posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 08:04 AM
a reply to: the2ofusr1
Alright, I just finished the article. It was a lengthy, yet interesting read. I am accustomed to narratives of fact, interpretation, and speculation,
but rarely have I read investigative journalism focused on manuscript provenance. It seemed like a heck of an adventure for the writer.
Based upon the investigative revelations of Ariel Sabar and supplemental academic analyses, it would appear as though, "The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife",
is a well perpetrated forgery. My sympathies go out to Professor Karen L. King for staking her career's reputation upon this manuscript.
I agree that there is indeed a larger narrative here with many vested ideological/political interests. I tend to steer clear of Dan Brown and any
conspiracy theories related to his works. I take the man's works as an entertainment, not revisionist.
I can see how the, "Gospel of Philip", can be pieced into this larger, speculative narration. However, unlike the, "Gospel of Jesus' Wife",... the
"Gospel of Philip" was archeologically recovered along with the other manuscripts of the Nag Hammadi Library. Even then, as this Gospel seems to be a
one-off, I take it as an intellectual curiosity, rather than "Gospel Truth" (pun definitely intended
edit on 2/14/17 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)