• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus Wife

Going to need a whole lot of authentication work before there's any chance of that being accepted as gospel.
 
Going to need a whole lot of authentication work before there's any chance of that being accepted as gospel.


I think that's what they are doing now...

"The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions......"
 
A Harvard historian has identified a faded, fourth-century scrap of papyrus she calls "The Gospel of Jesus's Wife." One line of the torn fragment of text purportedly reads: "Jesus said to them, 'My wife …"

September 18 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=0

From your link:

She [Dr. King] repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said.
 
The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at an international meeting of Coptic scholars by Karen L. King, a historian who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity.

The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions.


Interesting.. Has it been dated?
 
From your link:

She [Dr. King] repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said.


They are researching it ... that's what I said .... let's not dismiss ... or accept for that matter... the claim right away, lets wait and see :)
 
Interesting.. Has it been dated?

Probably it was originally written in the late second century, but this is not sure, may be somebody else can give more certain dates.
 
Too late; I've already dismissed it. Perhaps the papyrus is authentic, and the test called for the article will determine this. But its author is unknown, and "all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent." Pretty cool, though, how the fragment also says, purportedly, "she will be able to be my disciple.” I mean, how "timely" is this?
 
Something that many fundamentalist Christians refuse to accept is the large number of 'gospels' that were not accepted into the canon. Though many are late in their creation, that is 4th to 6th C., there are a few that are considered to be as old as any of the texts which are today included in the New Testament. They often portray a very different Jesus than the one we know today.
 
Too late; I've already dismissed it. Perhaps the papyrus is authentic, and the test called for the article will determine this. But its author is unknown, and "all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent." Pretty cool, though, how the fragment also says, purportedly, "she will be able to be my disciple.” I mean, how "timely" is this?




Considering that anyone can scribble anything on a piece of paper, before I'd be willing to consider it there would have to be substantive proof of its provenance... and that is highly unlikely given that it is just a scrap of parchment and isn't supported by any of the thousands of other texts of the Gospels.
 
Provenance and authorship.
 
"Jesus said, my wife is an absolute bitch, she will be able to be my disciple when pigs fly".
 
"Jesus said, my wife is an absolute bitch, she will be able to be my disciple when pigs fly".



You really shouldn't have said that....


... but I have to admit I laughed my head off.
 
Last edited:
This is fascinating as 8-10 papyrologists viewed this and beleived it to be genuine. I am posting experts from the Smithsonian Magazine article which address both text describing Jesus' statement and the authentication and determination.


"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.” What it does seem to reveal is more subtle and complex: that some group of early Christians drew spiritual strength from portraying the man whose teachings they followed as having a wife. And not just any wife, but possibly Mary Magdalene, the most-mentioned woman in the New Testament besides Jesus’ mother."

Every few weeks, a group of eight to ten papyrologists in the New York area gather at Bagnall’s Upper West Side apartment to share and vet new discoveries. Bagnall serves tea, coffee and cookies, and projects images of papyri under discussion onto a screen in his living room.

After looking at the images of the papyrus, “we were unanimous in believing, yes, this was OK,” Bagnall told me when we spoke by phone.

It wasn’t until King brought the actual fragment to Bagnall’s office last March, however, that he and Luijendijk reached a firm conclusion. The color and the texture of the papyrus, along with the parallel deterioration of the ink and the reeds, had none of the “tells” of a forgery. “Anyone who has spent any time in Egypt has seen a lot of fake papyrus, made of banana leaves and all sorts of stuff,” Bagnall told me.

Also convincing was the scribe’s middling penmanship. “It’s clear the pen wasn’t perhaps of ideal quality and the writer didn’t have complete control of it. The flow of ink was highly irregular. This wasn’t a high-class professional working with good tools. That is one of the things that tells you it’s real, because a modern scribe wouldn’t do that. You’d have to be really kind of perversely skilled to produce something like this as a fake. The Sahidic dialect of Coptic and the style of the handwriting, with letters whose tails do not stray above or below the line, reminded Luijendijk of texts from Nag Hammadi and elsewhere and helped her and Bagnall date the fragment to the second half of the fourth century A.D. and place its probable origins in Upper Egypt.

