Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: Origins of 'Gospel of Jesus's Wife' Begin to Emerge
Source:
Live Science
URL Source: http://www.livescience.com/51954-gospel-of-jesus-wife-origins.html
Published: Aug 24, 2015
Author: Owen Jarus, Live Science Contributor
Post Date: 2015-08-24 21:47:48 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 13653
Comments: 135
Written in Coptic (an Egyptian language), the Gospel of Jesus's Wife, if authentic, suggests that some people in ancient times believed Jesus was married, apparently to Mary Magdalene. The truth may be finally emerging about the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife," a highly controversial papyrus suggesting that some people, in ancient times, believed Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. New research on the papyrus' ink points to the possibility that it is authentic, researchers say, while newly obtained documents may shed light on the origins of the business-card-sized fragment. Debate about the credibility of the "gospel" began as soon as Harvard University professor Karen King reported her discovery of the papyrus in September 2012. Written in Coptic (an Egyptian language), the papyrus fragment contains a translated line that reads, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife …'" and also refers to a "Mary," possibly Mary Magdalene. King had tentatively dated the papyrus to the fourth century, saying it may be a copy of a gospel written in the second century in Greek. [Read Translation of Gospel of Jesus's Wife Papyrus] Analysis of the papyrus, detailed last year in the Harvard Theological Review journal, suggested the papyrus dates back around 1,200 years (somewhere between the sixth and ninth centuries) while the ink is of a type that could have been created at that time. These findings have led King to support the text's authenticity. However over the past year many scholars have come to the conclusion that the papyrus is a modern-day forgery, though King and a few other researchers say they are not ready to concede this: "At this point, when discussions and research are ongoing, I think it is important, however difficult, to stay open regarding the possible dates of the inscription and other matters of interpretation," wrote King in a letter recently published in the magazine Biblical Archaeological Review. King has not responded to several interview requests from Live Science. Now, researchers at Columbia University are running new tests on the ink used on the papyrus. Initial tests published by the Columbia University team in 2014 indicated the ink could have been made in ancient times. Researchers are saying little until their report is published; however they did talk about one finding that could provide some support for its authenticity. A gospel steeped in mystery The current owner of the papyrus has insisted on remaining anonymous, claiming that he bought the Gospel of Jesus's Wife, along with other Coptic texts, in 1999 from a man named Hans-Ulrich Laukamp. This person, in turn, got it from Potsdam, in what was East Germany, in 1963, the owner said. Laukamp died in 2002, and the claim that he owned the text has been strongly disputed: Rene Ernest, the man whom Laukamp and his wife Helga charged with representing their estate, said that Laukamp had no interest in antiquities, did not collect them and was living in West Berlin in 1963. Therefore, he couldn't have crossed the Berlin Wall into Potsdam. Axel Herzsprung, a business partner of Laukamp's, similarly said that Laukamp never had an interest in antiquities and never owned a papyrus. Laukamp has no children or living relatives who could verify these claims. [6 Archaeological Forgeries That Tried to Change History] Over the past few months, new documents have been found that not only reconstruct Laukamp's life in greater detail, but also provide a new way to check the anonymous owner's story. King reported in a 2014 Harvard Theological Review article that the anonymous owner "provided me with a photocopy of a contract for the sale of '6 Coptic papyrus fragments, one believed to be a Gospel' from Hans-Ulrich Laukamp, dated Nov. 12, 1999, and signed by both parties." King also notes that "a handwritten comment on the contract states, 'Seller surrenders photocopies of correspondence in German. Papyri were acquired in 1963 by the seller in Potsdam (East Germany).'" After searching public databases in Florida a Live Science reporter uncovered seven signatures signed by Laukamp between 1997 and 2001 on five notarized documents. Anyone can search these databases and download these documents. These signatures can be compared with the signature recording the sale of the Gospel of Jesus's Wife — providing another way to verify or disprove the story of how the "gospel" made its way to Harvard. The signature of Hans-Ulrich Laukamp from September 1997. While Harvard University would have to work with forensic handwriting experts to verify the signature, the fact that these notarized documents exist, and are publicly available, presents the opportunity to see if Laukamp really did own the Gospel of Jesus's Wife. Forensic handwriting analysis, while not always conclusive, has