No Forgery Evidence Seen in "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" Papyrus

[ideologyhunter]

I give the last word to Sam Kinison on why Jesus never had a wife -- his bit on the wife ranting on Jesus for being away over Execution Weekend is wonderful.

 

[dockeen]

Stumbled across this blog this morning, have no idea of credibility....

http://alinsuciu.com

 

[mountainman]

So this must mean the fan fiction goes way back, huh?

These writings were composed in a Hellenistic venue, one that had a long literary tradition of composing entertaining god/cult hero tales.

I think that it is quite possible that we are looking at a Hellenistic [seditious] political reaction to the appearance of a male-dominated Constantine Bible. The evidence for the existence of any gnostic gospel or act prior to Nicaea, and the political appearance of the Canonical Books, is tenuous, and capable of being otherwise explained.

 

[rhutchin]

National Geographic: No Forgery Evidence Seen in "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" Papyrus
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...yrus-jesus-wife-evidence-archaeology-science/

In the journal reports, a chemistry team led by MIT's Joseph Azzarelli concluded that the age of the papyrus scrap matches that of a verified Gospel of John papyrus from antiquity. The team relied on microspectroscopy of the papyrus, which found the fragment only slightly less oxidized—aged by exposure to air—than the verified gospel.

Likewise, Columbia University's James Yardley and Alexis Hagadorn looked at the pigments in the ink on the fragment. They found it similar to "lamp black" ink used on other ancient texts.

Crucially, the scientists find no evidence of the ink being applied to the papyrus in recent times, which would have led to it pooling in damaged sections of the fragment. They also did not find any signs that the word for "wife" in the text was changed from "woman" by a later writer, as some skeptics suggested (King points this out in an online commentary).

Carbon dating puts the age of the fragment at between 659 and 869.

The testing concluded that the document was not a modern forgery. So, it seems to have been written between 659 and 869 AD.

No one has determined whether the document is legitimate or just a hoax - but the information is new and not seen in any documents before that time.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

The very first positive commandment ever given to mankind according to The Bible (ha'Torah) is to be found in Genesis 1:28; "Be fruitful, and multiply, ...."
Given this fact of the Jewish Torah, and that a man was considered as being 'incomplete' without a wife, it is extremely unlikely that any Torah trained and observant Jewish teacher would remain a bachelor into his 30's. Was Jezuz gay?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The very first positive commandment ever given to mankind according to The Bible (ha'Torah) is to be found in Genesis 1:28; "Be fruitful, and multiply, ...."
Given this fact of the Jewish Torah, and that a man was considered as being 'incomplete' without a wife, it is extremely unlikely that any Torah trained and observant Jewish teacher would remain a bachelor into his 30's. Was Jezuz gay?

Maybe he was just picky. When you're a tri-omni god, it's tough to find a good partner and the women in the local area might not have measured up.

 

[Perspicuo]

The ideal of celibacy is universal in the old world. I would be surprised if Judaea's frontier were not permeable to that.

 

[credoconsolans]

IF there is a historical Jesus (and that "if" does NOT lend any support to the concept of a mythical Jesus) then Jesus, being a Jew, would most certainly have been married. It was expected to such a degree that had he not been married he would have been looked upon with deep suspicion.

Would have been remarkable ...and yet none of his legalistic opponents ever remarked on it.
...or perhaps they did, and church catholicism saw to it that none of their remarks survived.

The ideal of celibacy is universal in the old world. I would be surprised if Judaea's frontier were not permeable to that.

Good Jewish boys in Jesus' era getting married was not completely universal. Apparently there were Jewish sects where celibacy was a tenet and the pseudo Jesus might have started out a member of such groups, like the Essenes.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from The Torah...
Whoever, therefore, shall break one of the least of these mitzvoth, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven."

A teacher of Torah that upheld the mitzvoth of The Torah, would betray his integrity if he did not himself observe, follow, and obey the same Torah that he taught others ought to obey.
The first mitzvot to be given to man within The Torah ought apply as much to a teacher of The Torah as to any Jew.

Even Moses and Aaron, with all of their public religious duties and obligations, married and made time for the raising up of families in obedience and submission to that first injunction of The Torah.
By what passage of The Torah was this teacher of The Torah, or any other Jewish person, ever exempted from complying with the duty laid down in that first mitzvot given to mankind?

One is impelled to ask, Was this character so lacking in integrity that he would say; 'Do you as I say, but not as I do'? Would he be great in that kingdom, or be found to be a duplicitous fraud?

Celibacy, no matter how 'universal in the old world' or popular the practice among cults and sects of any time, is -at all times- contrary to the teachings of The Torah. 'pseudo Jesus' indeed.

 

[credoconsolans]

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from The Torah...
Whoever, therefore, shall break one of the least of these mitzvoth, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven."

A teacher of Torah that upheld the mitzvoth of The Torah, would betray his integrity if he did not himself observe, follow, and obey the same Torah that he taught others ought to obey.
The first mitzvot to be given to man within The Torah ought apply as much to a teacher of The Torah as to any Jew.

