New Assessment Argues Jesus’ Wife Text Is a Forgery, Updated 5/10/2014

Tyndale House in Cambridge has just posted an interview with Christian Askeland arguing the Jesus wife text is a forgery. Christian is a resident at the research library and has done detailed work in Egyptian Coptic Texts. Here is the link to the interview:,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=97&cntnt01returnid=15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Tyndale+News+May+2014+alternative&utm_content=Tyndale+News+May+2014+alternative+CID_23ff96ee4b7b2ac5a7daa18126d70f43&utm_source=CampaignMonitor&utm_term=You%20can%20read%20what%20he%20said%20here


In addition, there is a summary Christian has posted himself. This is the latest take on this text and there is good reason now to question whether the actual text is authentic. Here is Christian's own summary:


The key here is that another fragment (that is a Coptic version of John) in the Karen King collection that included the Jesus wife text also shows evidence of being a forgery, clearly being copied from a 1924 Coptic text. The ink and writing style of the Jesus wife text matches this text raising serious questions about its origin.

(5/8/2014 addition): Here is another recent summary of the discussion around the text dealing mostly with a chronological disconnect by Charlotte Allen in the Weekly Standard.

(5/10/14 addition): Finally, the New York Times has weighed in with this summary:

It expresses itself cautiously that the claims of a forgery have enough merit to be checked out, but that we still do not have a complete resolution. The burden for proof is in the court that argues the text is authentic. The text is looking less and less authentic.