Papyrus Referring to Jesus’ Wife Is More Likely Ancient Than Fake, Scientists Say

NY Slimes ^ | 4/10/2014 | Laurie Goodstein

[mojito]

A faded fragment of papyrus known as the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife,” which caused an uproar when unveiled by a Harvard Divinity School historian in 2012, has been tested by scientists who conclude in a journal published on Thursday that the ink and papyrus are very likely ancient, and not a modern forgery.

Skepticism about the tiny scrap of papyrus has been fierce because it contained a phrase never before seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife...’ ” Too convenient for some, it also contained the words “she will be able to be my disciple,” a clause that inflamed the debate in some churches over whether women should be allowed to be priests.

The papyrus fragment has now been analyzed by professors of electrical engineering, chemistry and biology at Columbia University, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who reported that it resembles other ancient papyri from the fourth to the eighth centuries. (Scientists at the University of Arizona, who dated the fragment to centuries before the birth of Jesus, concluded that their results were unreliable.)

The test results do not prove that Jesus had a wife or disciples who were women, only that the fragment is more likely a snippet from an ancient manuscript than a fake, the scholars agree.

[a fool in paradise]

Why don’t scientists ever discount the tale of Mohammed riding into Heaven on horseback as Islamist holidays approach?

[Ingtar]

Ancient fake instead of a modern fake.

[originalbuckeye]

Much like the Southwest USA.

[2ndDivisionVet]

A God of heft: Lecturer says Americans too often pray to gain the unimportant (Mr. Obama’s pastor)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3142702/posts

[DManA]

You're right. As much an Easter tradition as coloring eggs.

Also time for the yearly classic “Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God” lie.

[DManA]

I get it. Nicely played.

[Gaffer]

I heard this on the radio today coming home from work. I thought about it and said to myself “if this is true, what harm is there in a man, even a son of God, to know the normal ebb and flow of life, even that between a husband and a wife?”

I do think this science and this discovery might be propped up those with darker ulterior motives and their reasons may be myriad. But, it still wouldn’t change my thoughts and feelings regarding Jesus and what we know about him through historical resources, more specifically through the bible in all its forms.

Frankly, I just don’t understand the point of it all, myself.

[DManA]

What do you mean the Catholic religion?

[mojito]

My understanding, limited as it is, is that rabbis have an obligation to marry.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Many of the books were eliminated at the Council of Nicea and later ones, IIRC.

[Resettozero]

‘Jesus’ (Yeshu or Yeshua see Chronicles II 31:15) was a common name in those days.

Probably doesn't refer to Him.

[2ndDivisionVet]

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

[Boogieman]

Exactly. There were plenty of heretical “gospels” floating around back then, in the first few centuries after Christ.

[paladinan]

Oh, for crying out loud...! Is it that time of year, again?

Does anyone not living under a rock (and especially after the execrable book/movie/cash-cow “The DaVinci Code”) really fail to remember that the Gnostic “Gospel of Judas” and “Gospel of Thomas” both portray Jesus having a “relationship” with Mary Magdalene?

(Irony, especially for the feminist lovers of “The DaVinci Code”: the “Gospel of Thomas” says that Jesus will “turn Mary Magdalene into a man, so that she may attain salvation, since women are not fit for eternal life”!)

[DManA]

I’m not aware of any dogma held by Traditional Christians (excluding anything that might be unique to Roman Catholics) that requires Jesus have never married. But since there is zero evidence that he did why even go there?

[soycd]

It all comes down to what one believes to be true. There are a lot of writings from long ago that have been deciphered and rewritten over time. Sometimes you just have to pick the ones you believe to be true and take it on faith.

The people that wrote ancient words are not here to defend or prove them to be true.