> such as... well... a lot of stuff in this article
Can you elaborate on some of these things and provide some reasoning as to why they are markers of inauthenticity?
Can you elaborate on some of these things and provide some reasoning as to why they are markers of inauthenticity?
The short answer is, the manuscript has no traceable history, seems to have come from someone with motive to create a forgery whose story is inconsistent, was presented along with a forged papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, and is physically questionable -- the handwriting, shape of the piece of paper (probably cut recently), the quality of the ink, and even the grammar are suspect. It has some grammatical weirdness that appears in a particular, modern, translation of the Gospel of Thomas and nowhere else.