xjwsforChrist

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 53395.html

A Harvard professor is claiming a fragment of papyrus seemingly mentioning that Jesus had a wife is an ancient document and not a forgery, following a series of tests.

The text is written in Coptic and contains a dialogue in which Jesus refers to "my wife."

Karen King, a professor at the Harvard Divinity School, writes in the Harvard Theological Review that the papyrus is almost certainly a product of ancient Christians and probably dates to eighth-century Egypt, based on carbon dating and chemical tests on the ink.

None of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery, Prof King and her team concluded.

The fragment, which has some legible lines on the front and on the back, contains the words: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …. She will also be my disciple.”

James Yardley from Columbia University, and Alexis Hagadorn from Columbia University Libraries, used a technique called micro-Raman spectroscopy to determine that the carbon character of the ink matched samples of other papyri that date from the first to eighth centuries CE.

Malcolm Choat from Macquarie University examined the fragment at HDS and offered an independent assessment of the handwriting.

Prof King first announced the existence of the fragment in September 2012, at the International Coptic Congress in Rome, where she dubbed it "The Gospel of Jesus's Wife."

The use of the word "gospel" refers to the fragment's most distinctive claim that Jesus was married.

Her announcement caused controversy among Christians and religious scholars, many of whom believe the document may be a forgery because of the poor grammar, shape of the handwriting and the ink's colour and quality.

The Vatican newspaper also released an editorial after the announcement declaring it a fake.

However, Prof King has stressed the text does not prove Jesus actually had a wife, but suggests ancient Christians wrote about this possibility.

"The main topic of the fragment is to affirm that women who are mothers and wives can be disciples of Jesus—a topic that was hotly debated in early Christianity as celibate virginity increasingly became highly valued," Prof King said.

"This gospel fragment provides a reason to reconsider what we thought we knew by asking what the role claims of Jesus's marital status played historically in early Christian controversies over marriage, celibacy, and family."

But Brown University Professor Leo Depuydt, in an analysis also published Thursday by the Harvard Theological Review, remains unconvinced and argues the text contains grammatical errors that a native Coptic speaker would not make.

_________________
"I am proud to say that I will not lift one finger ( except my middle finger) for the WTBTS."

I threw the "to a woman" part in...just to see what develops in this thread.

I saw this on the news today. Interesting subject.

I ask if to a woman because so much of the homosexual community truly believes they were "born like That". And I read, somewhere, that we as humans, were created in a god-like, if not Gods image.

Sooooo, yea....could he have been married, if at all, to a man?

_________________
"I am proud to say that I will not lift one finger ( except my middle finger) for the WTBTS."

Even if it is not a forgery, the date attributed to it (1st to 8th) says it all. It would be yet another Gnostic text of no value.

I checked all the links about it. What makes me suspicious is that the text is arranged in the same lines as that of the Gospel of Thomas. Provided the bad quality of the writing, the author was 'photo' copying Thomas at least.

My Lord was and is married to a "woman," yes, dear Skally (peace to you, luv!): his Bride, the New "Jerusalem." He was SUPPOSED to have been married to another "woman," actually TWO women: Oholah (the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel) and her sister, Oholibah (the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah). Or... the entire nation of Israel.

He was not, however, married... ever... to a woman of flesh. For one, love would not have allowed him to marry a woman... KNOWING he was going to leave her barren and a widow. And brother-in-law marriage would not have worked for such a woman as HIS brothers (in flesh) did not accept him until AFTER his death and resurrection.

Because folks are SO concerned with things of the flesh that they MUST "explain away" EVERYTHING, they have only devised yet another way to keep the "mystery" going. There is a lot of money to be made on the "mystery" of Christ. Books to be written sold... research, requiring private and public grants, to continue... artifacts to be hawked... and, of course, religion. She has to make HER money, yes? And if Christ were TRUTHFULLY explained... where would the making of money... and fame... be?

There shrouds, and coffins, and tombs, and images in things like pieces of toast and dirty socks. Why? Because there are sheep to be misled, luv. If possible, even the chosen ones.

Want to know the TRUTH about it? Look at, ask... and listen to... the One about whom these lies are being told. Ask HIM whether he was married to a woman of flesh or not... and then PUT FAITH in what you HEAR from HIM. Because HE, of ALL people... should know. Yes?

Peace, luv!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellamar

Just now, my Lord said to share with you that if it WAS about HIM... it would have had HIS name... and not "Jesus." Even in Coptic.

Peace!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellamar, who addressed this topic in some depth on JWN a couple of years ago...