I expect many of us have watched the story of a papyrus fragment purporting to reveal that Jesus had a wife.\u00a0 Coptologist Christian Askeland discovered clear proof of forgery, thanks to a bit of carelessness by the forger, and the story is now history.<\/p>\n
Peter Head has an article here<\/a> which is so useful that I will file it on my hard disk: Pseudo-Gospel of Jesus Wife as Case Study<\/a>.<\/p>\n He asks the sensible question: now that we have evidence of a forgery which passed the science lab tests, what can we learn for next time?<\/p>\n The article is full of good points, but the first paragraph makes an unusual, and very interesting point (I have over-paragraphed it):<\/p>\n It is possible for a forger to get hold of papyri, mix ink according to ancient conventions, compose a semi-plausible pastiche of a text, and mislead scholars, academic institutions, the media, and the public. Exactly what he (or she) hoped to gain from it is not clear, but if it was simply mischief, then he has probably far exceeded his wildest dreams.<\/p>\n Given this possibility it is important that if someone approaches you with an unpublished text which meshes in with your own academic interests, then critical skepticism rather than credulity should control your responses.<\/strong> Nothing is innocent until proven guilty in this scenario.<\/p>\n Also the forger will target a scholar who he thinks is persuadable, not a manuscript expert, and who has wider credibility to make the discovery known (remember that in this case Prof King at first didn’t respond to the invitation, but the forger didn’t go to some other scholar, he waited a year and then went back to reel in Prof King).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In patristics, fortunately, there is no money to be made.\u00a0 If someone turned up with “fragments” of Marcion’s Antitheses<\/em> or a lost work by Justin Martyr, it is unlikely that it would atttract attention.<\/p>\n But one point is clear: we have a capable and determined forger out there, who is aware of what tests are likely to be applied, and how to fool them.<\/p>\n What can we tell about the forger?<\/p>\n The motive was probably money; to create a sensation and then monetize it, as they say in the computer games industry.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I infer, therefore, that this is not a rich man.<\/p>\n This text acquired quite a following.\u00a0 It nearly worked.\u00a0 So I think we must expect more attempts at forgery.<\/p>\n In this light, I do hope Harvard involve the police.\u00a0 This was an audacious fraud, and if it had succeeded would have garnered the author some real money, in sales,and with film rights, etc.\u00a0 It would be very useful to have the author behind bars where he can do no more harm.<\/p>\n\n
\n