholars".  How is it that wiki preferences a journalistic source over an academic source? In fact WP:NEWSORG says the opposite:-For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context.
(3) Nor is it the case that reference to primary sources is forbidden under wiki policy.  They must be used with care and not interpreted.Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.
(4) In the instant case, Goldstein is not a secondary source relative to King (the primary source) since Goldstein does not attribute to King what she writes about the "debates".  In fact, Goldstein is not glossing King but glossing unnamed "scholars".
(5) If Goldstein's gloss is going to stay, it must be shown for what it is:- Laurie Goldstein, a journalist with the New York Times, claims that scholars date debates over these topics to the early centuries of Christianity.  King, however, asserts that it is clear from the first century canonical gospels that Jesus had female disciples, and it is her contention that, prior to the recently published papyrus fragment, no texts exist which claim that Jesus was married.  Bart Ehrman, too, has noted the conjectural nature of the claims that Jesus and Mary were married, as "not a single one of our ancient sources indicates that Jesus was married, let alone married to Mary Magdalene.[Bart D. Ehrman, Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code p.144]
(6) Such a presentation of Goldstein's gloss demonstrates the absurdity of including her view which is so far beyond mainstream as to lack all credibility.  Wiki policy on this at WP:GEVAL:- Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship . . Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.
I accordingly remain of the view that the Goldstein gloss ought to be deleted, and await further comments. Kind regards, Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely; don't really disagree at all. Your point (1) is right - we don't need to highlight it, but obviously media (whether we like it or not) are going to make the link between a fictional movie that claimed certain documents existed and a scholarly find that some fringe theorists will say gives credence to those fictional claims. I think if we deal with those suggestions in an WP:NPOV way by ensuring the article properly reflects the actual scholarly responses to those claims, we should be fine. I agree with your points (2), (3), (4) and (5) - I think your suggested text is a good idea - attribute it to the author rather than the scholar. Absolutely happy with that edit (though, again, I don't WP:OWN the article and you should feel free to just edit as you go and add notes here to explain them if you think others might have queries). Not sure the second part is really necessary though - we're really just adding notes and a source from someone who hasn't commented on this subject in particular. Citing Ehrman (in my opinion) brings Da Vinci Code conjecture into the article with more prominence that is worthwhile. I'll make a quick change to include the first bit and move the line to Response - let me know what you think.
Re: (6) - I don't think Goldstein's is a "fringe view", just a "pop culture" view - probably actually (ironically) closer to "mainstream" than anything else. Just not closer to scholarly assessment of ancient texts. But I don't think Goldstein is suggesting she is a scholar - she is simply reporting a scientific find / announcement in a way her readers will be able to understand. Presented with a report that there might be text in which Jesus acknowledged a wife, most general-public responses will likely be along the lines of, "Dan Brown was right!". Golstein has to acknowledge that as a mainstream reporter, even if King rejected it from the outset. I think I read that 60-70 reporters and scholars attended the announcement in person (in addition to those already at the conference) so there will be more sources before long - and a lot more from archaeological-specialist writers, scientific experts and others in the field responding to King's announcement in a more scholarly way. At the moment we have the "next day" media sources from major news outlets like the NYT. We just need to wait for the detailed Time Magazine / National Geographic style reporting as well as the actual scholarly papers which will be published soon enough. Besides which, I don't think Goldstein was the only one to express that sort of opinion or view. There's a couple of other sources that could be cited the same way. We can replace references to her with references to a different reporter, but I don't think there is much point. I would suggest that, before too long, someone with more credibility in the field will acknowledge the same pop-culture-type conjecture/suggestions, analyse them and dismiss them in a way that we can source without any concern at all. In fact, the Alan Boyle / NBC source is heading in that direction. It might be we need to more substantially cite that source. Stalwart111 (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought the sentence as it was when I commented was unoffensive, and though I agree the notion that Jesus wed Mary Magdalene to be unsupportable, it is now a part of the culture, and deserved a mention, since the secondary sources mention it.  However, I now must say that the whole "Response" section has turned into a bloated, off-topic mess.  Pruning shears should be applied immediately. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree, there is also a bit of WP:SYNTH going on. None of the sources, for example, make a link to any other gospel. But, like me, other editors don't WP:OWN the article either - you should feel free to prune away as you see fit. If someone objects they can raise it here. As long as your edit summary encourages that, no worries. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC).

