Skip to comments.The "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" Is Most Likely Not a Modern Fake
Posted on 04/11/2014 6:35:46 AM PDT by Renfield
In 2012, Harvard researcher Karen King revealed the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife."
A small piece of papyrus, the lightly worn document was written in Coptic Egyptian, with parts missing and ink faded, and didn't say much. But what it did say, wrote Ariel Sabar in Smithsonian Magazine two years ago was enough to “send jolts through the world of biblical scholarship—and beyond.”
The fragment’s 33 words, scattered across 14 incomplete lines, leave a good deal to interpretation. But in King’s analysis, and as she argues in a forthcoming article in the Harvard Theological Review, the “wife” Jesus refers to is probably Mary Magdalene, and Jesus appears to be defending her against someone, perhaps one of the male disciples.
“She will be able to be my disciple,” Jesus replies. Then, two lines later, he says: “I dwell with her.”
The papyrus was a stunner: the first and only known text from antiquity to depict a married Jesus.
The new document had a curious past. It was given to King by an anonymous source, and, as Sabar notes, some pieces of the papyrus' history seemed a little too convenient. It didn't take long for the suggestion that the new gospel was a forgery to arise. (Indeed, the possibility was a reservation of King's.)
According to new research, however, scientists are now largely certain that the document is a true piece of early text, and not a modern forgery. Spectroscopic analysis of the ink, says the New York Times, revealed the text was from thousands of years ago.....
(Excerpt) Read more at smithsonianmag.com ...
Could be an ancient fake...
Just an old fake.
What idiots! EIGHTH century. EGYPTIAN. Figure it out folks: it’s Muslim.
Based on what? I think this "expert" King is injecting some wishful thinking on her part.
Basically irrelevant, none of Jesus’ works depended on him being single...
The Koran could be considered ancient too. So are the gnostics like the book of Thomas, the book or Judas, the book of Mary, etc.
That doesn’t mean I believe any of them.
Sure it could be ancient. So were many of the false gospels that were never adopted by the Church.
Jesus' wife? Ludicrous.
anyone else remember when James Cameron found the tomb\body of Jesus during Holy Week?
Neither was the “Donation of Constantine”. Age doesn’t impart honor to anything but wine and whiskey. Well, there may be a few exceptions to that.
What was frustrating is that I can’t find a complete translation. Unless it specifies “wife” what it may refer to is the bond Jesus had with his mother. She was his first disciple. She knew before Cana and in fact at the Annunciation that this person was/is the Son of God.
Possible—the hint that Jesus was married has been out there for a long time. BUT in truth, does it change the Message of Jesus? Not one bit. People who focus on this or his Virgin Birth are forgetting his message and life. As a wise old monk told me once—”Jesus didn’t die for you—he lived for you.”
Between the sixth and ninth centuries, allegedly. Still makes it hundreds of years newer than the earliest manuscripts of the Canonical Gospels. If it dates from that time period, I would conclude it is a Gnostic document, and therefore doesn’t come from an early and authentic tradition.
99% of Muslims were illiterate in those centuries. Their alphabet was "invented" only to put the Koran in writing.
Since they lived in deserts there were no trees for writing materials or sources for papyrus.
I also don't think it was Muslim either because they were simply too backward to produce something like this papyrus.
I like cheese.
Amazing amount of past tense in your post about muslim stupidity... ;)
He lived to tell us how to live.
Two thousand year old fan fiction?
I've read that a woman who serves Christ, such as a nun, for example, are sometimes called a "bride of Christ" or "His spouse" and similar such terms that reflect true Holy matrimony with God, rather than a worldly marriage.
Assuming this artifact is real, why assume a human worldly understanding when He used analogy and metaphor to describe and to help us to understand what He was teaching?
Perhaps this, if not a hoax, is an example of where we have eyes but do not see, ears but do not understand? Our ways are not His ways or so I've read.
send jolts through the world of biblical scholarshipand beyond.