Even Moses and Aaron, with all of their public religious duties and obligations, married and made time for the raising up of families in obedience and submission to that first injunction of The Torah.
By what passage of The Torah was this teacher of The Torah, or any other Jewish person, ever exempted from complying with the duty laid down in that first mitzvot given to mankind?

One is impelled to ask, Was this character so lacking in integrity that he would say; 'Do you as I say, but not as I do'? Would he be great in that kingdom, or be found to be a duplicitous fraud?

Celibacy, no matter how 'universal in the old world' or popular the practice among cults and sects of any time, is -at all times- contrary to the teachings of The Torah. 'pseudo Jesus' indeed.

Well goodness knows, no one ever changes their minds or has an epiphany or decides their way of life is not satisfying and seeks out another...right?

 

[Sheshbazzar]

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from The Torah...
Whoever, therefore, shall break one of the least of these mitzvoth, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven."

A teacher of Torah that upheld the mitzvoth of The Torah, would betray his integrity if he did not himself observe, follow, and obey the same Torah that he taught others ought to obey.
The first mitzvot to be given to man within The Torah ought apply as much to a teacher of The Torah as to any Jew.

Even Moses and Aaron, with all of their public religious duties and obligations, married and made time for the raising up of families in obedience and submission to that first injunction of The Torah.
By what passage of The Torah was this teacher of The Torah, or any other Jewish person, ever exempted from complying with the duty laid down in that first mitzvot given to mankind?

One is impelled to ask, Was this character so lacking in integrity that he would say; 'Do you as I say, but not as I do'? Would he be great in that kingdom, or be found to be a duplicitous fraud?

Celibacy, no matter how 'universal in the old world' or popular the practice among cults and sects of any time, is -at all times- contrary to the teachings of The Torah. 'pseudo Jesus' indeed.

Well goodness knows, no one ever changes their minds or has an epiphany or decides their way of life is not satisfying and seeks out another...right?

Obviously some people do change their minds, have an 'epiphany', or decide that their way of life is not satisfying.

Assuming for arguments sake that there ever was an actual 'Jesus of Nazareth', How do you apply this to the Jesus character displayed within the Gospels?
When or where do you find Jesus changing his mind? Having an epiphany? or deciding that his former way of life was unsatisfactory?
What do you know about 'Jesus', that the Bible doesn't tell you?

Even if you could determine any such epiphany or personality change in this character, that would in no way alter the fact that The Torah does not in any fashion teach, command, nor support the practice of celibacy by anyone. And nothing Jesus did or said, had he ever rebelled against and rejected The Laws (Torah) of his God, would alter that fact.
Not 'the least yod or tittle' of Torah would (or could) ever be changed by any such rejection, even by him, a fact that he himself evidently recognized, acknowledged and taught.

The evidence strongly suggests that unidentified parties extensively edited, tampered, and diddled with these texts.
Whether there was any Jesus or not, what remains is contradictory in its witness, and is contrary to The Torah and Scriptural texts that it abuses.
I don't blame or any find fault with 'Jesus', but with dishonest men.

 

[credoconsolans]

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from The Torah...
Whoever, therefore, shall break one of the least of these mitzvoth, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven."

A teacher of Torah that upheld the mitzvoth of The Torah, would betray his integrity if he did not himself observe, follow, and obey the same Torah that he taught others ought to obey.
The first mitzvot to be given to man within The Torah ought apply as much to a teacher of The Torah as to any Jew.

Even Moses and Aaron, with all of their public religious duties and obligations, married and made time for the raising up of families in obedience and submission to that first injunction of The Torah.
By what passage of The Torah was this teacher of The Torah, or any other Jewish person, ever exempted from complying with the duty laid down in that first mitzvot given to mankind?

One is impelled to ask, Was this character so lacking in integrity that he would say; 'Do you as I say, but not as I do'? Would he be great in that kingdom, or be found to be a duplicitous fraud?

Celibacy, no matter how 'universal in the old world' or popular the practice among cults and sects of any time, is -at all times- contrary to the teachings of The Torah. 'pseudo Jesus' indeed.

Well goodness knows, no one ever changes their minds or has an epiphany or decides their way of life is not satisfying and seeks out another...right?

Obviously some people do change their minds, have an 'epiphany', or decide that their way of life is not satisfying.

Assuming for arguments sake that there ever was an actual 'Jesus of Nazareth', How do you apply this to the Jesus character displayed within the Gospels?
When or where do you find Jesus changing his mind?

Several times. The first thing that pops in my head is the woman at the well.

The other is the endless debate on whether acts give you grace or not. Jesus says both. So did he contradict himself or change his mind?

Having an epiphany?

Garden of Gethsemene

or deciding that his former way of life was unsatisfactory?

When he became a wandering teacher and not a carpenter/handyman, like his father.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from The Torah...
Whoever, therefore, shall break one of the least of these mitzvoth, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven."

