Codex Escalada

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5402
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Codex Escalada

Post by Peter Kirby » Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:18 am

The disputed text has several parallels to the "Gospel of Jesus Wife."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Escalada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife

(1) Both were privately tendered directly to a scholar who was calculated to be sympathetic (Father Escalada, Karen King).

(2) Both addressed relevant current-day concerns (existence of Juan Diego, Jesus' wife speculations) and are otherwise nothing new.

(3) Both are on a single page of material that is demonstrably old
(3)(a) It's easier to get hold of a single page to use as a canvas
(3)(b) It takes less work to finish the fraud
(3)(c) There is less chance of making an inadvertent error in a smaller text

(4) Both have implausibilities and unlikely coincidences for authenticity (of a non-physical-test sort)

Given that the review process for authenticating finds is well-known, to the extent that some characteristic signs of authenticity can be faked (like using an old parchment), many tests may only prove consistency either with authenticity or with fraud. I wonder how many other frauds like this are out there.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

klewis
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: Codex Escalada

Post by klewis » Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:19 am

I remember reading on Bart Ehrman's blog about the Gospel of Jesus' wife a few days later. It was amazing how quickly the were able to date when it was forged, based upon the exact copy of a critical text.

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1804
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Codex Escalada

Post by andrewcriddle » Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:00 am

It is possible that the 1548 date on the manuscript is a later addition. The manuscript may be authentic in the sense of a genuine 16th century witness to the Marian apparitions, but date from the late 16th century rather than the mid 16th century.

Andrew Criddle

Post Reply