A few developments since our last post on the subject (The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife ~ A Rogueclassicist Perspective):
Mark Goodacre has augmented Francis Watson’s culled-from-Thomas suggestion by demonstrating that the final line was also from Thomas untimely ripped:
Currently burning through the blogosphere is a reliably-sourced mention that Harvard Theological Review is no longer publishing Dr King’s article:
… one wonders if the Smithsonian will still go through with their piece.
We should note that there remain folks who cling to the view that it is genuine, despite all this:
FWIW, as Steve Caruso note in his post on this early on, Dr. King is to be praised for at least presenting this at a scholarly conference rather than going straight to the media with it. But the more one stares at that fragment, the more one thinks that it really should have undergone more tests before being hyped like it was. When one side could barely be read — even with infrared photography — and the other side was pretty much clear as day, alarm bells should have gone off.
rogueclassicism 