text: Re: The "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" Expand Messages
  JVThanks for the link. the analysis was great. The biggest problem with the idea that GJW is from GT 101 and 114 is that line 1 matches GT101, but then 3&4
  Thanks for the link. the analysis was great. The biggest problem with the idea that GJW is from GT 101 and 114 is that line 1 matches GT101, but then 3&4 match 114??? If GJW is from GT there's a big hole in it. Because if it went left to right a long ways across multiple pages from 101 on line 1 to 114 on line 3, then line 4.
  It definitely matches the style of GT too much to write that off as a coicidence. As a minimum, it may have been influenced by GT. Or some might argue that GT drew from whatever GJW's source is. That issue needs more study.
  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Jgibson <jgibson000@...> wrote:
  > On 9/21/2012 11:38 AM, Roger wrote:
  > > Agreed. This is the most probable explanation of the text (insofar as > > we can tell from the fragment), but we cannot know for certain. Some > > articles discussing this text claim that it is unique and previously > > unknown, and that there are no other known fragments. Some articles > > also suggest or mention that this fragment is likely from a "gospel" > > text. Based on the location and initial dating of this fragment, this > > suggests that it /could be/ part of a previously unknown Gnostic > > gospel, but I would also suggest that this fragment /could also > > be/ part of a commentary, or sermon, or response, et al., which /may > > or may not/ use the word "wife" to mean the 'Bride of Christ'. The > > text (as we have it) lacks context, which means that Jesus' "wife" > > /could/ refer to the 'Bride of Christ' /or /to an actual (physical) > > wife. If this fragment is from a commentary, or sermon, or response, > > et al. (which is /less/ likely, but /is/ plausible in my opinion), > > then the author /may be/ responding to someone who has one or the > > other belief.