New tests show no evidence of forgery in ‘Gospel of Jesus’s Wife in Ancient Document

[Roisin]

New tests show no evidence of forgery in ‘Gospel of Jesus’s Wife’
New tests show no evidence of forgery in ancient papyrus

New scientific tests have turned up no evidence of modern forgery in a text written on ancient Egyptian papyrus that refers to Jesus as being married, according to a long-awaited article to be published Thursday in the Harvard Theological Review.

The findings support the argument of Harvard professor Karen L. King that the controversial text, the first-known explicit reference to a married Jesus, is almost certainly an authentic document.

The “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” was introduced to the world by King at a conference in Rome 18 months ago. The announcement made headlines around the world, and many of King’s academic peers, as well as the Vatican newspaper, swiftly dismissed it as a fake.
Related

King maintains the document was probably part of a debate among early Christians about the role of women, family, and celibacy in spiritual life...

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/201...ors_picks=true

[Roisin]

Information on this document on its wiki page:

Links to modern theories

The modern idea that Jesus was married is largely attributable to Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Its thesis was that Jesus had been married to Mary Magdalene, and that the legends of the Holy Grail were symbolic accounts of his bloodline in Europe. This thesis became much more widely circulated after it was made the center of the plot of The Da Vinci Code, a best-selling 2003 novel by author Dan Brown.

Other text

The fragment also includes the line, "she will be able to be my disciple". The New York Times article notes that scholars date debates over "whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple to the early centuries of Christianity." King asserts that it is clear from the first century canonical gospels that Jesus had female disciples, and it is her contention that, prior to the recently published papyrus fragment, no texts exist which claim that Jesus was married.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife

[Roisin]

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.

"There is absolutely no evidence for that," Timothy Swager, an MIT chemistry professor who worked on the project, tells the New York Times. "It would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible." 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.

Above quote is from a more detailed report on those test results on the authenticity of that ancient document that was published for the first time today.


'Gospel of Jesus's Wife' likely isn't a modern forgery, scientists claim
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/10/56...ientists-claim

[Arak]

If Jesus DID exist, then I would say he had wife and children and was NOT crucified. We all just have been lied by the churches. And - tadaa- he was not more divine than you and I are. We are all AS divine.

[Atlas]

Posted by Roisin (here)
The researchers dated the fragment to between the sixth and ninth century AD

[Atlas]

Posted by Roisin (here)
The findings support the argument of Harvard professor Karen L. King that the controversial text, the first-known explicit reference to a married Jesus, is almost certainly an authentic document.

Karen L. King:

"The most historically reliable early Christian literature is silent about Jesus’s marital status, and the GJW fragment does not change that situation. It is not evidence that Jesus was married, but it does appear to support the favorable position on marriage and reproduction taken by the canonical 1 Timothy, and it stands on the side of Jesus as he refutes the statement of Peter in Gos. Thom. 114 that “women are not worthy of life.”

Although we cannot know whether this damaged fragment supported the ancient patriarchal household order or argued that females should become male as these writings do, it does seem to enter debates over whether Jesus’s incarnate life pointed toward marriage or celibacy as the ideal mode of Christian life.

Ultimately such questions raise theological issues of whether sexuality belongs to being fully human or necessarily compromises holiness. In my reading, however, the main point of the GJW fragment is simply to affirm that women who are wives and mothers can be Jesus’s disciples.

Fifty-nine years passed from the rediscovery of the fifth-century Berlin Codex in 1896 until its first publication in 1955. Its final editor, Walter Till, expressed a sentiment with which I have come to have a deep sympathy after only two years.

“At some point,” he wrote, “a man must find the courage to let the manuscript leave one’s hand even if one is convinced that there is much that is still imperfect. That is unavoidable with all human endeavors.” So, too, this article is not the last word on the subject of the GJW fragment, but I hope it will be a useful contribution to ongoing discussion and research.

Afterword

In January 2014, I concluded this article by stating it would not be the last word on the subject. And now in early March, I received news of the results of the second radiocarbon testing of the material artifact of GJW that gives it a mean date of 741 c.e.

This date suggests a new line of inquiry into the context of the fragment’s circulation in Egypt of the Islamic period, given the Qur’an’s designation of Jesus as “Son of Mary” and its view that prophets (among whom Jesus is numbered) were usually married, although the Qur’an does not state specifically that Jesus was married."

[Atlas]

Posted by Roisin (here)
The fragment also includes the line, "she will be able to be my disciple".

Karen L. King:



3 - Or: “I exist with it/her”; “I dwell with it/her.”

[ghostrider]

In India they have books about the traveling Hebrew , they say he survived the cross , and was brought out of his coma by shaman , travelled to India and married and had two children , they say his name was not jesus but , Immanuel ... the religious order of that time changed history to control the world ...