Since I’ve raised this forged fragment before, I thought I’d highlight a proposal one scholar has made for how a recent forgery might have been produced. I think this is fascinating reading! Dr. Andrew Bernhard has outlined how it was likely done. It seems the forger was dependent upon a specific version of the Gospel of Thomas, possibly even in an already published interlinear of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. For those of you who do not know what an interlinear is, an interlinear has a critical text in the original language, with word by word or phrase by phrase interpretations placed between the lines of the original language text. This would be similar to a forger using a Greek interlinear that your average priest/pastor might use, taking phrases directly from, say, the Gospel of Luke, and then trying to produce a forgery that made it look as though he had found another early fragment. Of course, fewer people know Coptic and Coptic interlinears, so perhaps the forger thought his/her chances of deception were higher. I must tell you, though, that that strikes me as such a gamble, as those who know Coptic, from my experience, are quite familiar with the world of published Coptic.
Anyhow, this blog post (from a well established academic, Dr. Mark Goodacre) highlights the main points and links to Dr. Berhard’s article:
A blessed weekend to everyone! I hope to turn to Erickson’s article on Slavophilism in American Orthodoxy on Monday or Tuesday. Really, it’s a good article and important to American Orthodox history, especially the history that intersects with the Russian Mission to North America.