If you recall, there was a bit of a dust up 18 months ago when Harvard Professor Karen L. King released the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” that detailed the contents of the text of an ancient Egyptian papyrus referring to Jesus being married. A Vatican newspaper and other experts denounced it as a forgery but a new article in the respected Harvard Theological Review says that there is no evidence of a forgery after the application of various tests. King believes it was part of a debate over the role of women among early Christians.
One critic even suggested that the fragment contained a typo found in an online source — suggesting a poor effort at a forgery.
The original carbon-dating test by the University of Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory put the date at 400 to 200 years before the birth of Jesus. A second carbon-dating test by Noreen Tuross of Harvard and put a mean date of 741 A.D.
Columbia University researchers used a technique called micro-Raman spectroscopy to investigate the ink’s chemical composition and compared to the ink in many of the ancient papyri in Columbia’s collection.
However, carbon dating puts the papyrus around the eighth century in Egypt, which is 400 years later than King originally thought. A break down of the ink is consistent with those used by the ancient Egyptians. Since the papyrus is the size of a business card, conventional testing would have destroyed much of the historical piece. However, a new technique at Columbia allowed for a new dating.
King does not argue that this is proof that Jesus was married. Indeed, it is dated long after the gospels were written.
King has never argued that the fragment is evidence that Jesus was actually married. It would have been composed much later than the gospels of the New Testament, which are regarded as the earliest and most reliable sources on the historical Jesus and which are silent on that question.
Even with this test, Leo Depuydt, an Egyptologist at Brown University, insists that it is still a forgery and a modern-day cut-and-paste job with several glaring grammatical that no native speaker of Coptic would have written. He is quoted as saying “Nothing is going to change my mind, . . . “it is bad to the point of being farcical or fobbish.”
King believes the document may have been copied from earlier Greek text. King insists that the grammatical issues Depuydt raises are either errors of his own analysis or that similar grammatical constructions, including the same mistake as the apparent typo in the online Gospel of Thomas, exist in other Coptic texts.
In order for this to be a forgery, the creator had to find ink from the period and avoid telltale signs of modern creation on a microscopic level. Of course, none of this means that Jesus was married or that this fragment holds any determinative weight.
Of course, if Jesus were married, it would add to the call for priests to be able to marry in the Church. That will take however a bit more than a credit card sized piece of parchment.
Source: Boston Globe
Well, let’s say Jesus was shacking up with some broad and claiming he was married. It could not have been legitimate unless the he and the chick had a state-issued license, right?
I mean a couple of dudes can get some religious freak to babble some mumbo jumbo and then proclaim them to be married. But, that’s not legit because the state didn’t issue a piece of paper saying it’s legit.
So, until a valid marriage license – not some photocopy – is produced by the Pope or some other high holy roller, we can safely say that Jesus was just banging some chick that was crashing at his crib.
That would mean sanctimonious gay guys wearing fancy collars would have a good excuse to not get married to chicks, leaving them more opportunity to diddle choir boys for kicks. Because, after all, if Jesus was really married, legit and everythin, religious babes would be twerking their stuff at the priests trying to get hooked up on a permanent basis. Then they’d find out that these priests ain’t even interested in that action unless they might be bi.
What would be really freaky is if Jesus was actually married to some dude that was a crossdresser and all the Pharisees just thought the guy was just a really butch chick.
Wayne – this is you at 12:16pm
Nick,
It’s a little more than a guess when done properly—perhaps an educated idea. Scientific instruments need calibration with Carbon-14 dating subject to many variables that need to be addressed. As an example: atmospheric testing of Nuclear Weapons during the 60s can lead to serious errors in Carbon Dating; however, this is a manageable situation with experienced scientists. There are also several other radioactive isotopic ratios that can be used in dating artifacts.
Now don’t get me started on Climate Change 😉 << Notice the smile. I have studied this for a couple of decades and unfortunately it is real. The only model that fits the data, which includes the rapidity of the change, is the emission of green-house gases.
Yeppers, you brought it up. 🙂
Islam believes in the virgin birth and does not mention a husband. So by default they probably believe she remained a virgin. However, they see Jesus the same as Adam. God created Adam out of nothing and Jesus was created out of nothing. Other than being a prophet, Jesus has not special standing.
Paul, Funny you ask. Someone in our group asked her about that maybe being Mary Magdalene. The guide said she does not believe that. The guide was apologetic about Judas being the darkest person. She said dark just meant dark hearted. I just chuckled to myself, why doesn’t she just say, Leonardo was not a racist. The fact that the chapel had been bombed during WW2 and survived is interesting.
Nick – I am sure she explained to you that the fresco started falling apart almost immediately after he finished it. And it was the monks who put the door in afterwards. 🙂
Schulte: Yeah, the Catholics really want her not to have married and so do I but really, married or not, Jesus was fully man. I must say, this conversation has truly enlightened me……………………..All these researchers who seem to know all. I have never considered myself wise but I do know that the Bible classifies the man who thinks he is wise as only a fool who is full of himself. Heck, don’t ask me the Book, chapter and verse as at present, I don’t have time to look it up. It is in there and I believe my Bible. If anyone doubts it, get out your STRONG’S CONCORDANCE and look it up.
