Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The "Gospel of Jesus' Wife"

Expand Messages
  • JV
    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
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 22, 2012
      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 textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, 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:
      >
      > http://markgoodacre.org/Watson.pdf
      >
      >
      > Jeffrey
      >
      > --
      > ---
      > Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
      > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd
      > Chicago, IL
      > jgibson000@...
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.