Evidently things are moving at a fast pace now.  The attack by Professor Francis Watson of Durham University (he is convinced it is a pastiche of phrases from the Gospel of Thomas) is gaining support, from Richard Bauckham among others - not to mention (a) the negative feedback from respected participants at the Rome Conference as reported by Nicole Winfield of AP (Doubts over Harvard Claim of "Jesus Wife" Papyrus); (b) clarification by the editors of The Harvard Theological Review (as reported by AP again) that King's article has NOT been positively accepted for publication yet, but requires further work; and (c) under-stated scholarly disquiet (by, among others, Professor Jim Davila of St. Andrews University, John Byron, Professor Of New Testament at Ashland Theological Seminary, and Daniel B. Wallace here), over the heavy commercialization of the find, including (i) the evidence that the fragment was cut up in modern times to increase its value, (ii) the owner's offer to sell the fragment to Harvard, and (iii) the tie-up with a documentary to be flighted on the the Smithsonian Channel on 30 September.  At some not too far distant time the entire article will have to be re-thought.  Meanwhile I see no point in tinkering further with any part of the wiki article, not least the Response section which I agree already has an appearance not dissimilar to that of the wicked man as castigated in the fragment (recto, line 6) but which may ultimately comprise the dog rather than the tail (somewhere along the lines of, e.g., the Jordan Lead Codices and the Secret Gospel of Mark.  Kind regards, Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Even King seems to suggest this is a later, 4th century (or maybe 5th century) translation of a Greek text.  Translations at that time often included interpolations, and it seems to be extreme to suggest the text pre-dates the claimed derivation of the text, which is 4th century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think at this stage, everyone is waiting for the (eventual) release of the promised Harvard report. That will probably see the article changed quite significantly. For now, I think adding Wallace's comments is appropriate and fits nicely. I think it would be better if we had a more scholarly source than his personal blog, though. Do we know if he published the same commentary via the university or an academic publication? Or even made corresponding comments in a newspaper/magazine somewhere? Stalwart111 04:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Here [1] is a long, detailed, but not peer reviewed discussion of the fragment that points out that wife and woman are the same word in Coptic.  I wonder if pointing out this fact might have some relevance in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This is his specific statementThe English language differentiates “woman” from “wife”, but Coptic does not. Simon Peter’s nasty
reference to the unworthiness of “women” may underlie the GJW Jesus’ “my wife”, or “my woman”.
3 ... [ ] Mary is not worthy of it...
4 ...” Jesus said to them, “My wife/woman...” I am surprised more people have not pointed out this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I like that, but I'm not sure who published it. That copy is on an academic's personal website, but not the author of the paper itself. If that makes sense. Francis Watson himself seems eminently authoritative on the subject, as does Goodacre who who is hosting it on his site. But I don't think Goodacre published it. But I think it would be sufficient for sourcing a line or two, not dissimilar to what you added with regard to the bit above. Stalwart111 05:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This [2] Boston Globe article suggesting that "several top coptic scholars" dismissed the work as a probably forgery suggests a line that I do not think the article really reflects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This line from the article "King, a Divinity School professor who has said all along that she is open to the possibility that the fragment could be a forgery," really is telling.  I am not sure how best to incorporate in the article that King is less than fully supportive of the authenticity of the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Then here [3] is a report that says King expressed doubts about the authenticity of the work in her initial report at the conference in Rome.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:DEADLINE, I'm inclined to think it can probably wait until we hear from King herself (which was due in January but hasn't happened yet). I have no problem with those sources being used to add something along those lines, but then I don't really have a problem with anyone adding anything, as long as its based on reliable sources. That said, while King might be open to the idea that it is a forgery, she hasn't yet accepted that it is or even might be - only that she's open to such suggestions. If we're going to add it, we just need to be careful of WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH - specifically that we might be drawing our own conclusions from different sources and reinforcing them with a quote that the "discoverer" accepts that it might be a forgery. Especially since I think that question might be answered (by King herself) before too long. But feel free to have a crack. Stalwart111 08:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading ALbert Mohler's fairly level reactions to this here [4] I noticed this line "though two of three authorities originally consulted by the editors of the Harvard Theological Review expressed doubts."  Is there any indication of this in reliable sources?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to an article about the newly vetted "Jesus' Wife" papyrus fragment, Dr. Karen King recently (2013) published an article in the "New Testament Studies" journal about the marital status of Jesus as described in the Gospel of Philip found among the Gnostic literature at Nag Hammadi.  This article is discussed at some length by Hershel Shanks in the current issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review (vol. 40, May June 2014) pp. 16-18.
Based on the Greek/Coptic word "koinonos," Dr. King has apparently concluded that the Gospel of Philip actually states that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.  I published this exact point in my "Woman with the Alabaster Jar" in 1993 (21 years ago this month!), and I repeated it later in "Magdalene's Lost Legacy," (2003) and "Mary Magdalene, Bride in Exile" (2005).  Dr. King makes a point of insisting that these ancient documents don't prove that Jesus was married; they only prove that the authors of these ancient texts believed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married.
Anyone who knows anything about Judaism in the first century knows that marriage was a "cultural imperative" at the time. Celibacy was not honored. In fact, in the first century, Hebrew had no word for "bachelor."  The word they now use is "ravak" --which means "empty."
My research took me back to the canonical Gospels, not the later Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Philip or the Gospel of Mary.  I understood very early in my research that the canonical Christian Gospels themselves contain circumstantial proof of the "sacred marriage" at the heart of the early Christian community. The Gospel anointing of Jesus by the "Bride" is a clear echo of the Bride in the Song of Songs, whose fragrance (nard!) spreads around her Bridegroom / Lover at the banqueting table... "and the fragrance filled the house"! (John 12:3).  In ancient royal and cultic marriage rites, it was the prerogative of the Bride, as representative of the land and people, to anoint the Sacred Bridegroom and then lead him into their bridal chamber.... If you're interested, please read (or reread?) the first three chapters of "Alabaster Jar":   www.margaretstarbird.net/books.html 

The same "Canticle"--the Song of Solomon 1:2 reads:  "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth," a verse reflected in the Gospel of Philip:  "... and the consort (companion/spouse) of the Lord is Mary Magdalene. He used to kiss her often on [the mouth] and the apostles were jealous...."  If the kiss mention in the text were asexual, there would have been no need for their jealousy.  
My personal belief that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were husband and wife stems from the canonical Gospels, especially that of John, which identifies the woman who anointed Jesus with the Magdalene, who meets him resurrected in the Garden, a re-enactment of ancient rites of "hieros gamos" recognized throughout the Greco-Roman empire.  There was no doubt in the "eye of the beholder" that Mary Magdalene was the "Bride of the Easter Mysteries."  Her title "H Magdalene" (derived from an ancient prophecy found in Micah 4:8-11 addressed to the "Magdal-eder"--the "Tower of the Flcck") and it's gematria "153" (a number associated by the ancient Greeks who developed the canon of sacred number and geometry) is associated with the "Vesica Piscis" (vessel of the fish) and with Middle-eastern goddesses of love and fertility.  There is no chance that this epithet and its numerical value were accidental.  For more information about the symbolic significance of the "153," please visit this article on my website:  http://www.margaretstarbird.net/mary_called_magdalene.html  
The Roman Catholic liturgy for next Monday is taken from John 12: 1-11:  the anointing of Jesus at the banquet in Bethany--by the woman with the alabaster jar of nard who wipes her tears from his feet with her hair.  
In memory of her,
Margaret
www.margaretstarbird.net  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickie birdie (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC) 

Your post has several problems, which I don't want to discuss at length, as not to take too much space of wikipedia. But most important is Dr. King didn't conclude that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, she is too serious of a scholar for such conclusions. She said that in case the fragment is authentic it proves that some early Christians believed that Jesus was married, and she says that the fragment doesn't prove that Jesus was married. Big difference.
The Greek word "companion" meant companion, as there was a different word for wife. The word companion is used also toward males, which should prove what? That Jesus had several male husbands? Yes, marriage was prerogative in Jewish culture, but only 200 years after Jesus. Jewish culture had celibate communities during time of Jesus.Judaism and Christianity tried to define their identity a beliefs very separated from other beliefs of Antiquity, so, forget hiero-gamos. Kissing was not only of erotic kin d in this culture, also a sign of respect, friendship, etc. Of course other disciple could be jealous of attention given. Words lie "mouth" were added in the first translation,as there are missing fragments.New translation doesn't have mouth etc. indicates missing fragments.
Writing of the name H Magdalene suggests that the author doesn't know all alphabets letters in Greek alphabet, etc. Most people with genuine interest in early Christianity also prefer to read writings by scholars, ground in solid research and logic, not the popularizers of ideas. Sensationalising of the subject doesn't do service to advance scholarship.Discussion pages like this one relate to facts in the articles, proper sourcing etc. It shouldn't be used as a space for advertising author and books someone likes for personal reason, or personal beliefs. For that are various forums on internet. Bialosz (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

which is "In my reading, however, the main point of the GJW fragment is simply to affirm that women who are wives and mothers can be Jesus’s disciples."[5]. You'd never guess that from the way the article is written at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, it certainly should. That publication looks to be brand new (from about a week ago). It also seems King's most recent conclusions are fairly different from her previous comments on the subject. It's not clear to me whether her current view replaces what she has previously said (as in, a revised view) or simply expands on her previous commentary. I would say that needs be be clarified. If she has come to different conclusions than those of her original analysis then that is significant. If she has come to additional conclusions then that is less significant but should definitely still be accounted for. Stalwart111 12:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

