In my last post, I noted that Peter Head pointed out that we have a forger active among us, who knows how to play to the predispositions of scholars.
I have just seen a very sound post by Roberta Mazza, discussing the supposed discovery of a bunch of interesting papyri from mummy cartonnage – papyrus reused to stuff the packing of mummies, and make up the coffins etc in the late period. No doubt cartonnage contains much of interest.
But Dr Mazza is absolutely right in pointing out that we have NO previous examples of New Testament papyri from mummy cartonage; and noting the rather confused reportage coming out of the Green collection.
These are very sound questions. Failure to see that the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” was too good to be true is what undid Karen King and Harvard.
A first century fragment of the New Testament? Exciting if true. But … too good to be true? Quite possibly. Particularly when we note that the recipient of the material is predisposed to believe that the material is genuine; just as the hapless Karen King was.
At the moment all we have is various bits of excited and not-too-knowledgeable comment from amateurs involved in helping in menial capacities. I think the Green collection are absolutely right to be open-access with their finds; indeed it is essential to bring all available talent to bear.
We have an enemy of learning active in the world at the moment, remember. Only a fool would neglect every precaution. Particularly when a find might be too good to be true.