A teacher of Torah that upheld the mitzvoth of The Torah, would betray his integrity if he did not himself observe, follow, and obey the same Torah that he taught others ought to obey.
The first mitzvot to be given to man within The Torah ought apply as much to a teacher of The Torah as to any Jew.

Even Moses and Aaron, with all of their public religious duties and obligations, married and made time for the raising up of families in obedience and submission to that first injunction of The Torah.
By what passage of The Torah was this teacher of The Torah, or any other Jewish person, ever exempted from complying with the duty laid down in that first mitzvot given to mankind?

One is impelled to ask, Was this character so lacking in integrity that he would say; 'Do you as I say, but not as I do'? Would he be great in that kingdom, or be found to be a duplicitous fraud?

Celibacy, no matter how 'universal in the old world' or popular the practice among cults and sects of any time, is -at all times- contrary to the teachings of The Torah. 'pseudo Jesus' indeed.

Well goodness knows, no one ever changes their minds or has an epiphany or decides their way of life is not satisfying and seeks out another...right?

Obviously some people do change their minds, have an 'epiphany', or decide that their way of life is not satisfying.

Assuming for arguments sake that there ever was an actual 'Jesus of Nazareth', How do you apply this to the Jesus character displayed within the Gospels?
When or where do you find Jesus changing his mind?

Several times. The first thing that pops in my head is the woman at the well.

What in the tale about 'the woman at the well' indicates to you that Jesus ever changed his mind about his obligation to teach and to observe The Torah's first given command to mankind?

The other is the endless debate on whether acts give you grace or not. Jesus says both. So did he contradict himself or change his mind?

Did he really say both, or is it nothing more than one or more of these early religion writers creatively inventing their protagonist's dialog?
How do you know that Jesus ever actually said any of these things?
There is no way of knowing, as according to the tale, and to the claims of Christianity, HE never wrote any of this contradictory crap.

Having an epiphany?

Garden of Gethsemene

Hardly. The Gospel story tells us that he had already long before had a sure foreknowledge of what was coming. Nothing happened at Gethsemane that enlightened him any further; (Luke 24:7, John 8:4).

or deciding that his former way of life was unsatisfactory?

When he became a wandering teacher and not a carpenter/handyman, like his father.

He was a 'wandering teacher' preaching in The Temple by the time he was twelve (Luke 2:42-49, ...and even earlier, according to several rejected Christian 'Gospel's')

And according to the details of Gospel tale, Joseph was most certainly not his father, and he knew it. In the Temple he was 'about his Father's business'. His Father never was a carpenter or a handyman. (John 5:17)

'Jesus' never had any former life employed as a carpenter/handyman which to be dissatisfied with, or to leave.
The only manner of tekton 'hand work' he is ever recorded as doing was the using his hands to heal and to perform miracles. That was the tekton 'handwork' which his Father taught and instructed him in how to perform; Matt 8:3, 8:15, 9:18&25 Mark 1:31, 1:40-42, 5:41, 6:2, 6:5, 7:32-35, 8:22-25, Luke 4:40, 13:13, 22:51.

Yet in remarkably stark contrast to these texts, and many others, there is not even one single account of Jesus ever performing any manner of manual labor at all with his hands.
Notably, the Gospel writers are even careful to have only his disciples engage in the infamous Sabbath plucking of ears of corn, and rubbing them in their hands. Jesus himself remains strictly 'hands off' even in this, the most basic manual labor of food procuring and preparing. (Matt 12:1-2, Mark 2:23-24, Luke 6:1)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Just to be clear.

The jury is still out on the authenticity of this piece.


It is in no way decided.


At best it can only give a glimpse of later followers and does nothing towards the historicity of the man or myth.

This particular document is later but who knows how far back the tradition goes? No one is certain of the order of alleged NT events. We do know writers and storytellers took liberties at will as is true with all fiction.

 

[Ddms]

That's very late indeed. The earliest gospel fragment in Rylands 52, a tiny scrap of the gospel of John. It's dated ca 125 CE, give or take a couple of decades.

 

[Ddms]

In this context, "authentic" can have several meanings, some of which can be mixed and matched:

-- Written during Late Antiquity on fresh papyrus.

-- Written during Late Antiquity by someone who believed what they were writing.

-- A pious fraud, written in Late Antiquity to justify unevidenced cult beliefs.

-- A pious fraud, written in Late Antiquity to support the writer's idiosyncratic christology.

-- Written during Late Antiquity on previously used and scraped papyrus - a palimpsest.

It would be considered forgery if it was:

-- Written to be sold as a relic or to enhance someone's reputation.

-- Written in the modern era with fake 7th - 9th century ink on ancient papyrus.

-- Written during any period by someone aiming to discredit conventional Christian beliefs about Jesus' marital status.

 

[Ddms]

What "Constantine Bible" are you referring to? And what do you mean by the "political appearance" of the Canon? Are you making the risible assertion that the canonical books of New Testament were written in the 4th century?

Most scholars date gnostic mss in the Nag Hammadi library long before the Nicene Council, which took place in 325 CE.