see http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304178104579535540828090438?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304178104579535540828090438.html  I'm not sure that the Wiki article adequately distinguishes between the age of the fragment=piece of papyrus and the age of the fragment=this piece of papyrus and text written on it.  Everyone admits that the fragment=piece of papyrus is ancient:  the doubt is whether the text on it is ancient or modern.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the article to reflect this. Remember that Askeland's claims are still just that - his own claims about the authenticity of the fragment. He draws some scientifically and historically strong conclusions based on evidence put forward by others but they remain his conclusions. That said, they are comprehensive enough (in the sense that they dispute each of the particular claims made by proponents) that I feel his Wall Street Journal-published view should be given substantial weight in the article. Stalwart111 01:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is that it's a forgery, but the article doesn't reflect this.103.23.133.211 (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No, several newspapers have opined that in their view, consensus seems clear. The article draws no conclusion (nor should it) - it presents a large volume of evidence and the reader may draw their own conclusion. One or two inexpert articles summarising (their view of) the evidence thus far is not enough for Wikipedia to declare a conclusion, especially an unsourced one. Your personal view (like mine) is irrelevant. St★lwart111 12:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Magazines like The Atlantic are reliable sources - but I could also give you this sourced from biblical scholars such as Jim Davila. This article is seriously unbalanced.
It would be unbalanced if it presented different conclusions in an unbalanced way. It didn't present any conclusions - it presented equally weighted opinions and allowed the audience to decide. Your single source (regardless of its reliability) isn't enough to dismiss all of the others. St★lwart111 07:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The article presents the combined scholarship and media coverage since the fragment was unveiled. We don't publish original though or opinion pieces. Regardless of your personal view, a single source isn't enough to fundamentally alter the WP:WEIGHT distribution of an article. St★lwart111 07:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The current last sentence of the first para of the lead is better, but still not quite right. The consensus isn't theresult of scientific testing, but of external evidence. The papyrus fragment is genuinely old and authentic, and the ink is genuinely made according to an authentic formula. These two things have no bearing on the question of authenticity, however, as ancient papyrus fragments are readily available and ink can be made to an authentic formula. The article needs to list the true reasons behind the consensus.
It does - that other similarly created (old parchment, old formula ink) fragments were fake; from the same collection as this one and likely written in the same hand. That is detailed in the lede and later in the article. If you think something else is missing, feel free to suggest additions. The article, like all articles, remains a work in progress. St★lwart111 03:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't quite follow your first sentence, but I think you're saying that the finding that the GJW is written in the same hand as another piece from the same collection is ascientific finding. I wouldn't characterise things that way myself but that's not a major point. The main point is that there are multiple strands of evidence indicating forgery and only two - the age of the papyrus and the chemical signature of the ink - indicating authenticity. That's what produced the consensus, and it needs to be covered far more exhaustively.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.132.217 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The testing done on the ink and the radio carbon dating done on the parchment were both scientific in nature - they weren't done by a guy in his garage. The article does goes into some detail about the testing done and the similarity between those results and the results relating to the other fakes. "Many" is a qualifier because "some" doesn't properly indicate the substantive nature of the consensus but its not yet "all". If you want to use a different qualifier, fine, but just saying "the consensus" doesn't give the reader much at all. You seem to think I have a POV to push here - I don't. I started this article and have followed the story extensively but I don't WP:OWN it. We can't really cover the consensus in more detail without explaining what sort of consensus it is and how it came about. St★lwart111 06:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you have an agenda and I have confidence in your overall familiarity with the topic. However, strictly from the point of writing good articles, I think this one is unbalanced. I'm not aware of anyone at all from the very small circle of experts who thinks this fragment is genuine beyond a shadow of a doubt - that includes King. Most have no doubt that it's a forgery, a few say probably it's a forgery, and a very few say maybe. That isn't the impression a reader would come away with.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.132.217 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
No, because while all of the original theories and conjecture got airtime (even the crazy ones, for more than a year) the subsequent opinions that it is a fake have received nowhere near as much coverage. Probably to a factor of 100:1. There are thousands of articles and re-prints of articles each claiming the fragment is genuine when that was the prevailing consensus. I could count on one hand the number of articles that have been written about it since that prevailing consensus changed. Unfortunately, we don't base articles here on our own interpretation of evidence - our articles are based on what reliable sources have said about a subject. In this case, the sources (at a rate of 100:1) say its genuine and a handful of newer articles say its a fake. We reflect what they say, giving more WP:WEIGHT (even where we technically shouldn't) to more recent articles because we're not idiots. Eventually, the article will be cut down to a salient few paragraphs telling the story of the announcement, initial reaction, testing, debate and final consensus. But right now, we don't have the requisite sources to do that properly. Everyone else leads and Wikipedia follows - it doesn't matter that we're behind, we're not thought leaders. St★lwart111 09:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You have a very strange idea of how articles are to be written. TRhey're supposed to reflect expert opinion, not newspaper articles. I'm not aware of any experts (scholars) at all who think the fragment is genuine, yet you say they're the majority. Who do you have in mind?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.132.217 (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a strange idea at all - just Wikipedia policy. If those expert opinions have been expressed in reliable sources other than newspaper articles, we should include them. I didn't say they were the majority opinion, just that the majority of published material relating to this subject is from an era when the opinion was different to what it is now. We can't reflect expert opinions if experts have not made their opinions known. Again, if they have, let's include them. St★lwart111 22:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You remain of the view that the article is unbalanced but (like me) haven't been able to find newer reliable sources to "counter balance" what is there now. I'm sure such sources will be written but we don't have them yet. St★lwart111 22:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
(Undent)"Reliable sources" means (in this case) academics involved in the discipline of biblical studies - it does not mean where those sources publish. (It can't - no books yet, not even any articles in peer-reviewed journals; Professor King submitted a paper to the Harvard Theological Review but the Review has so far declined to publish it). Given the complete absence of peer-reviewed sources to date, here are a few RS we should be using:

