'Gospel of Jesus's Wife': Insane backstory

[B. de Corbin]

A tiny manuscript fragment in which Jesus is quoted as refering to "my wife" has been the object of much debate about whether it is authentic, or a forgery.

Here's some crazy info about the provenance of the fragment. Really, this is interesting, and bizzare:

The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife: A hotly contested, supposedly ancient manuscript suggests Christ was married. But believing its origin story—a real-life Da Vinci Code, involving a Harvard professor, a onetime Florida pornographer, and an escape from East Germany—requires a big leap of faith. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/485573/)

[Prickly Pear]

From this article alone, sounds like a forgery. Red flags all around Fritz. I hope he doesn't take down too many people with this.

Would be interesting if true, but I'm not sure that it would be enough to change anything.

[thalassa]

I actually don't know what to say about this...

[Azvanna]

I loved this article. Took me an hour to read it in between dealing with kids. What a story!!! Almost unbelievable.

[thalassa]

I loved this article. Took me an hour to read it in between dealing with kids. What a story!!! Almost unbelievable.

Right? It defies every inch of parsimony one can grasp...

[B. de Corbin]

If you write fiction, you have to make it believable. But the truth is a whole 'nother ball o' wax :D.

[Azvanna]

Right? It defies every inch of parsimony one can grasp...
I had to look up parsimony!

If you write fiction, you have to make it believable. But the truth is a whole 'nother ball o' wax :D.
A few times in the article, I kept waiting for the 'and then I woke up' moment. You can't make this stuff up! I actually have to ask... Is this happening right now?

[B. de Corbin]

I think it was about a year ago that I read about the attempts to authenticate the document, so yup, this is current.

Here's an article from August, 2015 on livescience:

http://www.livescience.com/51954-gospel-of-jesus-wife-origins.html

P.S. I had to look up parsimony too, because, although I know the word, I didn't know the definition as Thalassa was using it...

[thalassa]

P.S. I had to look up parsimony too, because, although I know the word, I didn't know the definition as Thalassa was using it...

(I do love the 2nd definitions...)

On one hand, I think it would be awesome if it was real. The diversity of early Christianity was pretty amazing. On the other hand, it wouldn't do anything to change things. Believers (either way) don't actually care about the facts. They arrange their facts to suit their beliefs, and not the other way around.

[B. de Corbin]

There are known Gnostic texts that place Mary as the reciever of a secret teaching (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, both from the Nag Hammadi find), but they are non-canonical - Gnostic gospels (with the possible exception of the Gospel of John, which is very gnostic-like) are considered heretical.

And the known history of early Christianity does have women playing a role equal to men - early Christians drew lots to determine who would serve as priest, so, yeah, it wouldn't make much difference.

[Azvanna]

(I do love the 2nd definitions...)

On one hand, I think it would be awesome if it was real. The diversity of early Christianity was pretty amazing. On the other hand, it wouldn't do anything to change things. Believers (either way) don't actually care about the facts. They arrange their facts to suit their beliefs, and not the other way around.

A second definition?? Looked it up again! And Occam's razor. Must admit, there's a lot of fishy circumstances but nothing empirical(?).

Saying believers arrange facts to suit their beliefs... Hm. Yes I'd have to agree with that. I really don't want to, but the results (millions of interpretations of the Bible resulting in doctrinal differences) say otherwise. Is like to hear more people confess that they really can't know for sue, they just believe this.... That's closer really to what every person on a spiritual quest does. Then maybe we could see more common ground emerging.

[Azvanna]

There are known Gnostic texts that place Mary as the reciever of a secret teaching (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, both from the Nag Hammadi find), but they are non-canonical - Gnostic gospels (with the possible exception of the Gospel of John, which is very gnostic-like) are considered heretical.

And the known history of early Christianity does have women playing a role equal to men - early Christians drew lots to determine who would serve as priest, so, yeah, it wouldn't make much difference.

Lots were drawn to appoint Barnabus as the 12th Apostle after Judas's suicide... Then Saul converted and it always seemed to me that he should have been the 12th. Though he himself rebuked other believers for saying so. But this is a good example of 'suit yourself' beliefs that Thalassa mentioned below. Divination, though forbidden, is sanctioned in this circumstance...

