Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Gospel of Jesus's Wife' likely isn't a modern forgery, scientists claim
The Verge ^ | April 10, 2014 | Amar Toor

Posted on 04/10/2014 9:44:11 AM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy

A controversial document that suggests that Jesus of Nazareth had a wife is most likely ancient and not a modern forgery, according to a paper published today in the Harvard Theological Review. The papyrus fragment, known as the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife," has been the subject of widespread debate since it was discovered in 2012 because it includes the phrase "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'." It also mentions that "she will be able to be my disciple," which led some to question whether women should be allowed to become Catholic priests.

The Vatican has previously said that the document is most likely a modern forgery, but scientists from Columbia University, Harvard, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology say their analysis strongly suggests that it is indeed part of an ancient manuscript and that it wasn't edited or tampered with. The researchers used micro-Raman and infrared spectroscopy to analyze the composition of the ink, looking for clues as to whether it may have been applied after the original document was damaged.

(Excerpt) Read more at theverge.com ...


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: arielsabar; epigraphyandlanguage; faithandphilosophy; godsgravesglyphs; gospelofjesuswife; harvard; hewasarabbi; jamescameron; jamesossuary; jesustomb; jesuswife; karenking; letshavejerusalem; losttombofjesus; mariame; mariamne; marymagdalene; ntapocrypha; ntpseudepigrapha; rabbismarry; sectarianturmoil; simchajacobovici; talpiot; talpiottomb; veritas; weddingatcana
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: 17th Miss Regt
"ancient"

I think when most people hear the word "ancient" applied to a document referencing Jesus, they assume that the document in question dates to the time of Jesus or shortly thereafter. However, this "ancient" document is dated to 600-900 A.D., centuries after the canonical New Testament texts were written.

An aside: I misspelled "Jesus" as "Jeses" and spellcheck offered "Jesse" and "Jess" as alternate spellings, but not "Jesus". I found that very interesting. It had no trouble with "Beync", offering Beyoncé, complete with the accent, as an alternative. Welcome to the post-modern world.
21 posted on 04/10/2014 10:11:47 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt

Simple answer: it’s an ancient forgery.


Yep.


22 posted on 04/10/2014 10:13:16 AM PDT by pax_et_bonum (Never Forget the Seals of Extortion 17 - and God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RushIsMyTeddyBear
They ALWAYS come out with crap EVERY Easter. Like clockwork.

Why do they bother at Easter, they already have the Bunny?

/s

I detest the "Easter Bunny", egg hunts, etc. If you want to have a Spring Mega-Colossal-Candy-Sales Season, fine. If the kiddies want to run around the yard looking for hidden goodies, fine. [unless Michelle objects]

Just don't profane the remembrance of the most sacred event in human history.

23 posted on 04/10/2014 10:14:44 AM PDT by BwanaNdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BwanaNdege

side issue: Went to mall to wok last night. They had an easter bunny set up, ala santa claus. I asked what kids say to the easter bunny. Apparently they ask for toys in their easter baskets. I am so out of touch.


24 posted on 04/10/2014 10:16:46 AM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

To finish my thought, the document might more accurately have been described as “early Medieval,” but that certainly has a less-compelling ring than “ancient.”


25 posted on 04/10/2014 10:17:36 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

to walk


26 posted on 04/10/2014 10:17:39 AM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy
The Harvard Theological Review is also publishing a rebuttal to King's findings today, authored by Brown University professor Leo Depuydt. Depuydt maintains that there was never any need to conduct tests on the fragment, because it includes "gross grammatical errors" and its text matches writings from another early Christian text discovered in 1945. According to him, the document is so blatantly fake that it "seems ripe for a Monty Python sketch." Depuydt also dismissed King's claims that the fragment's ink doesn't match the carbon inks used today, telling the New York Times: "An undergraduate student with one semester of Coptic can make a reed pen and start drawing lines."

Well there you have it...Why then publish an article on an already refuted document. A document no less they dated to over 600-900 years after Christ's death and resurrection.

27 posted on 04/10/2014 10:20:28 AM PDT by redleghunter (But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

There were also many false messiahs.


28 posted on 04/10/2014 10:21:12 AM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy

It is that time of year again...

Whether Jesus had a wife or not does not diminish his divinity to me-he has been my Lord and Savior since I was old enough to recite the Lord’s prayer and say a rosary...


29 posted on 04/10/2014 10:22:22 AM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Yep.


30 posted on 04/10/2014 10:22:36 AM PDT by redleghunter (But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy

The best I can say is....
Jewish rabbis were/are expected to be married....and at least age 30 (the age Jesus started his teaching...)

and Jewish men were/are expected to be married by age 30 anyway....

but there are always exceptions.