Harvard Divinity School dedicated online site (already used as a source in the article).
Paleojudaica blog, the blog of Jim Davila, Professor of Early Jewish Studies, St Andrews University (Scotland) - several articles on the subject, giving both his own views and those of the community.
Blog of Larry Hurtado, Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh - again, several articles.
Patheos online magazine - attracts articles from recognised scholars, but check each article byline for the author's credentials.
NT blog, the blog of Mark Goodacre, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Duke University. I've linked to an article dated 5 May 2014 - quite a few articles from around that time because of the publication of the analysis results for the papyrus and ink.
The reception given the fragment at it's original presentation, by the way, is given here: this is Simon Gathercole, a Coptic manuscript scholar, reflecting the views of those present at the conference when King announced the fragment: he says that around a third of his colleagues thought it undeniably fake, two thirds thought it probably a fake, and nobody, to his knowledge, accepted it as genuine. This is the kind of thing we need to reflect, not the opnion of newspaper journalists.
Please note that we're not after individual opinions. What we need is to reflect the current academic consensus; so if Professor X says that in his opinion it's a fake, or genuine, that doesn't count in our article, but if he says that the majority of his peers think something, that's what we need to reflect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.132 (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC) 

A lot of those would fall under WP:SPS. The last line of that policy section would make what you're suggesting rather difficult. St★lwart111 03:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
No, they fall within policy guidelines. But please read these and others before commenting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.132 (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Just a note of explanation about the RS policy as it relates to blogs: "[S]elf-published media, such as ... personal websites ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." These are all experts in the field of biblical studies, all with many publications, all occupying professorial positions. The exception (partial) is Patheos, which is a magazine open to non-expert contributors, which is why I said the individual articles need to be checked.103.23.133.132 (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Except that you've missed the next bit: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." St★lwart111 05:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't apply here. The information on the balance of expert opinion re authenticity is not only worth repeating, it's essential - the question whether the fragment is genuine or a forgery makes all the difference in the world. This information obviously isn't available elsewhere (see above on the absence of reviewed journal articles). And we're not talking about living people. Still, if you have doubts, we can go to RfC or even arbitration - in which case I'll go so far as to sign in :) 103.23.133.132 (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a forgery and we say so... several times. Disregarding WP:V just so we can use blogs to say it again is pointless. Eventually, sources we do consider reliable will have more to say about it and so we will too. And to be clear, we are talking about attributing opinions to living people. These are not official blogs with editorial oversight or peer review. They are personal WordPress blogs in which the authors specifically disavow the involvement of their respective academic employers. I don't care if you use an IP address - I'd happily participate in an RfC. Not sure what you're going to query, though - whether the sources are WP:RS enough that they could be used to counter editorial from the New York Times? I don't think that'd fly but you're welcome to try it. As above, I think the longer term answer would be to cut the article back to the salient points (less "newsy") including the point that it's now considered a fake. I don't think filling the article with non-RS blogs is a productive strategy. St★lwart111 10:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that cutting the article back would be a very good move - it's far too long. It needs to make clear in the first para that the fragment is commonly considered a forgery. I'll get back to you tomorrow on the wording. 103.23.133.132 (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The lede needs to be pared down to a good summary of the scholarship of this text. The back-and-forth with details should be in the main article. I realise this is difficult since there isn't a lot of consensus, but hopefully we can make a summary that is balanced to all sides of the debate. Ashmoo (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'd like to stress one aspect: While the discussion about the title came to the result, that the article has to be named Gospel of Jesus' Wife, the lede puts one of the most important information at the end: the nealy unanimous consensus of the scholars, that it's a modern forgery.
In 2012 King maintained that the papyrus contained a fourth-century Coptic translation of "a gospel probably written in Greek in the second half of the second century." Meanwhile (2015) even King isn't sure anymore about that claim. So this outdated quote shouldn't be cited in the introduction. Instead it should be made clear from the beginning, that the text is most probably ("most likely") a forgery. I would even say it's doutless a forgery taking into account the newer scholaly findings (e.g. also Joost L. Hagen's observations on the related forged text of the Gospel of John fragment, see: http://alinsuciu.com/2014/05/01/guest-post-joost-l-hagen-possible-further-proof-of-forgery-a-reading-of-the-text-of-the-lycopolitan-fragment-of-the-gospel-of-john-with-remarks-about-suspicious-phenomena-in-the-areas-of-the-lac).--Theophilus77 (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The unknown provenance of the fragment (another indication of forgery), should also be mentioned in the lead.--Theophilus77 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I've rewritten the lead to better summarize the article, in particular making the first paragraph a very brief overview of the main points (i.e., it was a sensation, then debunked.)--Trystan (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for rewriting the lead, Trystan. It's clear and accurate now, as far as I can see. --Theophilus77 (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the so-called "Gospel of Jesus' Wife". The text discusses scholars who doubt its authenticity, some who have labeled it a hoax and a small number of supporters.