The fragment is some four centimeters tall and eight centimeters wide. Its rough edges suggest that it had been cut out of a larger manuscript; some dealers, keener on profit than preservation, will dice up texts for maximum return. The presence of writing on both sides convinced the scholars that it was part of a codex—or book—rather than a scroll"

The Inside Story of a Controversial New Text About Jesus | History & Archaeology | Smithsonian Magazine
 
This fits with everything else we know about the historical Jesus.
 
This is fascinating as 8-10 papyrologists viewed this and beleived it to be genuine.

Bear in mind that when they say "genuine" they mean "yes, this is actually papyrus and ink from around 200 AD"... but as to the veracity of the content that will be vastly harder to authenticate.
 
I was going to comment that there were many books of the bible before it was narrowed down to what it is now, but Somerville beat me to it. Also, it's translation have been revised many times as well.
 
Bear in mind that when they say "genuine" they mean "yes, this is actually papyrus and ink from around 200 AD"... but as to the veracity of the content that will be vastly harder to authenticate.

The language and content has also been certified to be authentic, but, subject matter is still to be verified as true. Much of what we believe about Jesus is passed down and legend. I am still waiting for the one true biography of Jesus life....:)
 
dont see many Christians attacking Harvard, funny that.
 
The language and content has also been certified to be authentic, but, subject matter is still to be verified as true. Much of what we believe about Jesus is passed down and legend. I am still waiting for the one true biography of Jesus life....:)


You might be waiting for a few more years before that "true biography of Jesus" shows up - A thread I started a couple months past focused on the question: Was there a historic Jesus? The OP pointed out the "academic throwdown" that is taking place amongst historians.
 
Going to need a whole lot of authentication work before there's any chance of that being accepted as gospel.

The same historian then said it was way too recent to be considered actual evidence of the historical Jesus having a wife.

....somehow that hasn't been mentioned by all those who rushed to comment on it.....
 
The language and content has also been certified to be authentic, but, subject matter is still to be verified as true. Much of what we believe about Jesus is passed down and legend. I am still waiting for the one true biography of Jesus life....:)

There are 4.

And most of what we believe about Jesus never really went through the "legend" phase, but was written down pretty quickly by an underground church dependent upon written communication.
 
The same historian then said it was way too recent to be considered actual evidence of the historical Jesus having a wife.

....somehow that hasn't been mentioned by all those who rushed to comment on it.....


The same holds true for the vast majority of biblical texts that we know of.

One apologist site
has the following on the age of New Testament texts
The oldest complete New Testament is the Codex Vaticanus. Located in the Vatican, it is believed to have been copied around A.D. 325.

from Wikipedia's page on the Codex Vaticanus
The extant New Testament of the Vaticanus contains the Gospels, Acts, the General Epistles, the Pauline Epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews (up to Hebrews 9:14, καθα[ριει); it is lacking 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation.

Verses not in Vaticanus but in later manuscripts

The text of the New Testament lacks several passages:

Matthew 12:47; 16:2b-3; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14;[13]
Mark 7:16; 9:44.46; 11:26; 15:28;[14]
Mark 16:9–20; —The Book of Mark ends with verse 16:8, consistent with the Alexandrian text-type.[16]
Luke 17:36, 22:43–44;[17]
John 5:4, Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11);[18]
Acts 8:37; 15:34, 24:7; 28:29;[19]
Romans 16:24.[20][21]
1 Peter 5:3.[22][23]

But in 1516, when Erasmus published his version of the Greek language Textus Receptus, he used texts from the Byzantine Empire (330 to 1453 CE) and rejected the Codex Vaticanus as less authoritative. The conflict amongst scholars regarding the textual/canonical reliability of early manuscripts and fragments of text continues today.
 
Back
Top Bottom