Showing posts with label Jesus' wife. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus' wife. Show all posts

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Biblical Archaeology: Update on the "Jesus' Wife" Papyrus

Hola darlings!

I've been up to my ears dealing with an unexpected offer to buy my house, looking for a new house, contracts, work being done, blah blah blah, driving me absolutely insane and sucking all of my time and energy.  Selling a house and buying a different house - VAMPIRES!

I checked and yes, I did have a prior post on this interesting subject:

September 19, 2012:  Did Jesus Have a Wife?

Interestingly, in that article, Jesus' alleged wife was referred to by a name - Mary.  The article identified her as Mary Magdalene.  Please keep that in mind as you read this current news, as this identification is not mentioned in the current article.  Could I see a complete, full translation of this papyrus, please???

Article from CNN.com:

April 10th, 2014
10:04 AM ET

Study: 'Jesus' wife' fragment not a fake

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
 
CNN) - A team of scientists has concluded that a controversial scrap of papyrus that purportedly quotes Jesus referring to "my wife," is not a fake, according to theHarvard Theological Review.

"A wide range of scientific testing indicates that a papyrus fragment containing the words, 'Jesus said to them, my wife' is an ancient document, dating between the sixth to ninth centuries CE," Harvard Divinity School said in a statement.

The contents of the papyrus scrap may date even earlier - to the second through fourth centuries, Harvard added.

Scientists tested the papyrus and the carbon ink, and analyzed the handwriting and grammar, according to Harvard.

"None of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery," the divinity school added.

Unveiled by Karen King, a Harvard Divinity School historian, in 2012, the scrap sparked a heated debate over Christian history, archaeological accuracy and modern media coverage of contested ancient history.

The fragment, which is about the size of a business card, contains just 33 words: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …. She will also be my disciple."

The scrap does not prove that Jesus actually had a wife, said King - just that ancient Christians wrote about the possibility.

Other Christians have suggested that Jesus may have been speaking metaphorically in the sentence fragments quoted in the papyrus. Some New Testament writers refer to the church as "the bride of Christ."

King and other scholars said they are equally intrigued by Jesus' mention of a female disciple.
"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," King said in a statement.

5 questions and answers about Jesus' 'wife'

The Harvard Theological Review also published a rebuttal by Leo Depuydt professor of Egyptology at Brown University.

“As a forgery, it is bad to the point of being farcical or fobbish," Depuydt told the Boston Globe. "I don’t buy the argument that this is sophisticated. I think it could be done in an afternoon by an undergraduate student.”

The Vatican's newspaper has also called the papyrus fragment a fake.

“Substantial reasons would lead us to conclude that the papyrus is actually a clumsy counterfeit,” the Vatican’s newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, said in an editorial in 2012.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Interview with Scholar Karen L. King

Harvard divinity professor relishes adventure, research

Jesus finding put scholar in spotlight

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Biblical Archaeology: Did Jesus Have a Wife?

One female scholar says a qualified YES.  Now, the evidence she presented at an international congress is being attacked by - well, you can probably figure that out:

September 19, 2012 12:05 PM
Papyrus suggesting Jesus had wife scrutinized

Updated 1:06 PM ET

(CBS/AP) ROME - Is a scrap of papyrus suggesting that Jesus had a wife authentic?

This Sept. 5, 2012 photo released by Harvard University shows a fourth century fragment of papyrus that divinity professor Karen L. King says is the only existing ancient text that quotes Jesus explicitly referring to having a wife. (AP Photo/Harvard University, Karen L. King)
 
Scholars on Wednesday questioned the much-publicized discovery by a Harvard scholar that a 4th century fragment of papyrus provided the first evidence that some early Christians believed Jesus was married.

And experts in the illicit antiquities trade also wondered about the motive of the fragment's anonymous owner, noting that the document's value has likely increased amid the publicity of the still-unproven find.

Karen King, a professor of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School, announced the finding Tuesday at an international congress on Coptic studies in Rome. The text, written in Coptic and probably translated from a 2nd century Greek text, contains a dialogue in which Jesus refers to "my wife," whom he identifies as Mary.

As correspondent Allen Pizzey reported on Wednesday for "CBS This Morning," the tattered piece of papyrus resembling perhaps a discarded business card dates back to the 4th century. Written in an ancient dialect, it contains just eight broken lines in faded black ink.

King's paper, and the front-page attention it received in some U.S. newspapers that got advance word about it, was a hot topic of conversation Wednesday during coffee breaks at the conference.

Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was unmarried. Any evidence pointing to whether Jesus was married or had a female disciple could have ripple effects in current debates over the role of women in the church.