[DragonsFriend]

There is a lot of evidence even in the "accepted" New Testament the Jesus (Yesuah) was married. In those days in order to be a Rabbi one had to be married and usually that meant with children. I have heard the arguments that it was just a title that his friends used for him but that would have gone completely against the Jewish faith and tradition of the time. To be a Rabbi one must be a teacher and a teacher must know life and religion.

What really matters in all of this is that the Christians have their beliefs and the Bible serves as proof. The way it is interpreted by the church is what people in the church are taught. Since it is "The Written Word of God" it provides all the proof they need. If it doesn't fit, or you can't find an answer you get told that "some things have to be taken as faith.

[Azvanna]

In those days in order to be a Rabbi one had to be married and usually that meant with children.



Do you remember where you learned this, Dragonsfriend? I've not heard it said before, but that doesn't mean much! I did a quick search and could only glean that it was encouraged, but not a requirement.

[Briton]

This idea that rabbis had to be married, that Jesus was called rabbi, and ergo Jesus had to be married, is a myth proposed by those who want to perpetuate their Married Jesus myth.

Frankly I couldn't give a monkey's uncle if Jesus existed, let alone was married, so I don't have a dog in this fight. However, not only was the term "rabbi" not formalized in this era, but there is absolutely no requirement of people called rabbi to be married. Indeed, many who would be called rabbi by standard today, the pharisees, were not called rabbi. It does not stand to reason that Jesus had to fit the modern idea of a rabbi, let alone be married.

Ask your local synagogue if you will doubt this, rather than the internet!

[Azvanna]

However, not only was the term "rabbi" not formalized in this era,

Ask your local synagogue if you will doubt this, rather than the internet!

We have no religious institutions other than Christian ones in my town unfortunately. I also read that Rabbi was a modern term not used in Jesus' day while searching about marriage. However, I know the two Jewish sages Hillel and Shammai are considered Rabbis and they existed from 50 BCE -30 CE. A little of Hillel and Shammai in context of Jewish history http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48943176.html?mobile=yes. This article indicates Rabbis were in place as early as 273 BCE. Please note the credentials of the article's author in the bio at the bottom of the page. A little more on the historical use of the word Rabbi can be found here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Rabbis.html

I'd like to make another thread about Jesus the historical figure and scholars beliefs about who he was. If anyone wants to jump in before me, feel free. Just remember to cite your sources even if it's not online.

[DragonsFriend]

In ancient Israel titles were hereditary but required some training for recognition. You could only become a priest if you were born of the family of Eli but not all born of that house were priests.
Look to the Talmud as it states that one must stand in the presence of a Rabbi and or his spouse.
The opinions of the Rabbinical Council is where the Talmud and Torah are interpreted for the meanings and definitions within Jewish law today. Like any institution definitions change and opinions vary over time.

[thalassa]

This is going a bit askew, but when speaking of the Talmud there are always three things to consider:

1. Which Talmud?

2. The Talmud wasn't translated into English until the 1930s-40s (so it makes sense they'd use modern words and concepts)

3. The first Talmud was compiled in the 4th century and the second about 500 years later


(The local synagogue has always been my OT question headquarters)


When it comes to Jesus, I'm with Briton in that, "Frankly I couldn't give a monkey's uncle if Jesus existed, let alone was married, so I don't have a dog in this fight." But I happen to find religion in general interesting, particularly the evolution of religion and religious concepts...therefore, the Christian split is one I've devoted quite a bit of time in inquiry to. And in that regard, there is a lot of very suspect Biblical scholarship that floats around the Pagan world, that also qualify as beliefs before facts. It is unfortunate, but it seems to be a lingering response to the antipathy that many Pagans have towards the (often) more conservative Christian traditions they have left (and in some cases, escaped in quite harrowing ways). The other problem that I think often results in belief before fact with regard to Pagan commentary about Christians is an insecurity that leads many to think that by calling Christian claims into question or error they give themselves legitimacy. Really, though, both just serve to reinforce some of the negative stereotypes about Pagans among non-Pagans (whether they are Christian or not).

[Medusa]

Out of sheer curiosity...what man wasn't married during Jesus' time? What exactly is so bad about a man being married on Earth? It's not like he was shacking it up with some harlot.


wait.