The current title states unequivocally that the gospel is a hoax. This is neither accurate nor NPOV.

The article should be titled "Gospel of Jesus' Wife". Discuss. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, I would agree. I have WP:BLP concerns over titling this a hoax, and the implications for the people involved, particularly when the word hoax doesn't appear in the article. The sources discuss it as a likely forgery, which is quite different.--Trystan (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, this article was moved from Gospel of Jesus' Wife to Gospel of Jesus' Wife hoax on October 4, 2015, then to Gospel of Jesus' Wife forgery on October 13, apparently in response to the above discussion. I don't support the current title. The common name is simply Gospel of Jesus' Wife, and it should be moved back there until there is consensus to move it to a new title.--Trystan (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I moved it to "forgery" because "hoax" bothered me as a presumption of intent. I hadn't noticed SummerPhDv2.0's comment at the time. I have no objection to "Gospel of Jesus' Wife". Hesperian 00:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have a consensus developing here. I'd like to let it go for a few more days before we move it to "Gospel of Jesus' Wife". - SummerPhDv2.0 01:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"The so-called Gospel of Jesus' Wife...". We do not say, "The so-called Gospel According to Mark..." or "The so-called Epistle of Paul to the Colossians", though scholarly consensus is that Mark and Paul did not write these. It seems this is intended to amplify "The current consensus is that the text is a modern forgery written on a scrap of medieval papyrus." (Incidentally, "current" isn't a good word choice here. Better to find a source stating this was the consensus and give it a date.) - SummerPhDv2.0 23:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. "So-called" is discussed at Words to Watch (WP:ALLEGED) with good reason. I don't think its use to qualify the title is informative to the reader. A more neutral treatment is to explicitly state well-sourced conclusions about authenticity.--Trystan (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"Christian Askeland's linguistic analysis of the text shows that it is in a dialect which fell out of use well before 741CE. He concluded that the text must have been written on a genuinely ancient fragment of papyrus by a modern forger.<ref name=wsj/>"

This is how the text stood, until changed by an anonymous IP who is changing all "ancient" references in the article to "medieval" or "medieval and not ancient".

I have not reviewed all of the changes, but this one is contrary to the source which states that Askeland determined it was "...cut from a genuinely ancient piece of material...". My correction of this to reflect the source was reverted by Coralapus with the explanation that "WSJ states 7th-9th c. C14 date and scholars had (wrongly) assumed ancient". What anyone has determined since Askeland's statement is not at issue. The source says he determined it was from a "genuinely ancient" piece of papyrus. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking a bit further, this change ("ancient" to "medieval and not modern") also seems to be contrary to the cited source (titled "Papyrus Referring to Jesus’ Wife Is More Likely Ancient Than Fake, Scientists Say").

