The way you want to end this small discussion with Irish is not so slightly reminiscent of the way that King wants to leave the entire affairPeter Kirby wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 7:01 pmWhy should I invest any more time in this?
The fragment is a fake, and King was not a fraud. Done and done. Maybe we should just move on.
You are clearly offended by King being labelled a fraud, but instead of debunking the statement, you want to shrug off the incident here - and that, to say the least, is out of the ordinary
I really don't like using Wikipedia as a source but it usually is within the ballpark. And it says this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_ ... ic_testing
Scientific testing
Though two out of the three peer reviewers consulted by the Harvard Theological Review in mid-2012 believed that the papyrus was a probable fake, King declined to carry out scientific testing of the fragment before going public, in September 2012, at the academic conference in Rome. The omission of laboratory testing was a departure from customary practice for blockbuster manuscript finds, most recently the Gospel of Judas, which had undergone a battery of tests before National Geographic announced it in 2006.
King commissioned the first laboratory tests of the Jesus' Wife papyrus only after her 2012 announcement, amid sharp doubts about the authenticity from leading experts in Coptic language, early Christian manuscripts, and paleography. A radiocarbon dating analysis of the papyrus by Harvard University and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found a mean date of AD 741.[33] This early medieval date upended King's and Bagnall's claims that the papyrus likely dated to the fourth century AD.Though King sought to claim that the eighth-century radiocarbon date was still evidence of probable authenticity, the date was historically problematic: By the eighth century AD, Egypt was in the early Islamic era and Coptic Christianity was orthodox, making it unclear why anyone in that period would be copying a previously unknown "heretical" text about a married Jesus. A Raman spectroscopy analysis at Columbia University found that the ink was carbon-based and in some respects consistent with inks on papyri in the Columbia library dating from 400 BC to AD 700–800. But more advanced, subsequent testing of the ink by the Columbia team would find similarities to modern inks and differences from genuinely ancient ones.
In a presentation at the Society of Biblical Literature's annual conference in San Antonio, Texas, in November 2016, the Columbia scientific team would declare its findings about the Gospel of Jesus' Wife "consistent with manuscript as forgery."[34] Taken together, the various scientific findings are consistent with the scholarly community's prevailing theory that a modern forger took a blank scrap of old papyrus and wrote the Gospel of Jesus' Wife text on top of it, using a simple, carbon-based ink as easy to make today as it was in antiquity. In his 2020 book Veritas, Ariel Sabar reported that two of the lead scientists King had commissioned to make the case for authenticity had no prior experience with archaeological objects and that both of the scientists had undisclosed conflicts of interest: one was a family friend of King's from childhood, the other the brother-in-law of the only other senior scholar to initially believe the papyrus was authentic. Those interpersonal relationships weren't disclosed to the public or to the editors of the Harvard Theological Review, which published the scientific reports in April 2014.[35]
The footnote 35 is from Sabar 2020
I am unfamiliar with the part in yellow highlight, and very much doubt it. No footnotes to it either
This section was modified November 16, 2020 and this last piece in bold got added, among others. If it's correct, then so is Irish
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special ... /989033186