[Briton]

One could be a rabbi without being ordained, and rabbi Ben Azzai was an unmarried rabbi, albeit not ordained. He was, however, highly held.

Furthermore, rabbi Humnuna was ordained and it was remarked that he was unmarried. There was resistance to his ordination, possibly due to his celibacy, but never any mention of his marrying. Of course, there is a dearth of detail in the lives of early rabbis, so it is hard to know exactly who did what. But celibacy was not unheard of.

[DragonsFriend]

Like others here and elsewhere, there is little importance in these questions unless one looks for reality in the beliefs of others. I can easily accept the deification of Jesus just like I can accept the deification of Marduk. In most pagan "faiths" there is either a savior or a man who becomes a god. In most cases the savior construct requires that he/she give up something as valuable as life in order to be victorious over the adversity. In the case of man turned god the man most often is loved by his people because of things accomplished in their favor. Whether it be laws that bring more equality to the masses or the prosperity of the land the person is "bigger than life" and becomes a deity because of his importance to his people.
The mythos becomes the fact which becomes the truth within that religion. The truth no longer matters when faith takes over.

[B. de Corbin]

Yes, well, all very fine & good, but the whole point of the post was the amusing story behind the origin of an apparently faked ancient document...

[DragonsFriend]

Since the research into its origins is ongoing, it is telling that you call it "apparently faked".
I think I'll wait to see what happens when the studies are concluded.

[B. de Corbin]

Since the research into its origins is ongoing, it is telling that you call it "apparently faked".
I think I'll wait to see what happens when the studies are concluded.

Telling? In what way? Just what are you accusing me of, there, cowboy?

Most art forgeries are revealed by questions of provenance, not by analysis.

[Azvanna]

Since the research into its origins is ongoing, it is telling that you call it "apparently faked".
I think I'll wait to see what happens when the studies are concluded.

Have a read of the article! If for no other reason than to read a well written story. Essentially the author is bringing in to question its authenticity very .... (Snr moment...lost the word) convincingly(?). So it's appropriate for Corbin to call it "apparently faked" in this context. Again, have a read! Mostly because I was thoroughly entertained and want to share that with you. And yea, it will be interesting to see what the conclusion will be.




Most art forgeries are revealed by questions of provenance, not by analysis.

Had to look up provenance.. Lol this thread just keeps adding to my vocabulary. Love it. I still don't quite understand parsimony in this context though. Thalassa's or maybe Corbin if you get it can you clarify?

[B. de Corbin]

Had to look up provenance.. Lol this thread just keeps adding to my vocabulary. Love it. I still don't quite understand parsimony in this context though. Thalassa's or maybe Corbin if you get it can you clarify?

LOL -parsimony, first definition (the way it is most commonly used) is something like "stingy."

In the second defintion, the one Thalassa was using, it means something like "applying Occam's razor, being stingy with theory, chosing the most likely explanation that fits the data rather than spinning convoluted theory to explain away discrepancies."

Assuming that the author was honest in his investagative journalism, there are too, too many red flags raised that it is a fake to give it credit for being authentic, unless some other info comes to light.

"Provenance" is of major importance in art and antique authentification because, truth is, they are easy to fake. A friend was just telling me about somebody who hand a pistol he claimed was owned by Jessi James. If the claim were true, the value of the gun would change from about $300 to (possibly) $10,000 or more.

But they guy doesn't have documantation to prove conclusively that it was owned by J. James, so - no provenace, no increase in value.

[Azvanna]

In the second defintion, the one Thalassa was using, it means something like "applying Occam's razor, being stingy with theory, chosing the most likely explanation that fits the data rather than spinning convoluted theory to explain away discrepancies."

Right, because when Thal said 'defies every inch of parsimony' I thought she meant it defied Occam's Razor essentially but now I think she means it's a really good example of parsimony applied to the extreme circumstances here.. Gosh I think I should just go to sleep! Lol.


Assuming that the author was honest in his investagative journalism, there are too, too many red flags raised that it is a fake to give it credit for being authentic, unless some other info comes to light.

[DragonsFriend]

I don't remember accusing anyone of anything. It is telling about YOUR decision making process that you would judge the work based on a story full of innuendos and hearsay with very little facts to base an opinion of the artifact on rather than to wait and see what the evidence tells.

