'Gospel of Jesus's Wife' likely isn't a modern forgery, scientists claim

The Verge ^ | April 10, 2014 | Amar Toor

[Steve_Seattle]

"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.

[pax_et_bonum]

Simple answer: it’s an ancient forgery.

---

Yep.

[BwanaNdege]

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.

[morphing libertarian]

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.

[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.”

[morphing libertarian]

to walk

[redleghunter]

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.

[tiki]

There were also many false messiahs.

[Texan5]

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...

[redleghunter]

Yep.

[faithhopecharity]

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?

[Steve_Seattle]

"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.

[NKP_Vet]

Sort of like the Gospel of Judas.

[xzins]

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.

[ravenwolf]

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.

[redleghunter]

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.

[pax_et_bonum]

Sort of like the Gospel of Judas.

---

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

[D-fendr]

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

[wildbill]

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.

[NKP_Vet]

“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.