been used to determine if signatures made on documents or works of art are authentic or forged. If Laukamp did own the papyrus, authentic or not, then the origins of the enigmatic text lie with him. The new Laukamp documents allow the story of his life between 1995 and 2002 to be told in some detail. However if Laukamp didn't own the papyrus and the anonymous owner has not been truthful, then further doubt would be cast on the papyrus' authenticity, and information leading to the identity, motives and techniques of the forgers could be found. Authentic or forged? One important find, which indicates the Gospel of Jesus's Wife is a fake, was made last year by Christian Askeland, a research associate with the Institute for Septuagint and Biblical Research in Wuppertal, Germany. He examined a second Coptic papyrus containing part of the Gospel of John, which the anonymous owner of the Gospel of Jesus's Wife had also given to Harvard. This text was likewise supposedly purchased from Laukamp, and radiocarbon testing of that papyrus similarly found that it dates back around 1,200 years. [See Images of the Ancient Gospel of Judas] Askeland found that the text and line breaks— where one line of a text ends and another begins — are identical to those of another papyrus, published in a 1924 book. That second papyrus was written in a dialect of Coptic called Lycopolitan, which went extinct around 1,500 years ago. Askeland concluded that the John papyrus is a forgery. Furthermore, it shares other features with the Gospel of Jesus's Wife, Askeland said, suggesting both are forgeries. "The two Coptic fragments clearly shared the same ink, writing implement and scribal hand. The same artisan had created both essentially at the same time," Askeland wrote in a paper recently published in the journal New Testament Studies. King objected to this conclusion in her Biblical Archaeology Review letter, noting that the John fragment could have been copied in ancient times, long after Lycopolitan went extinct, from a text that had similar line breaks. In addition, James Yardley, a senior research scientist at Columbia University, told Live Science that the new tests confirm that the Gospel of Jesus's Wife holds different ink than the John papyrus. This could undercut Askeland's argument that the two papyri were written by the same person. "In our first exploration, we did state that the inks used for the two documents of interest [the John papyrus and the Gospel of Jesus's Wife] were quite different. The more recent results do confirm this observation strongly," Yardley told Live Science. He added that until his new research is published in a peer-reviewed journal, he doesn't want to say anything more publicly. And once it's published, Askeland and other researchers will have a chance to respond. Askeland's find is far from the only argument that the Gospel of Jesus's Wife is a fake: A number of scholars have noted that the Coptic writing in the Gospel of Jesus's Wife is similar to another early Christian text called the "Gospel of Thomas," even including a modern-day typo made in a 2002 edition of the Gospel of Thomas that is available for free online. That typo indicates the forgers copied from this modern-day text. King disputed this assertion in 2014, saying that ancient scribes made grammatical errors similar to the modern-day typo. King and communications staff at Harvard Divinity School have not responded to repeated requests for comment. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 108.
#2. To: cranky (#0)
Heretics and scoffers will not give up until the very end.
What if the document is proven not to be a forgery?
Proven? By whom? The people who want it desperately to be true?
What's wrong with it being true? Are you so programmed to think of sex as an evil act that you think Jesus would go to hell for having sex? Even inside a marriage?
It is clear from NT Scriptures that the marriage bed is undefiled. Regardless of what some medieval clergy may think. So not a case of 'sex' within marriage. It is a case of consistency. We have over 5,000 manuscript evidences of the NT texts. Not one even hints at Jesus being married. But we do know from those same evidences, Jesus had a mother, an earthly 'step-father' and brothers and sisters. They are all mentioned but not a wife. No mention of a wife. We hear "brothers of Jesus", "Mother of Jesus" but not even a hint of "wife of Jesus." So unless this fragment comes directly from an Apostle and predates the NT Scriptures, it is unreliable.
It is clear from NT Scriptures that the marriage bed is undefiled. Regardless of what some medieval clergy may think. Un,huh. "Marriage bed UNDEFILED". Nothing prejudicial there,is there? BTW,PLEASE correct me if I am wrong,but isn't the "New and Improved" New Testament even newer than the 4th Century scroll fragment that is the source of this thread? Doesn't that mean,by your OWN logic,that the entire NT must also be fraudulent? We hear "brothers of Jesus", "Mother of Jesus" but not even a hint of "wife of Jesus." Yeah,we even hear a LOT about the "Jesus Baby Daddy" who was NOT his mother's husband,and who violated his own commandments by impregnating another man's wife.
