Study Claims Papyrus That Says Jesus Had a Wife is Real

[Alex Co]

Study Claims Papyrus That Says Jesus Had a Wife is Real

, King hopes that talk regarding forgery can finally be put to rest and instead be focused on the papyrus fragment's -- which is roughly the size of a business card -- impact on Christianity.


I'm basically hoping that we can move past the issue of forgery to questions about the significance of this fragment for the history of Christianity, for thinking about questions like, 'Why does Jesus being married, or not, even matter? Why is it that people had such an incredible reaction to this?'

The papyrus fragment's original carbon-dating test was conducted by the University of Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and pegged its date of 400 to 200 years before the birth of Jesus. But researchers have come to the conclusion that the result might be unreliable due to the sample size being too small. The second carbon-dating test was conducted by Noreen Tuross of Harvard and produced a mean date of 741 A.D.

Could Jesus really have been married? More importantly, does it really matter and what does it change in regards to Christianity?

Source: Gizmodo [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=9226239&jid=HTR&volumeId=107&issueId=02&aid=9226237&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=]




Permalink

 

[Sight Unseen]

Even if it's real it's still hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly died so its historical relevance on Jesus itself is small to none. It may have relevance as a historical document of its time and the state of religion at its time, but this isn't proof of anything directly relating to Jesus and whether he even actually existed.

EDIT: A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding what I meant so Im going to repost my reply to someone else where I tried to clarify.

Since I am an atheist, I think you may have misunderstood my point . I was saying that this document being legitimate may make it a real historical artifact for its time ( which was well after the time frame where Jesus may have actually lived) as a piece of writing. But it's historical merit for saying anything concrete about Jesus is nonexistant since a) it's way more recent than Jesus so anything it says about him is most likely inaccurate and been passed through dozens of generations of verbal transfer and b) (as far as I know) we dont even know who wrote this or if the person had any authority or real knowledge on the matter so it can't be used as a credible source.

And just to be clear, I'm skeptical that Jesus even existed since there's no historical record of him other than the Bible and writings from hundreds of years after he supposedly died, even though several prominent historians were alive concurrently.

So this papyrus may be a neat artifact that may be a window into the time when it was written, but it says nothing at all about Jesus.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[TWEWYFan]

Oh dear, there are some people who are going to get really upset about this. Still, if true this is fascinating both historically and theologically; I really hope we can learn more about it.

 

[Alex Co]

Oh dear, there are some people who are going to get really upset about this. Still, if true this is fascinating both historically and theologically; I really hope we can learn more about it.

Yep, I think so, too. As a Christian, I don't know why. If concrete evidence ever cropped up that Jesus had an actual wife, I wouldn't mind it or think less. Just me though.

 

[TWEWYFan]

Yep, I think so, too. As a Christian, I don't know why. If concrete evidence ever cropped up that Jesus had an actual wife, I wouldn't mind it or think less. Just me though.

Nah, you're not the only one.

 

[Ratty]

If anyone is an authority on counterfeit religious relics it's the Catholic Church. http://instantrimshot.com/

But I think we'll believe the scientists on this one, like with the Shroud of Turin and so many others. This won't make much difference for most people though. People don't generally care about the books of the Bible that aren't recognized as canon by their denomination, even when the books in their own canon refer to books outside it.[footnote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible[/footnote]

 

[TWEWYFan]

Uhm little fact. if the name is actually Jesus: it's a fake. Jesus is not a hebrew name.

Or perhaps the translator is just using Jesus in place of the more correct Joshua because most people in the world recognize him by his Greek name?

 

[Flunk]

Just add this to the pile of ancient sources, all written hundreds of years after the supposed life of Jesus, many contradictory. At this point they can't even prove there was a Jesus, however they can prove that the bible itself is a compilation of several different sources, with many editors over many years. Basically, it's quite likely that none of them are accurate in any meaningful way. The bible, the ancient sources, any of it. All of it was written hundreds of years after the fact, from an oral history. Oral histories are notoriously unreliable, they change nearly every generation.

So in conclusion, authentic and accurate are not the same thing. This document is provably authentic, and that's useful. But all that proves is that someone wrote these words in the time-frame. Comparing this to the Bible, yes it's more authentic, but neither is in any way a reliable source of information.

 

[Alex Co]

Oh dear, there are some people who are going to get really upset about this. Still, if true this is fascinating both historically and theologically; I really hope we can learn more about it.

