Skip to comments.Papyrus Referring to Jesusí Wife Is More Likely Ancient Than Fake, Scientists Say
Posted on 04/10/2014 1:54:14 PM PDT by mojito
A faded fragment of papyrus known as the Gospel of Jesuss 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Actually, although I'm not an expert on ancient papyrii, I believe that the text will be found to read not "Jesus said to them ""My wife....""; but rather, "Jesus said the them, ""My lesbian wife...."
And I was told this by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I swear.
It could just be a really old blasphemy
Wow, you would think Easter was coming up soon or something.
An ancient forgery, not a modern forgery. Truth has a hard time surviving at Harvard.
Anything to spread doubt and misleading information, thats for sure.
The fragment was dated to the 4th to 8th century, so it could very well be some wild gnostic nonsense of the time, rather than the gnostic nonsense of today. However, and science notwithstanding, I still suspect the later.
An Ancient Fake
‘Jesus’ (Yeshu or Yeshua see Chronicles II 31:15) was a common name in those days.
Many people were named Jesus.
One is a work of fiction, created by men with a political agenda, and unsubstantiated by facts.
The other is The Word of God.
Written by a crack-pot. There have always been crack-pots and will always be crack-pots. This was written a long time ago by a crack-pot.
“Jesus didn’t really exist, wasn’t really crucified, wasn’t resurrected, but He had a wife...” < /liberal left >
Any Bible scholars or practicing Jews: Wouldn’t a rabbi have to have a wife to be taken seriously, or am I misunderstanding the practices back then?
Is there anything in this new papyrus about Jesus leaving the seat down or not taking out the garbage?
Knocking the Catholic religion seems to be common before Easter and Christmas. The gnostic gospels were thrown out because they were about 200-300 years after Jesus. So they were ancient, but it would be like me writing George Washington’s ‘autobiography’.
Why don’t scientists ever discount the tale of Mohammed riding into Heaven on horseback as Islamist holidays approach?
Ancient fake instead of a modern fake.
Much like the Southwest USA.
A God of heft: Lecturer says Americans too often pray to gain the unimportant (Mr. Obama’s pastor)
Also time for the yearly classic Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God lie.
I get it. Nicely played.
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.
What do you mean the Catholic religion?
My understanding, limited as it is, is that rabbis have an obligation to marry.
Many of the books were eliminated at the Council of Nicea and later ones, IIRC.
― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Exactly. There were plenty of heretical “gospels” floating around back then, in the first few centuries after Christ.
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”!)
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?
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.
Why would it matter?
Odd how they don't include the option that it could be ancient and fake! Because we all know that there weren't any people faking things until Al Gore and Climate scientists. But the most important reason to accept what this clown says is because he's a SCIENTIST! Hell he couldn't possibly be wrong.
Rabbis did not exist until after the 2nd century Jewish diaspora.
Perhaps even if this is a true historical record it is actually talking about the Church?
I do believe that a great deal of it is a result of man's connection to God at some points throughout history. However, until we find a version that undoubtedly could not have been man-made, we should treat it as objectively as any other work.
Daniel Ratericus narrat: Falsum sed accuratum.
I think that, just like today, it was probably customary.
Now, Jesus was called “rabbi”, but that seems to have been a title of respect and not a formal job title. He wasn’t, for example, attached to a particular synagogue, and he didn’t receive formal training under other rabbis, as would have been the custom. So, I don’t think it would be surprising if he didn’t conform to the customs of rabbis in other ways.
Because Muslims will kill them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.