> And a longer piece about a forged first-century gospel from the same institution:
As a clarification to this comment, the article does not say that the fragment is a forgery; rather it says that the claims of its age were fraudulent, or at least misleading, and that the process by which it was obtained was likely criminal. (If it was stolen, I think it has been returned, since it's in the Egypt Exploration Society collection now.)
This is a different matter than the DSS fragments, which NatGeo says were created in modern times.
As a clarification to this comment, the article does not say that the fragment is a forgery; rather it says that the claims of its age were fraudulent, or at least misleading, and that the process by which it was obtained was likely criminal. (If it was stolen, I think it has been returned, since it's in the Egypt Exploration Society collection now.)
This is a different matter than the DSS fragments, which NatGeo says were created in modern times.