The Gospel of Grondin’s Interlinear (The Papyrus Formerly Known as the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife”)

It may be time to redesignate the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” as the “Gospel of Grondin’s Interlinear.” A new development that it has taken me a couple of days to blog about, but which is still in time for the upcoming York Christian Apocrypha Symposium focused on “Fakes, Forgeries, and Fictions: Writing Ancient and Modern Christian Apocrypha.”

Mark Goodacre has two guest posts by Andrew Bernhard, and there is also a post by Christian Askeland on the ETC blog. The gist is that the “translation” of the text matches Mike Grondin’s online interlinear of the Gospel of Thomas, even where the Coptic text does not fit those English words, providing strong evidence that the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife was forged by someone who used that online resource.

What do others think? Shall we call it “The Gospel according to Mike Grondin’s Interlinear” from now on, rather than “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife”?

GJW Andrew Bernhard Grondin analysis

 

 

 

 

"As I blogged about. Do you not read what I write before commenting? I am ..."

88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will ..."
"The apostle Paulʼs predictions have proven as false as those of the Christians you mention: ..."

88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will ..."
"Tragic. Sorry to hear that. The "prophecy" delusionary obsession of so many religious leaders has ..."

88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will ..."
"I only noticed just recently that Paulkovich has published another edition of his book No ..."

Moss and Baden on the Lastest ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.markedwardsmart.com/ Mark Edward

    We should call it the ‘Jesus’ Wife Forgery’. Descriptive, but to the point.

  • Phil Ledgerwood

    This is almost enough to make me doubt the scholarly integrity of The DaVinci Code.

  • Ian

    The discussion is fascinating (as someone with no relevant expertise, at all).

    Andrew Bernhard’s Sep 5 post, however, I found to be totally unconvincing. Not that I think he’s wrong, just that this part of his argument seems very weak. In it he argues that the translator of the Fragment must have been involved in the forgery, and could not merely have copied the interlinear to make their translation, because.

    1. There’s a [sic] at the end of a line with a complex textual history. (Even though, the Fragment differs from the GThom manuscript at that point).

    2. Nobody would use an interlinear to base their translation from.

    #1 is entirely consistent with the (non-specialised) translator using the interlinear as a model, seeing that the word differs at that point, and whacking in a [sic] in case the meaning is different. #2 begs the question.

    The arguments that suggested the fragment was forged from GThom with knowledge of Prof Grondin’s interlinear seemed pretty slam dunk to me. This last post seemed like an attempt to gild the lily, and ending up coating it with gunk.

    But, to reiterate, I acknowledge my lack of knowledge here. I simply didn’t find the argument convincing.