OH yes, Global warming is a myth
maxcat06 – not to put too fine a point it, technically it is about a putative wife for Jesus. Wayne made the first blanket statement on climate change and I responded.
The Roman Catholic Church cares that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. There are a lot of Catholics out there that care. 🙂
Paul,
……”Wayne made the first blanket statement on climate change and I responded.”
No I didn’t. I first commented on how I would enjoy the philosophical discussion about Jesus having a wife. I then responded about the 1,000 year discrepancy in Carbon-14 Dating.
While I certainly did comment on climate change I did not bring up the subject.
Oh, and ps. I did think that this was a column about Jesus, not climate change.
Jesus also had brothers and sisters, something that some denominations try to erase, wanting Mary to remain a virgin her whole life. Who cares?
BTW Nick who did she say was in St. John’s spot?
David, I was impressed w/ the lengths taken to preserve The Last Supper. It was quite moving for me to see it up close and have it explained to me by a beautiful Italian woman.
Nick – were you more moved by the explanation or the beautiful Italian lady? 😛
Wayne, Isn’t this interesting! Yesterday my expertise on prisons, and today your scientific expertise. Thanks much for your informed comment. What is happening is a more diverse group of folks w/ real world knowledge are coming here. It makes for great discussions compared to the hot button threads that just go on interminably. We need both but for me, these are more interesting.
Using science to justify myth is always hysterical.
It was thought for a long time that the Trojan War was a myth, but now were are pretty sure it occurred and where and roughly when. Atlantis was a myth but there is good evidence for at least one site that fits the bill. I could go on, but time does not permit. 🙂
Paul,
[………..”We know, thanks to the emails of Michael Mann that global warming advocates cut off access to peer reviewed journals for scholar/scientists who did not agree with them. Why Michael Mann kept his job is beyond me.
Some reading for you from someone who knows more than I
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html“]
Your comment about Mann “cutting off access to peer reviewed journals” is bordering on delusional. How would that happen? It’s like me trying to cut off access to the New York Times. Peer reviewed articles are in the public domain and cannot be cut off on the whim of some scientist.
I’m assuming by emails you are referring to the debunked cut and copy efforts of a computer hacker. This discredited effort has been refuted and shown to be false by a number of scientific review panels. Mann is currently involved with an on-going defamation lawsuit against the “National Review” for many false accusations made against him including this email issue.
In the late 1990s Michael Mann co-authored a paper that contained the now infamous “hockey stick graph.” This publication rocked the fossil fuel industry by clearly demonstrating a link between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. Those benefiting from the sale, distribution or export of fossil fuels could not, and cannot, attack the science so they went after the scientist. Mann was accused of lying, falsifying data and has even had his life, and those of his family, threatened. The author mentioned in my earlier post, James Powell, has also had his life threatened.
The link you provided is confusing at best. Apparently the author is trying to say that since scientists cannot predict the future then the “game is up” for climate change believers. Another author unfamiliar with how science works, at least this time the author acknowledges his lack of scientific understanding.
A scientific theory has to meet three criteria:
1. Explain the observation under study.
2. Make predictions that can be tested and verified.
3. A scientific theory has to be falsifiable.
If a scientific theory makes a prediction it is only accepted once it has been tested and verified. Science cannot predict the temperature in New York City on this day in 2050 but science has clearly made climate predictions over the past 30 years that have been tested and verified.
Wayne – according to the emails of Michael Mann and his global warming associates, they made sure they controlled the journals where global warming articles were to be printed. Their people were on the editorial staff and were routinely turning down opposition papers.
As for climate models, the computer models used by global warming advocates are unable to predict last year’s climate, much less this year or any year down the road.
Here is an article on the fall of the infamous Hockey Stick
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick
Paul,
I’ve already discussed the email issue and won’t again go into that.
You stated:
“As for climate models, the computer models used by global warming advocates are unable to predict last year’s climate, much less this year or any year down the road.”
This is an incorrect statement as the article from Scientific American demonstrates:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/
Ok, now on to the last point which as a retired scientist (Analytical Chemist) really bothers me and one of many reasons I’m tired of dealing with climate deniers.
The article you referenced from Sceptical Mind does not contain an author’s name—heck I couldn’t even find a date. Maybe the author’s name exists somewhere but I couldn’t find it, and if the person who wrote this article needs to remain anonymous then that sends up a huge red flag for me. It was then noticed that the comment section for this article is closed with no comments listed—another red flag. When the author’s name could not be found this article was dismissed as not worthy of my time. You will notice that the Scientific American article linked above clearly lists the date and author’s name at the beginning—standard procedure for legitimate publications.
If you can provide the name of the person responsible for the article you referenced then I will be pleased to review it. Until then, I won’t waste my time.
Wayne – I do not deny climate exists. That would just be silly. I live in Arizona. We know climate. 🙂
The author of the article you refuse to read uses the nom de plume A Sceptical Mind, just as you use the nom de plume Wayne. I do not see what your problem is. You remain anonymous, he remains anonymous. On this blog alone we have at least four people whose nom de plume contains anon. So?
