HTR not rejecting the Jesus’ Wife fragment now?

On By Daniel B. WallaceIn Early Christianity

It seems like the we’re witnessing a see-saw battle concerning the authenticity of this fragment as well as whether it’s going to be published in Harvard Theological Review. After I posted the news which I received from Dr. Craig Evans that HTR was not going to publish the fragment because it had been judged to be a fake, I then got news that HTR was going to publish it. Here’s the link that gives the data: http://www.religionnews.com/faith/beliefs/harvard-theological-review-gospel-of-jesus-wife-not-rejected

One wonders what’s going on here. It seems like we have three good possibilities: (a) my source was wrong that HTR had rejected the piece; (b) the report that HTR was going to publish it is incorrect; or (c) both are right: HTR editors changed their mind about rejecting the article. I have no doubts about Dr. Evans’s integrity so I’m ruling out the first option. This leaves b or c.

This is how news is reported these days: down to the nanosecond! The cultural implications of all this are both fascinating and disturbing. I would advise that we all have a wait and see attitude, as I advocated originally.

6 thoughts on “HTR not rejecting the Jesus’ Wife fragment now?”

  1. Let them publish it if they will: the more press this fragment gets, the more people are drawn to think about and research the data concerning the historical Jesus. In this, we know that our good and merciful God will call people to Himself. Exciting times!

    It may be a face-saving move to dig in the heels on the question of authenticity, for if King is truly a professional, truly a scholar in Coptic studies, then it would be surprising to have had her make such a blunder… unless there’s a theological agenda 😉

    Like

  2. Pingback: Jesus' Wife Fragment Appears To Be A Fake

    1. Jacob P.

      I think the “both” of option C is referring to the reports, not to options A and B. So the meaning of option C is that Dr Evans was right that HTR had decided to not run it, but then HTR changed their minds and decided to run the piece anyway. Or at least that’s what I understand from Dan’s statement, “HTR editors changed their mind about rejecting the article.”

      Like

      1. Marvis Camat

        Thanks, there’s a colon in option C… Anyway, I think it’s best to have it published for the sake of scholarship, a lot can be learned here: we don’t just leave it to the hands of the experts, we allow others to get their hands to it and examine it themselves without prejudice. Also I’m not surprised that strange ideas circulated even at the very times of the Apostles, others writing and claiming the Apostles wrote them. Perhaps, the way I see it is that the experts in coptic saw this as fake, and because it’s fake doesn’t mean it cannot be published, unless of course if it’s a counterfeit money. (Mary being fed by an angel in the Temple… the writer confirmed it in the name of the Holy Ghost… wow, even a Joseph Smith was raised not far from our times – and at this very hour there are people who believe in the so called book of Mormon).

        Like

  4. Pingback: Erwin Schrödinger Cat and Karen King’s Article

Comments are closed.