Jesus’ Wife Fragment Turned to be FAKE

I wonder if all those media who reported as loudly and as widely as they could have on Jesus’s Wife fragment take time to do again about the fragment now proved to be fake. For last two weeks, where not this so-called Jesus’ Wife fragment was talked and what not being said! Some people did not take a minute to think before they undoubtedly received this Sahidic Coptic fragment as an authentic fragment. And their verdict? “Ah, the historical Jesus is a married man.” Then comes this news that this papyrus is a FAKE!

I am pretty sure by now that the hoopla surrounding this fake fragment is sniffing for some. At the same time, some might be wondering how to come up with new fabricated story to disprove Christian belief that for all its history believed Jesus never married. From the beginning of this saga, most prominent scholarships on Coptic had doubted its authenticity for some critical reasons. This is what Daniel B. Wallace and Dr. James White had to say on this issue.

“News flash: Harvard Theological Review has decided not to publish Karen King¹s paper on the Coptic papyrus fragment on the grounds that the fragment is probably a fake.” This from an email Dr. Craig Evans, the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia University and Divinity College, sent to me earlier today. He said that Helmut Koester (Harvard University), Bentley Layton (Yale University), Stephen Emmel (University of Münster), and Gesine Robinson (Claremont Graduate School)–all first-rate scholars in Coptic studies–have weighed in and have found the fragment wanting. No doubt Francis Watson’s comprehensive work showing the fragment’s dependence on the Gospel of Thomas was a contributing factor for this judgment, as well as the rather odd look of the Coptic that already raised several questions as to its authenticity.

Dr. James White, the Director of Alfa & Omega Ministries, writes, “Now, that doesn’t mean the saga is over for two reasons: 1) the fragment could be rehabilitated by the release of further relevant information concerning its provenance, and 2) the MSM (main stream media) is far more interested in posting stuff that is against Christianity than corrections and retractions.”