The language used by the national media in reporting the story this time reveals the lack of confidence now placed in the fragment. The Boston Globe reported that the tests “have turned up no evidence of modern forgery,” but the reporter had to acknowledge that at least one of the scholars writing in the Harvard Theological Review insisted that the fragment is not only a forgery, but an amateurish effort. The New York Times ran a story that featured a headline announcing that the fragment “is more likely ancient than fake.” Note the uncertainty evident even in the headline.
In her major article released last week, Professor King defended the fragment’s authenticity, but acknowledged that ”” all previous sensationalism aside ”” “It is not entirely clear, however, how many women are referred to [in the fragment], who they are, precisely what is being said about them, or what larger issues are under consideration.”
This is a very different message than was sent back in 2012. Professor King now acknowledges that all the references to females in the fragment might be “deployed metaphorically as figures of the Church, or heavenly Wisdom, or symbolically/typologically as brides of Christ or even mothers.” In other words, the fragment might not even conflict with Christian orthodoxy.
As a Holy Week aside, Leo Depuydt, the scholar convinced that the fragment is a forgery, is an advocate of the date of March 18, 29 AD as the date of the Crucifixion. This is based on the tradition of the church, a careful analysis of the astronomical data and an analysis of early texts. The dates of 30 or 33 are so popular now that it is often forgotten that the overwhelming tradition of the church until the twentieth century favored 29.
The MSM are having their annual *outrage* that new ideas (such as what Professor King has claimed- i.e. that Jesus was married) are not being lovingly accepted and affirmed by Christians. Please read carefully and do not miss his basic claim which is that yes the Christian Church has denounced certain old texts as heretical. In fact, Christians have been battling heresy since the time of Apostle Paul. The best sentence in the entire article:
There is the crux of the article. It is not that current biblical scholars think this fragment is genuine (most do not) it is the MSM that presents the ideas of a few as representing ALL current biblical scholars. This is the last sentence:
Actually this tells us more about the MSM and their distortion of what current biblical scholars have concluded by accepting as representative the conclusions of a few scholars while ignoring the many scholars who have concluded that the fragment is not as nearly old as some suggest and that it contains nothing that overturns orthodox Christian belief.