"The whole idea of the priesthood being male and being celibate is based on the historical assumption that Jesus was male and was celibate and single," Serene Jones, president of New York City's Union Theological Seminary, told CBS News. [Of course, that "assumption" centuries after many married Popes and married priests had served in what became the Roman Catholic Church.]

Stephen Emmel, a professor of Coptology at the University of Muenster who was on the international advisory panel that reviewed the 2006 discovery of the Gospel of Judas, said the text accurately quotes Jesus as saying "my wife." But he questioned whether the document was authentic.

"There's something about this fragment in its appearance and also in the grammar of the Coptic that strikes me as being not completely convincing somehow," he said in an interview on the sidelines of the conference.

Another participant at the congress, Alin Suciu, a papyrologist at the University of Hamburg, was more blunt.

"I would say it's a forgery. The script doesn't look authentic" when compared to other samples of Coptic papyrus script dated to the 4th century, he said.

King acknowledged Wednesday that questions remain about the fragment, and she welcomed the feedback from her colleagues. She said she planned to subject the fragment to ink tests to determine if the chemical components match those used in antiquity.

"We still have some work to do, testing the ink and so on and so forth, but what is exciting about this fragment is that it's the first case we have of Christians claiming that Jesus had a wife," she said.

She stressed that the text doesn't provide any historical evidence that Jesus was actually married, only that some two centuries after he died, some early Christians believed he had a wife.

Wolf-Peter Funk, a noted Coptic linguist, said there was no way to evaluate the significance of the fragment because it has no context. It's a partial text and tiny, measuring 4 centimeters by 8 centimeters (1.5 inches by 3 inches), about the size of a small cellphone.

"There are thousands of scraps of papyrus where you find crazy things," said Funk, co-director of a project editing the Nag Hammadi Coptic library at Laval University in Quebec. "It can be anything."

He, too, doubted the authenticity, saying the form of the fragment was "suspicious."

Ancient papyrus fragments have been frequently cut up by unscrupulous dealers seeking to make more money.

An anonymous collector brought King the fragment in December 2011, seeking her help in translating and understanding it. In March, she brought it to two papyrologists who determined it was very likely authentic.

On Tuesday, Harvard Divinity School announced the finding to great fanfare and said King's paper would be published in January's Harvard Theological Review. Harvard said the fragment most likely came from Egypt, and that its earliest documentation is from the early 1980s indicating that a now-deceased professor in Germany thought it evidence of a possible marriage of Jesus.

Some archaeologists were quick to question Harvard's ethics, noting that the fragment has no known provenance, or history of where it's been, and that its owner may have a financial interest in the publicity being generated about it.

King has said the owner wants to sell his collection to Harvard.

"There are all sorts of really dodgy things about this," said David Gill, professor of archaeological heritage at University Campus Suffolk and author of the Looting Matters blog, which closely follows the illicit trade in antiquities. "This looks to me as if any sensible, responsible academic would keep their distance from it." [Really?  That's a particularly vituperative remark - basically accusing King of being a willing participant in attempting to perpetrate a fraud!  I wonder, was he born a schmuck or did his momma drop him on his head one too many times so he can't help himself?]

He cited the ongoing debate in academia over publishing articles about possibly dubiously obtained antiquities, thus potentially fueling the illicit market.

The Archaeological Institute of America, for example, won't publish articles in its journal announcing the discovery of antiquities without a proven provenance that were acquired after a UNESCO convention fighting the illicit trade went into effect in 1973.

Similarly, many American museums have adopted policies to no longer acquire antiquities without a provenance, after being slapped with successful efforts by countries like Italy to reclaim looted treasures.

Archaeologists also complain that the looting of antiquities removes them from their historical context, depriving scholars of a wealth of information. [Yes, of course - but when was it proven that THIS is a looted antiquity?]

However, AnneMarie Luijendijk, the Princeton University expert whom King consulted to authenticate the papyrus, said the fragment fit all the rules and criteria established by the International Association of Papyrologists. She noted that papyrus fragments frequently don't have a provenance, simply because so many were removed from Egypt before such issues were of concern.

She acknowledged the dilemma about buying such antiquities but said refraining from publishing articles about them is another matter.

"You wouldn't let an important new text go to waste," she said.

Hany Sadak, the director general of the Coptic Museum in Cairo, said the fragment's existence was unknown to Egypt's antiquities authorities until news articles this week.

"I personally think, as a researcher, that the paper is not authentic because it was, if it had been in Egypt before, we would have known of it and we would have heard of it before it left Egypt," he said. [The Egyptians would have known about it?  OH YEAH, RIGHT.  This is one instance where I am actually rolling on the floor laughing my ass off!]


© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...