• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Perspicuo

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Location
Costa Rica
Basic Beliefs
Empiricist, ergo agnostic
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.
 
OK, I'll play dumb (natural gift), what does this mean, assuming the findings are correct. That we have a fragment of a non-canonical book that can be safely ignored in one is a xtian?
 
That's how I see it. Christians really don't want their lord and savior being married, because if Jesus married and had kids, then Jesus had sex, and if Jesus had sex, then you start to imagine the creator of the universe and your personal friend making the "O" face with his wife, and THAT my friend, detracts somewhat from the narrative eh?
 
It means that there was a xtian sect which thought that jesus was married and that copies of their particular gospel were made in coptic.
 
So, some dude six hundred years after Jesus wrote some fanfic about Jesus having a wife? How is that relavent to anything?
 
So, some dude six hundred years after Jesus wrote some fanfic about Jesus having a wife? How is that relavent to anything?

That was the genesis of my earlier question. It's words on a paper.

It is interesting that you have something that old that is comfortable enough with the story to apparently be adding to it.
That might indicate that the story was already viewed to have some fictional elements to it. But I spitball.
 
Jesus stories were the pop cult fiction of the day, many imaginative variations on the Jesus theme were developed before church cult organizations dogmatically ossified a limited number into their various canons.
 
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.
As I see it, these tales evolved out of the bare work of an unknown 1st century CE Hellenistic writer acquainted with Judaism and its messianic traditions and expectations, let's term this as proto-Mark, (although there was not any actual 'Mark' as author, and the text of 'Mark' as we now have it does not with any exactitude conform to that original unknown authors text)

As this original author remained unknown, the tale became as it were a public literary resource with anyone free to use the basic theme and material and improvise and 'improve' and upon it as they saw fit.
One or more ancient writers thought the story would be improved, or perhaps more accurately reflect real c.1 Jewish culture if Jesus had a wife. (perhaps there even was a wife of Jesus in that original 'Mark' that just got 'lost' for latter doctrinal reasons)

The first commandment given in The Torah and Halaka (literally 'way to walk') being; "Be fruitful, and multiply" (Gen 1:28)
A Torah observant and 'Law' abiding Jewish man at the height of c.1 'Jewish legalism' culture, would be socially expected to become married and raise up a family as his moral duty and obligation in obedience to God.
Thus it is believed by some that if Jesus was real, or even simply to avoid what appears to be a latter foreign introduced anachronism into the gospel tale, Jesus would in that sitz leben have had a wife.
A wife that the latter patristic and male dominated gentile church excluded, extracted, and edited out of their versions of the Gospels.
 
The religious philosophy of the evolved church couldn't allow their 'santized' Platonic dualistic Jesus to have ever engaged in the ten toes up ten toes down nasty 'of the flesh' like a normal human being ...or the other popular Hellenistic gods. Catholic answer and solution, dump and suppress the Jesus wife tales.
 
The religious philosophy of the evolved church couldn't allow their 'santized' Platonic dualistic Jesus to have ever engaged in the ten toes up ten toes down nasty 'of the flesh' like a normal human being ...or the other popular Hellenistic gods. Catholic answer and solution, dump and suppress the Jesus wife tales.

It is an interesting corner to be in. Jesus has to be human, or his story in unremarkable. But he can't be human, another guy who farts, poops and has sex, because how can one he sure that is not all that he is.
 
So this must mean the fan fiction goes way back, huh?
You've just distilled the NT down to its very essence.

There must have been thousands of issues upon which Jesus spoke,acted and issued guidance upon in his day, but sadly no one managed to save all the funny pages.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom