Study Claims Papyrus That Says Jesus Had a Wife is Real

[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 It may have relevance as a historical document of its time and the state of religion at its time, but this isn't proof of anything directly relating to Jesus and whether he even actually existed.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.

Josephus, for starters, and other non-believer scholars of the day. He saw Jesus as a rabble-rouser and possibly a charlatan.

All of the sources I've read regarding Josephus point to his writings about Jesus being fake.

All of the sources I was given up until High School insisted that Columbus discovered the New World. Even if it was some other author, or even if "Paul" was multiple people, or even if Plato didn't write half of the things ascribed to him, those documents are at the very least dated back to those periods and regions, and at the very least were far more intact than this highly redacted paragraph that could easily be yet another parable. That being said, I feel many who immediately discredit secular accounts of Jesus are those who do not want him to have existed, let alone be legitimate. Science at its finest.

4 Love is [...] envy, [...] it is [...] proud. 5 It does [...] dishonor others, it is [...] self-seeking, it is [...] easily angered, it keeps [...] record of wrongs. 6 Love does [...] delight in evil [...] where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they [...] will pass away.

Doesn't at all say what it originally meant to, does it? Imagine if I put that on an ancient piece of cloth.

The passages about Jesus written by Josephus are almost unanimously considered to be fraudulent insertions by a later Christian writer. This is believed to be true by almost all historians as far back as the 19th century, INCLUDING biblical scholars. So yeah, do I have a right to be skeptical yet?

I've never said outright that *I KNOW* Jesus never existed. That would be an extremely arrogant position to take. I just haven't seen anything in the way of convincing evidence in the form of secular contemporary writing that supports his position from the Bible. The closest we have is that Tacitus blurb provided by a very helpful previous poster but that still doesn't get closer than 2 generations after Jesus died. I'm skeptical and I have a right to be until there's evidence that can conclusively prove it to me that I'm wrong.

 

[Nieroshai]

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.

Josephus, for starters, and other non-believer scholars of the day. He saw Jesus as a rabble-rouser and possibly a charlatan.

All of the sources I've read regarding Josephus point to his writings about Jesus being fake.

All of the sources I was given up until High School insisted that Columbus discovered the New World. Even if it was some other author, or even if "Paul" was multiple people, or even if Plato didn't write half of the things ascribed to him, those documents are at the very least dated back to those periods and regions, and at the very least were far more intact than this highly redacted paragraph that could easily be yet another parable. That being said, I feel many who immediately discredit secular accounts of Jesus are those who do not want him to have existed, let alone be legitimate. Science at its finest.

4 Love is [...] envy, [...] it is [...] proud. 5 It does [...] dishonor others, it is [...] self-seeking, it is [...] easily angered, it keeps [...] record of wrongs. 6 Love does [...] delight in evil [...] where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they [...] will pass away.

Doesn't at all say what it originally meant to, does it? Imagine if I put that on an ancient piece of cloth.

The passages about Jesus written by Josephus are almost unanimously considered to be fraudulent insertions by a later Christian writer. This is believed to be true by almost all historians as far back as the 19th century, INCLUDING biblical scholars. So yeah, do I have a right to be skeptical yet?

I've never said outright that *I KNOW* Jesus never existed. That would be an extremely arrogant position to take. I just haven't seen anything in the way of convincing evidence in the form of secular contemporary writing that supports his position from the Bible. The closest we have is that Tacitus blurb provided by a very helpful previous poster but that still doesn't get closer than 2 generations after Jesus died. I'm skeptical and I have a right to be until there's evidence that can conclusively prove it to me that I'm wrong.

I find it interesting how when one's own beliefs and sources are questioned, it's an attack on one's rights to an opinion. It's almost like you have a belief. A worldview. A creed. A... dare I say it... philosophy?
I hold nothing against you, of course. All I mean is, skepticism is warranted on both sides and the burden of proof is on both sides.

 

[Nieroshai]

That being said, I feel many who immediately discredit secular accounts of Jesus are those who do not want him to have existed, let alone be legitimate.

Yes, that's far more likely than being unconvinced by a lack of contemporary accounts. We should instead believe he existed because....Ponies?

Science at its finest.

Well, that statement was dishonesty at its finest.

Some still think Haeckel's Illustration is legitimate, and it still sees printing in biology textbooks.

[citation needed]

Of course, one of the issues is the case against Haeckel isn't as strong as people claim it is and the contemporary cases of fraud are largely unvalidated. All it took was for me to google "Haeckel's Illustration" to find that out.

Is this another one of those creationist perpetuations?

Thank you for quoting me fully yet still somehow taking me out of context. Learn some history from both sides of a conflict. You will find you miss a lot otherwise. I was a militant atheist once. I was also judgmental and dismissive.