Jolts? More likely yawns.
Now we have the fifth-column (hell-spawned) media dragging this old 2012 story back out to pollute any coverage of the Passion of Christ, along with propaganda suggesting that Jesus ordained Mary Magdalene as a Apostle.
Proverbs 26:11 comes to mind.
I’m SURE there were enough literate Muslims to write down their version of Jesus.
My husband and I lived in Saudi Arabia when he worked as an engineer there. I also worked four of the five years we were there, with 30 Saudis, two Indians, one Pakistani, one WONDERFUL American woman and one MOST annoying American woman.
FIRST HAND point of view...but it was YEARS ago. Some things are impossible to forget.
Hard to imagine Mary letting her good Jewish boy go unmarried.
The age of the fake is irrelevant.
The Gnostics had LOTS of fake writings.
old monk told me onceJesus didnt die for youhe lived for you.
But God commends his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
And since the resurrection, Christ LIVES FOR US, being our advocate(defense lawyer) before the Father.
You were probably right to call your “wise old monk, OLD”!
Note how quickly academia will claim such items to be proof, while they simultaneously reject the truth of the entire Bible.
oh! I had a handful of jobs (only about a month at a time) in Yanbu in the 90s, so I do feel bad for you - being a woman, and an infidel woman to boot, in Saudi Arabia is not much fun.
Hey - who wouldn’t want to keep a good carpenter around the house?
Oh this again...
It rears its head every now and then.
Though she probably really wanted him to be a doctor or accountant.
Did the wise old monk point out to you that it is not an "either...or" proposition but a "both...and"?
"Jesus didn't only die for you-he lived (lives) for you, too."
Sometimes you hear it asked, "What difference does it make if Jesus were married or not?" There's a lot of things you can say to that, but it boils down to truth. There is no evidence, biblical or otherwise telling us Jesus was married--an important detail of his life if it was so.
Jesus didnt die for youhe lived for you.
I would say he did both!
The early church had many groups trying to hijack what Christianity was and meant. Several of these groups were fascinated with redefining who and what Jesus was to fit into their belief system they were developing. Most of these groups were the people that the New Testament was warning the early first century church to beware of their teachings and in some cases were kicked out of the church by the apostles.
So in modern times, when they dig up one of the writings of one of these groups it immediately trumps the gospels and New Testament because it satisfies the current desire to redefine Christianity and Jesus by the secular left. They always fail to mention that these new findings come from the opposition camp of early Christianity and usually spin it like it was lost information that the guys in the first century just were not aware of and did not publish in the Bible.
Reporters should not be expected to be epigraphers, but they should be expected to be proficient in 4th grade math.
Highly doubtful. It’s not an Arabic text.
Arabic text didn’t come the exclusive language of Islam until after the 8th century.
Anybody know the whereabouts of Dan Rather in and around AD 100?
The Koran wasn’t even codified until the 8th century well after the death of Momo.
They dutifully reported the importance he felt women were in his ministry. They just thought that was an error. When they were reporting on Jesus' life, therefore, it stands to reason they would omit his wife, just air brush her from the picture. They must have been right, too, because they all did it. Since they represent 100% of the evangelists of The Good News, it's a settled view.
What the heck, the synoptic gospels were written so soon after Jesus' death that those evangelists would know as first hand eye witnesses that Mrs. Christ had to be expunged if Jesus' life was to have the proper impact. And God knows Jesus certainly would be clueless on impacts and invitations and vocations.
John came along so far down the road that he was probably senile when he wrote his. Nevertheless, some of his writings have convinced me that Jesus thought there was hope for salvation for even such as me i.e. John wrote his for me, personally.
Maybe we can get The Good Book fixed in the next edition.
The Koran wasnt even codified until the 8th century well after the death of Momo.
Yes. I know. mohamMadMan was illiterate so he certainly didn’t write it.
My point was that the koran could be considered ancient. It means little to me just like the gnostics and these new ancient documents.