Yep, I think so, too. As a Christian, I don't know why. If concrete evidence ever cropped up that Jesus had an actual wife, I wouldn't mind it or think less. Just me though.

honestly I would think that Christians would praise Jesus for having a wife.

I mean, what better way of saying marriage should be between a man and a woman than Jesus himself being married?

but it does seem strange, religion back then was more male centered, so it could be a metaphor that if Jesus had a wife, then she too would be able to be a disciple of the religions.

Wish there was more text to clear things up for it, but at least it isn't a modern day forgery.

and if it is, then someone went through a lot of trouble to make it.

The actual report and The Boston Globe's piece has a rather longer read regarding it if you want. =)

And about your statements, in Christianity, having a wife and kids are condoned, since in the Bible, sex isn't some disgusting, taboo thing...provided you do it with your wife, of course.

 

[Exterminas]

Why would this have any impact on Christianity at all? I mean, it is not like the Christian faith rests on historical facts in any strong way. They are more a group connected by certain values and rituals than one bound by certain historical data.

So what if Jesus had a wife? You think the pope will suddenly say: "Uh, sorry. Guess we'll change two thousand years of tradition and allow women to become priests!" Nope. Not even if Jesus himself stepped out of a time machine tomorrow and would tell him to do it would he actually do it.

Religion can be seen as a business and I don't mean that in any cynical way, just as an analogy. Religion fills a specific need. They sell a product. And the product that Christianity sells - Catholicism most of all - is stability and the illusion of the eternal. That doesn't just mean the metaphysical stuff like life after death, but also the church as an institution. The fact that the church doesn't change is one of their major selling points. It gives people the impression to be part of something bigger than transcends life and death. It has nothing to do with historical facts.

 

[Someone Depressing]

It doesn't matter what you call him; Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, or whatever. Does this really matter? Will people really be that offended of confused by this? If the entire Bible doesn't mention her once, then does this really alter any messages or anything the Bible has to say?

...Pssh, I don't know. I'm going to a rioting church with popcorn and a lawnchair.

 

[Albino Boo]

Some Christians are going to deny the validity of this for quite some time, after all, that is their approach to everything that slightly contradicts their archaic dogma´s (evolution, heliocentrism, age of the earth, the Big Bang... to name just a few)

Anyway this is another one of those historic documents written decades or centuries after the fact, so, like most of the Bible, doesn't have any historicity at all.

Actually they are not. As you can see fromt the following list the there are a very large numbers of gospels, including one that says Jesus was gay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels . This new fragment will join all the others in having no impact whatsoever.

The current version of the new testament has been in use since the the mid 3rd century AD and was formalised by the second council of Trullan. In other words the version of the new testament that is use today is older than this document.

 

[Something Amyss]

More importantly, does it really matter and what does it change in regards to Christianity?

Well, it makes Paul look a little daft.

Uhm little fact. if the name is actually Jesus: it's a fake. Jesus is not a hebrew name.

And do you think this slipped past all the people trying to determine whether the script is real? Or the critics who will look for a way to discredit this (though it has little to no actual impact on Christianity)?

honestly I would think that Christians would praise Jesus for having a wife.

I mean, what better way of saying marriage should be between a man and a woman than Jesus himself being married?

Well, if Jesus were to actually touch on homosexuality explicitly, I'd think that would be a better way.

Anyway, Not all Christians think marriage should be between a man and a woman, so I'm not sure this would be the reason He was praised.

Besides, maybe "wife" was a colloquialism. >.>

And about your statements, in Christianity, having a wife and kids are condoned, since in the Bible, sex isn't some disgusting, taboo thing...provided you do it with your wife, of course.

Or your concubine, or your slave.

Will people really be that offended of confused by this?

Some people will. I mean, there are some groups who believe that anything that contradicts what they've established is worth a fight. And others who won't care at all. And still others who will likely think "good for Him."

But this isn't necessarily a religious thing. Have you seen some of the stuff that causes protests and riots?

 

[Tanis]

Does it really matter?

The bible is a collection of stories, passed down via oral tradition, that eventually got put into text.

The vast majority of it is based on second hand accounts.

This story will do nothing to the currently, established, narrative.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

Why wouldn't you let the poor guy have a wife?

The paper books tell you this, the papyrus scroll tells you that. Papyrus is older shit and it's used by the frekking Egyptians, I vote we believe whatever it says!

The papyrus scroll be praised!!!