You are upset because there is not a comment section. My local newspaper, does not allow comments on most of its articles and those it does you have to sign in with your Facebook account. This would leave you out, since you comment anonymously. Me, I am good to go.
I don’t know what an analytical chemist does, but I should think since you have spent many years studying global warming, you can defeat the science of an anonymous author. He does list his sources and links to their works so it should not be hard.
Whether you review it or not makes no personal difference to me, but it will impact what I think of you as a researcher.
This article has an author and calls into question the climate models used in 2007.
archnews.osu.edu/archive/anttemps.htm
There is a habit of some people on here trying to shut down debate by attacking the messenger. I hope you are not one of those.
I agree with Paul Schulte that the papyrus was likely part of a gnostic gospel written a few hundred years after the death of Jesus. As for celibacy, Amy Alkon correctly notes the problem of inheritance of church property. One of the reasons for the 12th century celibacy mandate was to avoid that problem.
Although there was a time when abbesses had a great deal of authority, including some sacramental authority (e.g., baptizing infants and hearing confessions), it did not include the power of ordination.
Since clerical celibacy is a matter of canon law rather than dogma, it can be changed at any time. My belief is that the Church will eventually eliminate that requirement for diocesan clergy (i.e., parish priests), but that celibacy will remain mandatory for the teaching, missionary and contemplative orders.
Theo provided a list of women scholars of early church history. Among those listed was Elaine Pagels. I met Prof. Pagels when she was still a graduate student at Harvard in the late ’60s. She is a brilliant scholar and writer. For those interested, I highly recommend her books “The Gnostic Gospels” and “Reading Judas.”
This is iffy to prove my point, but worth reading. It is from the online Catholic Encyclopedia on abbesses
But reference must be made to certain exceptional cases, where Abbesses have been permitted, by Apostolical concession and privilege, it is alleged, to exercise a most extraordinary power of jurisdiction. Thus, the Abbess of the Cistercian Monastery of Santa Maria la Real de las Huelgas , near Burgos, in Spain, was, by the terms of her official protocol, a “noble lady, the superior, prelate, and lawful administratrix in spirituals and temporals of the said royal abbey, and of all the contents, churches, and hermitages of its filiation, of the villages and places under its jurisdiction, seigniory, and vassalage, in virtue of Bulls and Apostolical concessions, with plenary jurisdiction, privative, quasi-episopal, nullius diacesis.” (Florez, “España sagada,” XXVII, Madrid 1772, col. 578.) By the favour of the king, she was, moreover, invested with almost royal prerogatives, and exercised an unlimited secular authority over more than fifty villages. Like the Lord Bishops, she held her own courts, in civil and criminal cases, granted letters dismissorial for ordination, and issued licenses authorizing priests, within the limits of her abbatial jurisdiction, to hear confessions, to preach, and to engage in the cure of souls. She was privileged also to confirm Abbesses, to impose censures, and to convoke synods. (“España sagrada,” XXVII, col. 581.) At a General Chapter of the Cistercians held in 1189, she was made Abbess General of the Order for the Kingdom of Leon and Castile, with the privilege of convoking annually a general chapter at Burgos. The Abbess of Las Huelgas retained her ancient prestige up to the time of the Council of Trent
shakenmyhead – almost all art historians agree that it is St. John. He is universally painted as an effeminate youth.
heres a link to a google site of different versions of the last supper.. there is no way anyone could possibly think that is a man
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+last+supper&client=firefox-a&hs=EZh&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=hC9IU8SOCYnjsASAhIBY&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1006&bih=585#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=qn4YCqeiT0RbkM%253A%3BruTBzfT6x59dTM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fimages4.fanpop.com%252Fimage%252Fphotos%252F21400000%252Fthe-last-supper-jesus-21401487-1000-648.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.fanpop.com%252Fclubs%252Fjesus%252Fimages%252F21401487%252Ftitle%252Flast-supper-photo%3B1000%3B648
rcampbell, thank you for the historical perspective. It was fascinating.
pay close attention to the WOMAN sitting next to yet away from jesus… it doesnt matter how they paint it that is not A MAN. then look at how peter is looking at that woman with hate in his eyes..
http://youtu.be/iV6_wTrkd70
Hey, I just saw that Last Supper painting in person in Milan just a few weeks ago. Notice also the clear glasses, which did not exist in Christ’s day. DaVinci put a lot of stuff from his own time in that painting.
J.T: …”grammatical issues Depuydt raises are either errors of his own analysis or that similar grammatical constructions, including the same mistake as the apparent typo in the online Gospel of Thomas, exist in other Coptic texts.”
The spelling/syntax errors don’t prove a ‘forgery’ The majority of people of that era (even if one accepts the 741 A.D. date) couldn’t read or write. That was the purview of the scribes. We all know that without spell check (I forgot to include the sentence fragment at 1:55) many of us would have spelling errors throughout our posts not to mention syntactical errors eagerly pounced upon by the grammar trolls, So mistakes would be made. I would be much more skeptical if there were NO mistakes at all. All of that to say, who cares if Jesus was married or not?
J.T.: WHAT? no spell-check?