Re: The "Gospel of Jesus' Wife"
- Thanks for the link. the analysis was great. The biggest problem with the idea that GJW is from GT 101 and 114 is that line 1 matches GT101, but then 3&4 match 114??? If GJW is from GT there's a big hole in it. Because if it went left to right a long ways across multiple pages from 101 on line 1 to 114 on line 3, then line 4.
It definitely matches the style of GT too much to write that off as a coicidence. As a minimum, it may have been influenced by GT. Or some might argue that GT drew from whatever GJW's source is. That issue needs more study.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Jgibson <jgibson000@...> wrote:
> On 9/21/2012 11:38 AM, Roger wrote:
> > Joe,
> > Agreed. This is the most probable explanation of the text (insofar as
> > we can tell from the fragment), but we cannot know for certain. Some
> > articles discussing this text claim that it is unique and previously
> > unknown, and that there are no other known fragments. Some articles
> > also suggest or mention that this fragment is likely from a "gospel"
> > text. Based on the location and initial dating of this fragment, this
> > suggests that it /could be/ part of a previously unknown Gnostic
> > gospel, but I would also suggest that this fragment /could also
> > be/ part of a commentary, or sermon, or response, et al., which /may
> > or may not/ use the word "wife" to mean the 'Bride of Christ'. The
> > text (as we have it) lacks context, which means that Jesus' "wife"
> > /could/ refer to the 'Bride of Christ' /or /to an actual (physical)
> > wife. If this fragment is from a commentary, or sermon, or response,
> > et al. (which is /less/ likely, but /is/ plausible in my opinion),
> > then the author /may be/ responding to someone who has one or the
> > other belief.
> Re the idea that the text is from something previously unknown, have a
> look at this:
> Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
> 1500 W. Pratt Blvd
> Chicago, IL