The author of the story brings to question the moral character of one person in a nearly empty line of provenance. Nothing is said about the work itself. I put more faith in the science of the paper and ink, it's dating, and the objective evidence than I can in a news story. (sorry, I have an innate distrust of reporters because they tend to write for sensationalism or to fit their personal views rather than objective truth).
For instance; it is always a racially motivated act when a white person offends or attacks a black person but it is never a racially motivated attack if a black man offends or attacks a white person.
It is big news when a gun is used in a crime but there is no news when a gun is used in self defense (unless the above applies).
It is never a radical (enter race, religion, or ethnicity here) who perpetrates a violent act unless the attacker is (white, upper middle class, male and Christian).
It is never a "black", Muslim, or Mexican man who commits a crime, its just a man unless he is white - then they provide a description which includes color, race and religion.
Why is it so hard to identify a criminal with his race or religion ALL the time?

[Azvanna]

The author of the story brings to question the moral character of one person in a nearly empty line of provenance. Nothing is said about the work itself. I put more faith in the science of the paper and ink, it's dating, and the objective evidence than I can in a news story. objective truth).

Can ink be dated other than testing it for ingredients used?

[DragonsFriend]

If it has carbon or other organic compounds it can be destructively tested for date. You can also use UV technology as NASA has on the Mars rover.
My answer is yes, they can date the ink.

[Medusa]

I don't remember accusing anyone of anything. It is telling about YOUR decision making process that you would judge the work based on a story full of innuendos and hearsay with very little facts to base an opinion of the artifact on rather than to wait and see what the evidence tells.

The author of the story brings to question the moral character of one person in a nearly empty line of provenance. Nothing is said about the work itself. I put more faith in the science of the paper and ink, it's dating, and the objective evidence than I can in a news story. (sorry, I have an innate distrust of reporters because they tend to write for sensationalism or to fit their personal views rather than objective truth).
For instance; it is always a racially motivated act when a white person offends or attacks a black person but it is never a racially motivated attack if a black man offends or attacks a white person.
It is big news when a gun is used in a crime but there is no news when a gun is used in self defense (unless the above applies).
It is never a radical (enter race, religion, or ethnicity here) who perpetrates a violent act unless the attacker is (white, upper middle class, male and Christian).
It is never a "black", Muslim, or Mexican man who commits a crime, its just a man unless he is white - then they provide a description which includes color, race and religion.
Why is it so hard to identify a criminal with his race or religion ALL the time?

Holy Jesus. What are you on about?

[B. de Corbin]

I don't remember accusing anyone of anything. It is telling about YOUR decision making process that you would judge the work based on a story full of innuendos and hearsay with very little facts to base an opinion of the artifact on rather than to wait and see what the evidence tells.

The author of the story brings to question the moral character of one person in a nearly empty line of provenance. Nothing is said about the work itself. I put more faith in the science of the paper and ink, it's dating, and the objective evidence than I can in a news story. (sorry, I have an innate distrust of reporters because they tend to write for sensationalism or to fit their personal views rather than objective truth).

OK, so I'm a bigot.

Let's talk about the shady journalist, then, what he did write, and what might motivate him (as opposed to just imagining he's a liar).

1. He usn't a qualified expert in antiquities. He left that part to King, who is. He did report that the papyrus was carbon dated & authenticated... then indicated that papyrus of that time period can be bought from ebay (3 seconds of internet research yeilded this: http://www.ancientresource.com/lots/holyland_artifacts/scrolls-parchment-papyrus.html)

2. He also indicated that the ink used was appropriate for the time period, in terms of composition, but did not indicte it had been carbon dated. I don't know, but I imagine the ink would have been something like charcoal and a binder, like gum arabic. Both are organic compounds and could be carbon dated - but propobly weren't because nobody wanted to scrape too much ink off a potentially horrendously valuable (economicly and historicly) manuscript.

I don't know about the sample size needed to date material as opposed to the sample size needed to detremine composition. Maybe Thalassa can shed some light on this?

3. He noted problems with the Coptic - it uses a fraction of the Gospel of Thomas, but it also includes a error that can be tracked back to a translation of the GoT that showed up on the internet at about the right time - this suggests that somebody with a knowledge of Coptic translated a mistranslation back into Coptic from that (or another) source. The odds that a modern mistranslation would be justified in an ancient manuscript are, uhm... quite low.