The canonical scriptures do not tell us Jesus wasn’t married. The argument has always been made that they would have noted this (given they noted several other objections to what Jesus was doing or saying), had he not been married.
But of course this is a traditional “argument from silence” and so we have to be careful using it.

One can ask what difference would it make to today’s received Christan faith. I, personally, doubt it would make very much difference — the faith and the faith message would remain the same.

It does serve to get some folks very excited, however.

One possibly positive point... at least this article helps counter the “Gospel of Secret Mark” argument that Jesus “was homosexual!”

Be thankful for small favors?


31 posted on 04/10/2014 10:25:56 AM PDT by faithhopecharity ((Brilliant, Profound Tag Line Goes Here, just as soon as I can think of one..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter
"Well there you have it...Why then publish an article on an already refuted document. A document no less they dated to over 600-900 years after Christ's death and resurrection."

As a couple of others pointed out, it's because the press cannot allow Easter to pass without administering its annual dose of skepticism and doubt. Unlike Ramadan, "the sacred month of Islam," when the press becomes dutifully reverential.
32 posted on 04/10/2014 10:26:31 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pax_et_bonum

Sort of like the Gospel of Judas.


33 posted on 04/10/2014 10:27:39 AM PDT by NKP_Vet ("It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died;we should thank God that such men lived" ~ Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy
The researchers dated the fragment to between the sixth and ninth century AD, noting that it bears a strong resemblance to other texts from that era.

Jesus was crucified about 33 AD. This is about 700 years later. In other words, it is complete fiction that was made up out of thin air.

It's a lot like me making up a George Washington quote today and trying to get people to believe Washington said it.

Did you know that George Washington said, "I believe in the War on Drugs."?

There you have it....down in black and white. Must mean it's true.

34 posted on 04/10/2014 10:27:48 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy

Even if it was original does not mean its true.

Jesus said many shall come in my name and deceive many.

There were many false followers in the days of the apostles.


35 posted on 04/10/2014 10:28:44 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
Unlike Ramadan, "the sacred month of Islam," when the press becomes dutifully reverential.

Of course they have to be reverent. If not Achmed the Dead Terrorist will Keeeeeeel them.

36 posted on 04/10/2014 10:36:37 AM PDT by redleghunter (But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Sort of like the Gospel of Judas.


Could be - it sounds faintly familiar but I know nothing about it.


37 posted on 04/10/2014 10:40:06 AM PDT by pax_et_bonum (Never Forget the Seals of Extortion 17 - and God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

Yep, similarly just because Gnosticism is quite old, doesn’t make it true.


38 posted on 04/10/2014 10:49:01 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy

AS a Deist, I’m looking at this issue from a neutral position. I’m not clear on how it would matter or destroy the Christian faith if Jesus WAS married.

First of all, such a finding would end all the speculative theories by the gay community that Jesus was gay.

Second, it could give a religious imprimatur to traditional marriage.

Third, it would show the aspect of Jesus as a part of our common humanity.

Fourth, it could change the attitude of some religions such as Catholicism toward the marriage of priests. After all, this was a tradition started by later Christians, not as a commandment from Jesus.

Granted this would be a great change in the common tradition of the Christian sects, but a true religion should be able to overcome change with faith that the truth is more liberating and exciting than a mistake.


39 posted on 04/10/2014 11:14:58 AM PDT by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildbill

“First of all, such a finding would end all the speculative theories by the gay community that Jesus was gay.

Second, it could give a religious imprimatur to traditional marriage.

Third, it would show the aspect of Jesus as a part of our common humanity.

Fourth, it could change the attitude of some religions such as Catholicism toward the marriage of priests. After all, this was a tradition started by later Christians, not as a commandment from Jesus”

1. Plenty of homosexual men live double lives. Happily married and at the same time carrying on homosexual affairs. This is how AIDs was transmitted to women. Homosexual activists, if Jesus was proven to had been married, would still whisper that he was secretly homosexual because he ran around with men all the time.

2. The Bible is very specific about what constitues a marriage and the the purpose of marriage. A “married” Jesus would not change anything about the sacrament of marriage.

3. Jesus was fully human when he walked this earth. Whether single or married, he shared everything humans share in their day to say existence. Plenty of men never get married and not homosexual.

4. Catholic priests were married for the first thousand years of the Church. The requirement of priests not being married is not a doctrine of the church and could change.
And priests are married, they are married to the Church. But like I said, the Pope could change this with the stroke of a pen if he so liked.


40 posted on 04/10/2014 1:33:42 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died;we should thank God that such men lived" ~ Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson