Gender in Biblical Studies after the Forgery of The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife
The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife (GJW) was announced in 2012, but was effectively declared “dead” in June 2016 when it was shown beyond doubt to be a modern forgery. This article, rather than discussing the content or authenticity of GJW, considers the role of gender in scholarly discourse on GJW. While c...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2018
|
| In: |
Biblical interpretation
Year: 2018, Volume: 26, Issue: 3, Pages: 391-412 |
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament |
| Further subjects: | B
Feminist exegesis
B Apocrypha B New Testament B Life of Jesus research |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife (GJW) was announced in 2012, but was effectively declared “dead” in June 2016 when it was shown beyond doubt to be a modern forgery. This article, rather than discussing the content or authenticity of GJW, considers the role of gender in scholarly discourse on GJW. While conversation about GJW began as one would expect for a newly announced Gospel fragment, its subtext soon evinced preoccupations with gender in the field of biblical studies. Particularly troubling was the sexist intonation of scholarly discourse, which came to associate GJW and its advocates with “hyperfeminism” and deemed the fragment’s owner’s spouse an “eccentric wife.” This article is an effort to both describe the texture of scholarly discourse as well as identify factors contributing to the sexist discussion that ensued. These problems are representative of pervasive issues that are often ignored in the field of biblical studies. |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | Online-Ressource |
| ISSN: | 1568-5152 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Biblical interpretation
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15685152-00263P06 |