This change ("while the papyrus itself is ancient" -> "medieval") is murkier. While it still relies on the WSJ article discussed in my comment above, it is not relying on that source for the "medieval" judgement, though it does state that is papyrus "is" medieval (rather than stating the radiocarbon dating indicates a medieval date or that scholarly consensus is for a medieval date; "is" implies we somehow know with 100% accuracy). - SummerPhDv2.0 20:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Jesus' Wife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170306000931/https://s3.amazonaws.com/hds-high-traffic-assets/Jesus-said-to-them-FINAL.pdf to https://s3.amazonaws.com/hds-high-traffic-assets/Jesus-said-to-them-FINAL.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gospel of Jesus' Wife/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 21:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I am beginning the review now.
General

I found much of the article to be rather confusing, and I think that the sections could be organized better. A significant amount of work will need to be put in so that this will pass. However, passing is not out of the question.
The most precise information on how the text was discovered is contained in the lead. This is a problem. The lead is supposed to be merely a summary of everything else in the article. I suggest adding a more detailed account of its presentation to King in 2012 to the "Publication" section. I also suggest that this be moved up to become the first section, as it deals with the text first being made known to the public.
Right now we don't seem to have clear information on who presented the "gospel" to King or who the author may have been. That's rather important.
There are a few places in the article that mention evidence which implies that the text is fake, but does not get anymore specific. A little bit more detail would help the reader better understand this information.
Features

Trying to read and make sense of the text of the "gospel" is extremely confusing. The words don't make much sense. Is that actually word-for-word what it says? Is there a way that we could make it more clear?
I also suggest making the text its own section, so that people may find it easier. It's probably the first thing that a lot of people look for.
Provenance

Right now there is a lot of information in the first paragraph which doesn't seem to have a source.
Analysis of the text

Who's Mike Grondin?
Interpretation

I recommend that you find some way to call attention to the fact that these interpretations took place before the general scholarly consensus emerged that the item was a forgery.
The last sentence before "Links to modern theories" and the last sentence of that section both need sources. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


### Follow-up
MagicatthemovieS, I see that you have put into place many of my suggestions. I thank you for that. However, I still think that there needs to be more detail in "Analysis of text" to show why the manuscript is considered a modern-day forgery. Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

MagicatthemovieS, you still haven't done anything. If within two days you do not respond to the above post I will be forced to fail the review. Display name 99 (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Display name 99, is this version better? If not, I am more than happy to find some more stuff to add to the article. :) MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks good now. I think the article meets the criteria. I have chosen to pass it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised that this passed GA given that the Atlantic Monthly article had been published a year earlier. Everyone now agrees that it's a fraud. Mangoe (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Atlantic article is discussed in the second paragraph of the article, right between saying it's a papyrus scrap and giving the medieval date for the papyrus, and the scholarly consensus that it is a forgery. What do you feel is missing? - SummerPhDv2.0 17:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Did anyone test the ink? Did we check ink of known real texts 
Against  the alleged fake one or did the church threaten these people to change their mind? 2600:1006:B058:81AC:C0F2:2441:3919:6F98 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have taken out "possibly-forged" in the lede as the rest of the article clearly shows that the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly indicates a modern forgery. Personally, I am surprised this did ever fly - the writing is extremely ugly and does not look like any Coptic 4th century text I have ever seen. But that is neither here nor there - plenty of good and documented reasons in the article to reject the authenticity of this piece, so I think we should not leave too much doubt in the lede. Replaced "possibly-forged" by "purported 4th century" to keep the rest of the intro intact. This indicates that there's something seriously wrong with this piece without getting into hair-splitting whether it is fake with a 95%, 98.75% or 99.9998% likelihood. MikuChan39 (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)