4. What would the author's motive be for telling fibs? Considering the vested interest people have in a document like this, the author's tale will be checked. If that story isn't verified, the author - an investagatve journalist - will be out of a carreer.

5. On the other hand, he could have written just as good a tale by telling the truth, without risking his reputation and future. A story validating the provenance would have been equally as marketable - possibly moreso, since it would be included in the acedemic literature on the subject, increasing his prestige.

Viewed without prejudice, I'm inclined to accept the author's story unless and until new evidence arises.

[thalassa]

Anyone seeking to perpetuate such a stunt would know to fake the age of the pigment as well as the "paper".

[Dumuzi]

It is never a "black", Muslim, or Mexican man who commits a crime, its just a man unless he is white - then they provide a description which includes color, race and religion.


Really? It's funny you should say that because to me and lots of people it seems like it's the opposite. Of course I might be wrong cause I'm kinda biased I guess, so who knows.

Because it seems that every time a Muslim commits a crime usually it is directly because of their religion and we have to have debates on whether or not all Muslims are horrible. And then we have 'Islam experts' on TV explaining to us how Islam is directly responsible for said crime, which is usually followed by the same internet and media debate of why Muslims don't speak out against this crime. And then after enough time has passed by, a movie is made about that crime where they make sure there's one Muslim character (played by an Indian as an Arab because brown) who is not totally 100 percent evil so that the movie makers can make the claim that they aren't stereotyping all Muslims as evil.

But hey, what do I know? :D

[Hawkfeathers]

there's one Muslim character (played by an Indian as an Arab because brown)

I know this isn't a humorous topic, but this made me laugh because in old Hollywood (and probably new) the actors who played Native Americans were usually well-tanned Jews.

[Azvanna]

Anyone seeking to perpetuate such a stunt would know to fake the age of the pigment as well as the "paper".

So really what you're left with is provenance. I tend to agree with you, Thalassa, when you say that it wouldn't make a lick of difference if it was genuine or not to Christian culture. Because the Bible has already been cannonised and no further commentary may be entered into! The only people it would make a difference to might be the more liberal or to the academic world who aren't really the culture setters anyway.

[thalassa]

But hey, what do I know? :D

Nope, you are right. Race mostly comes up in the media is when it's a minority perpetrator. Just like its usually little white kids that make the news when they go missing or get killed.

[Dumuzi]

I know this isn't a humorous topic, but this made me laugh because in old Hollywood (and probably new) the actors who played Native Americans were usually well-tanned Jews.

Oh, I think it is very humorous. Especially when they have those characters try to speak Arabic :D

[Medusa]

It's the Arab or Mexican game.

Just look at Oscar Issac.
Played Orestes, a Roman
Played Prince John in Robin hood (english?)
In Sucker Punch as a smarmy dude with a Latin mustache
Was in Ex Machina and creepy surfer type dude ai creator
And Apocalypse as the first mutant who was Egyptian.

And he's Guatemalan! :p

Don't even start on Oded Fehr. Arab and Mexican and I thought Russian too.

[Briton]

And then after enough time has passed by, a movie is made about that crime where they make sure there's one Muslim character (played by an Indian as an Arab because brown) who is not totally 100 percent evil so that the movie makers can make the claim that they aren't stereotyping all Muslims as evil.

But hey, what do I know? :D

If you think that's bad, you do not want to see Laurence Olivier in 'Khartoum'. He's all painted up, even the palms of his hands.

Jesus Helen Christ, that film was terrible.

[B. de Corbin]

Back on target:

Karen King Responds to ‘The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife’: The Harvard scholar says papyrus is probably a forgery. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/karen-king-responds-to-the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/487484/)

From the article:


For four years, Karen L. King, a Harvard historian of Christianity, has defended the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” against scholars who argued it was a forgery. But Thursday, for the first time, King said the papyrus—which she introduced to the world in 2012—is a probable fake.

She reached this conclusion, she said, after reading The Atlantic’s investigation into the papyrus’s origins, which appears in the magazine’s July/August issue and was posted to its website Wednesday night.

“It tips the balance towards forgery,” she said.

[thalassa]

What a bummer for her, you know?

[Azvanna]

What a bummer for her, you know?

Yes, I can hear her heart breaking from here.