Yes I will correct you...You are incorrect. If you read the post I provided you would see the manuscript evidence is centuries earlier. If you went to some of the links I provided you would see late 1st Century and early 2nd Century church theologians quoted from what we call the NT. If we were to take just the writings of the church fathers from the first three centuries, we could piece together an entire OT and NT...even without the manuscripts. That is what is called a dual independent check. And the Bible both OT and NT surpasses this. Yeah,we even hear a LOT about the "Jesus Baby Daddy" who was NOT his mother's husband,and who violated his own commandments by impregnating another man's wife. Now you are just being cynical and silly. Plus showing you are commenting on something you have little knowledge on.
In other words,written from 100 to 200 years after the events written about. Yeah,we even hear a LOT about the "Jesus Baby Daddy" who was NOT his mother's husband,and who violated his own commandments by impregnating another man's wife. Now you are just being cynical and silly. Plus showing you are commenting on something you have little knowledge on. Who was the Jesus baby daddy? Who was the Jesus mother,and who was she married to?
With regards to the early church fathers AFTER the Apostles. Which means these men in the late 1st and early 2nd century had written copies in circulation. I went into that quite a bit in my previous post. Who was the Jesus baby daddy? Who was the Jesus mother,and who was she married to? I recommend you read Luke chapter 1. Perhaps if you entered with the knowledge that God is the Creator of all things and Master of His own Creation, Luke chapter 1 would not be so difficult to understand. The Son of God was manifest in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. The woman with this high honor was Mary. Mary's bloodline reaches back through the tribe of Judah to King David. Mary was betrothed to Joseph when the following occurred: Luke chapter 1: 29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” 34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” 35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.” 38 Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
Who was the Jesus mother,and who was she married to? Why not just give me a direct answer? We both know who the claimed father was,but I want to "hear" you say it. I recommend you read Luke chapter 1. Perhaps if you entered with the knowledge that God is the Creator of all things and Master of His own Creation, Luke chapter 1 would not be so difficult to understand. The flip side of that is perhaps if you were to read it with a open mind instead of as a True Believer,you might also see it differently?
The flip side is, Luke chapter 1 is crystal clear what was going on. Jesus Christ was to be born. Son of the Living God. Immanuel "God with us." Now maybe the Mormans 'read it' different as they believe Gabriel did not show up but God the Father had 'sex' with Mary. Now the Mormons are an interesting case. Joseph Smith fits your category of religious fraud. He received personal visions no one else witnessed much like Muhammad did. None of what either one wrote came with the Power of God. No miracles, no fulfilled prophecy etc. In fact both the writings of Smith and Muhammad have predictions in them that never came to be. The Biblical standard for prophecy is a 1.000 batting average. Anything else...false prophet, false message.
There are no replies to Comment # 108. End Trace Mode for Comment # 108.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Don, redleghunter (#2)
Heretics and scoffers will not give up until the very end.
#7. To: SOSO (#4)
#13. To: Don (#7)
Proven? By whom? The people who want it desperately to be true?
#46. To: sneakypete (#13)
Are you so programmed to think of sex as an evil act that you think Jesus would go to hell for having sex? Even inside a marriage?
#65. To: redleghunter (#46)
Are you so programmed to think of sex as an evil act that you think Jesus would go to hell for having sex? Even inside a marriage?
#68. To: sneakypete (#65)
BTW,PLEASE correct me if I am wrong,but isn't the "New and Improved" New Testament even newer than the 4th Century scroll fragment that is the source of this thread?
#75. To: redleghunter (#68)
If you went to some of the links I provided you would see late 1st Century and early 2nd Century church theologians quoted from what we call the NT. If we were to take just the writings of the church fathers from the first three centuries, we could piece together an entire OT and NT...even without the manuscripts. That is what is called a dual independent check. And the Bible both OT and NT surpasses this.
#91. To: sneakypete (#75)
In other words,written from 100 to 200 years after the events written about.
26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”
#97. To: redleghunter (#91)
Who was the Jesus baby daddy?
#108. To: sneakypete (#97)
The flip side of that is perhaps if you were to read it with a open mind instead of as a True Believer,you might also see it differently?
Replies to Comment # 108.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]