Out of Date? Indifferent? What?
Checking this a.m., I was surprised and disappointed to find that the web page on the Jesus’ Wife fragment on the Harvard Divinity School site (last updated March 2014) here simply re-asserts the claims that Professor King made in the 2014 Harvard Theological Review issue in which certain physical tests of the papyrus and ink were reported. There is no mention of the several weighty judgements by various specialists in Coptic (e.g., Stephen Emmel), and in related matters (e.g., Christopher Jones, Christian Askeland, Francis Watson) that the item is inauthentic.
It is a very curious situation. Wouldn’t one expect of a highly prestigious university that the scholarly discussion of the matter would be kept up to date, that scholarly work pro and con would be reported, and that an accurate picture of critical opinion would be given? Given the obvious expenditure of time and effort to set up this page on the fragment, why the apparent neglect of it and of the scholarly discussion that has ensued?
It means that one cannot view the HDS page/site as at all an accurate representation of the scholarly process or results on this matter. As I say, surprising and disappointing.
LATE BREAKING NEWS: Professor King is reported as conceding that the evidence now points to the Jesus’ wife fragment being a fake, as stated here.