 

[Sight Unseen]

I find it interesting how when one's own beliefs and sources are questioned, it's an attack on one's rights to an opinion. It's almost like you have a belief. A worldview. A creed. A... dare I say it... philosophy?
I hold nothing against you, of course. All I mean is, skepticism is warranted on both sides and the burden of proof is on both sides.

The burden of proof always lies at the feet of the person making the positive claim. If someone claims that Jesus existed, the burden of proof lies with them to show their evidence for why he existed. If he can't show sufficient evidence to be convincing then anyone else has a right to be skeptical of their claims.

You used Josephus as proof. Fine. I then counter-claimed that the Josephus evidence for Jesus was fraudulent. Now I'm making the positive claim so the burden of proof is shifted to me. If you are really interested I could send links supporting my claim but I don't want to bore you or push this too far unless you consent to it.

I think I'm a fair and logical person and if someone could provide proof to me that Jesus was real and actually did miracles then I would believe it. I do think it highly likely that a man named Jesus existed, but to think that he was anything more than a charismatic man running his own little cult following (like many others at the time did and ultimately failed) requires more proof to separate the fact from the myth. And it doesn't help that neither Jesus nor any of his followers or any of contemporaries ever decided to pick up a pen and write anything about it. I realize that literacy was nowhere near as common and that often historical documents are lost or destroyed but you'd think SOMEONE would have written about him while he was actually alive and that it would be preserved in some form.

Skepticism of a claim should be the default position until someone can provide enough evidence to support it.

 

[Lightknight]

So either the document is from 500+ years before Jesus or 700+ after? Hilarious. I'll point out that at this point in time it could even be Islamic scripture or hadith (but I'd say significantly less likely since Jesus is typically referenced but not quoted in Islam). What does it matter if the papyrus is real if it's post-antiquity? I can go out and may Papyrus write now and write that Cleopatra was a dude and it'd still be "real" papyrus circa 2014. Let's also not forget that we've had quite a rush of people using ancient papyrus to write bogus texts recently because scholars will pay the big bucks for the name Jesus written on old paper. Especially controversial. But carbon testing the paper does not equal testing the ink's age. Getting accurate ink age is really iffy. Either way it's the 8th century.

This is another emphasis on the fact that professors of history, religion, and other established fields are under constant pressure to develop new research. Not that I have any problem with Jesus having a wife. Aside from the Roman Catholic Church's fixation on bedroom activities being naughty I don't see any precidence for marital relations being "sinful". But then again, the Roman Catholic Church still maintains that Marry never had any more kids despite references to Jesus' siblings even in the accepted texts.

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

Where it really complicates things is if he had children, and why there are no gospels about them, and what being "the son of the Son of God" would entail. France claimed that its royal line was as such. What would it mean for the religion as a whole if there were descendants of Jesus walking around?

As I recall, that's part of the Sunni and Shiite debate, on whether to follow the chosen leaders of the church or the descendants of the chief prophet(in their case, Muhammed, in this case Jesus). I'd like to think we're at that time in human society when we've realized being related to someone doesn't mean a whole lot, but I will admit someone with proven relation to Jesus would probably be able to amass a pretty big following with relative ease.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

snip

Almost 100 years is still better than, say 300+
Tacitus was also a senator and would have had access to official Senate records and such.
As for Jesus not being in the writings of any contemporary writers well, there are some possible reasons for that. Its all just guess work of course and theres no evidence to back it up but it is a possibility.
1) Contemporary mentions of him could have been lost like many written works from back then.
2) Jesus could have been seen as just another crackpot cult leader in a small part of the Roman Empire by writers at large and thus nobody but his followers and the people he was annoying bothered to pay any attention to him.
If his movement didn't take off there probably wouldn't be any mention of him anywhere. He seems big today but back then he was just another charismatic street preacher.
And as for the miracles I don't have an explanation other than "they didn't happen". I'm agnostic and don't really believe in the supernatural at all so to me his supposed miracles probably didn't happen.

All just guesswork like I said, don't think I'm saying thats what happened or anything. I personally believe that Jesus existed as a person but thats about it. No son of God, no miracles, just a guy that preached and got a movement around him.

 

[Tsaba]

sounds more like a verse about women's equal rights into the kingdom of heaven than it does about being married, I'm sure women did not enjoy the equal rights of men back in that time period which would be a more valid point than anything else really.

 

[Something Amyss]

Thank you for quoting me fully yet still somehow taking me out of context. Learn some history from both sides of a conflict. You will find you miss a lot otherwise. I was a militant atheist once. I was also judgmental and dismissive.

You're addressing a former Catholic. What history do you think I learned from there, exactly, if not the Christian side? It doesn't make it true, nor your "fair and balanced" approach any more valid.

Can you provide me with a contemporary historical account of Jesus? If you can't, it wasn't dismissive. It was factual.

Don't try and shift things on to me because you cannot meet your burden.