Since the remarkable piece of investigative journalism from Ariel Sabar was published last Wednesday (The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus' Wife), in which the owner of the fragment, Walter Fritz, was unmasked, the discussion in the media has taken off at a pretty pace. In this post, I'd like to draw together several of the key developments.
On Thursday, Christian Askeland filled in some further details on Walter Fritz in the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog:
More on the Gospel of Jesus Wife and Walter Fritz
And then on Friday, Owen Jarus of Live Science explained the key role he played in following leads on the text's provenance and finding his way to Fritz:
Gospel of Jesus's Wife Likely a Fake, Bizarre Backstory Suggests
Meanwhile, Karen King herself responded to Ariel Sabar's article and called him to say that she found it "fascinating" and "very helpful". In a short follow-up, Sabar explained that for Prof. King, the new information "presses in the direction of forgery":
Karen King Responds to ‘The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife’
The Harvard scholar says papyrus is probably a forgery
These reported comments led to further media reaction as more read and digested Sabar's compelling story. One of the three original journalists to cover the story on 12 September 2012, Lisa Wangsness, author also of a fine piece entitled "Is the 'Gospel of Jesus' Wife a Revelation or a Hoax?" last November, returned again to the story in the Boston Globe:
‘Jesus’s wife’ papyrus likely fake, scholar says
Wangsness featured more comments from Karen King, as well as a tidbit from me. One of the questions in the article was whether there ought perhaps to be some kind of comment on the latest news from Harvard. A comment was soon forthcoming. Today (Monday 20th June), they added an update to the Gospel of Jesus wife website:
Update: June 20, 2016
Statement from HDS Dean David N. Hempton on the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife”
The June 15, 2016 issue of The Atlantic Monthly published an article entitled The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus's Wife. The article called into question the provenance and authenticity of a papyrus fragment, purportedly stating "Jesus said to them, My wife" that is the subject of research by Professor Karen King of Harvard Divinity School.
Reached for comment by The Boston Globe after publication of the Atlantic article, Professor King was quoted as stating that "It appears now that all the material [owner Walter] Fritz gave to me concerning the provenance of the papyrus ... were fabrications."
On June 16, 2016, The Atlantic published an interview with Professor King by the same author, in which Professor King stated that the Atlantic's investigation "tips the balance towards forgery” and that the preponderance of the evidence now presses in that direction.
The mission of Harvard Divinity School, its faculty, and higher education more generally is to pursue truth through scholarship, investigation, and vigorous debate. HDS is therefore grateful to the many scholars, scientists, technicians, and journalists who have devoted their expertise to understanding the background and meaning of the papyrus fragment. HDS welcomes these contributions and will continue to treat the questions raised by them with all the seriousness they deserve.
David N. HemptonOver the weekend and today there have been more and more articles on the story. Most of them simply repeat, summarize and comment on The Atlantic, Boston Globe and Live Science pieces, though there is a fresh piece from the Associated Press that is finding its way into several places, including The Guardian:
Dean, Harvard Divinity School
Jesus' Wife Papyrus Probably Fake, Say Experts
New evidence indicates the fragment in which Jesus refers to ‘my wife’ is likely to be a modern forgery
They interviewed me for this piece too, just after a Skype interview on CBN that is available here:
Debunking the Myth: Did Jesus Really Have a Wife?
Also today, the Boston Globe followed up its earlier article with a comment from Harvard Theological Review:
Harvard Theological Review won’t retract ‘Jesus’s Wife’ paper
. . . . Jon D. Levenson and Kevin J. Madigan, editors of the Harvard Theological Review, said in a statement Monday that their journal “has scrupulously and consistently avoided committing itself on the issue of the authenticity of the papyrus fragment.”
The editors say King’s article and the articles on scientific tests King commissioned on the fragment “were represented or misrepresented in some circles as establishing the authenticity of the fragment.” . . . .There have also been several comments in the blogs that are worth viewing. As well as Christian Askeland and Peter Gurry on Evangelical Textual Criticism, there is interesting commentary from Roberta Mazza on Faces & Voices, Carrie Schroeder on Early Christian Monasticism in the Digital Age (Provenance, Provenance, Provenance, More on Social Networks and Provenance, and On Kindness and Critique), Jim Davila on Paleojudaica, and Malcolm Choat on Markers of Authenticity. I have certainly missed others; please let me have any links that I should add.
I don't have much fresh to add, at this point, to what I've already said. Perhaps I will say more in due course. My overwhelming feeling at this point is a profound sadness about the whole affair. Yes, it's been fantastic to see scholars like Christian Askeland and Andrew Bernhard exposing the hoax so skilfully. And it is true that the twists and turns of the story over the last four years have made fascinating reading. But at the same time it's very sad that we have all spent so much time and energy on what, in the end, is someone's attempt to dupe the academy. We are all victims of this appalling episode.