Jesus Wife Evidence

[Trey of Diamonds]

Historian Says Piece of Papyrus refers to Jesus Wife

A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife ...’ ”

The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at the International Congress of Coptic Studies by Karen L. King, a historian who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity.

Well? What do you think?

 

[F0uad]

Subject has been already started on a different location.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Subject has been already started on a different location.

Many times. Is there one on this particular piece of evidence?

 

[Quagmire]

A scrap of papyrus, written in the forth century. Could mean any number of things, none of which would be likely to mean much of anything.

Maybe a fragment from a lost gnostic text?

 

[Iti oj]

A scrap of papyrus, written in the forth century. Could mean any number of things, none of which would be likely to mean much of anything.

Maybe a fragment from a lost gnostic text?

That's how I feel about the whole bible

 

[outhouse]

first it snot even known as authentic yet.

second, as quag stated, if authentic, it holds little value, other then understanding a later sect in the movement

 

[Huey09]

I think that while churches all over the world are in uproar this could actually be a good thing. A married jesus is one people all over the world could relate to. Same as muslims relate the prophet muhammad, or hindus to krishna. both married and still holy men.

 

[F0uad]

Yeah 4th century doesn't really tells us anything since we already know that there were Christians who believed that Jesus(p) was married.

 

[455SinceFriday]

If you understand these scriptures you then realize it doesn't have to do with any sort of real wife as in many people may think. It would be like taking the verse where he says" Who is my mother and brothers" and saying Jesus also suffered from Alzheimer's.

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother(B) and brothers(C) stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven(D) is my brother and sister and mother.”

 

[1137]

It's meaningless. I don't see why Jesus would not get married, but a little scrap of papyrus really means nothing. Has it even been decided if it is legit?

 

[fallingblood]

A scrap of papyrus, written in the forth century. Could mean any number of things, none of which would be likely to mean much of anything.

Maybe a fragment from a lost gnostic text?

I think King suggests it is from a gospel text, possibly initially dating from the second century. The gospel, for time being, is called something like the Gospel according to the Wife of Jesus (for easy reference). It sounds like they have a larger text as well, but this is the portion that is newsworthy.


-----
Looking at the text, I think it is interesting. So far, it's authenticity seems genuine (as in, it is from the fourth century, it is not a forgery, etc.). And honestly, I see no reason to doubt it in the sense that it is likely some would have argued that Jesus was married. In a different article, I read that the context in general was regarding the debate of whether or not we should marry. And it is known that such a debate did occur. Paul himself even seems to enter into it. So it isn't something that wouldn't be expected.

What I find most interesting (and this would be even more so if they released the entire text that it was found in), is whether or not it can be traced to the second century as King suggests. I wouldn't doubt it, as we can be sure this isn't an original manuscript. But if it does have a long history, I would find that very interesting.

Whether or not Jesus was married wouldn't really be effected by this text though, unless it turns out to be something very unexpected and be very early.

 

[Xchristian]

Christian faith is going down so fast, I can't believe it.
I was built on philosophical ideas and forced upon people with the sword, now it's pay back time.

 

[fallingblood]

It's meaningless. I don't see why Jesus would not get married, but a little scrap of papyrus really means nothing. Has it even been decided if it is legit?

The evidence right now (it is a newly released item) is that it is legit. The experts who have looked at it are quite sure it is legit. Meaning that it is not a forgery, it was probably written (copied) in the 4th century, and was by Christians.

 

[fallingblood]

Christian faith is going down so fast, I can't believe it.
I was built on philosophical ideas and forced upon people with the sword, now it's pay back time.

What are you talking about? This in no way effects Christian faith. Not to mention, most Christians (and the general public for that matter) will ever hear of this find. And those who do, won't most likely be effected.

 

[SteveGrayFTW]

A lot of comments I've read about it (not necessarily here, but all over the interwebs) seem quick to dismiss it, or to try to interpret it in a way that doesn't necessarily mean Jesus had an actual human woman wife (like saying he was married to the Church, or what not).

I don't understand this. The foundations of Christianity may already be out there, but why couldn't new information be brought into the fold? Is this something that would really rock Christianity that badly? He would have still died, this just means someone may have been a little more upset than everyone else.

 

[TashaN]

Historian Says Piece of Papyrus refers to Jesus Wife



Well? What do you think?

I think this new evidence might be shocking to many Christians but normal to the rest of the world.

 

[Gui10]

So what we just learned is that Jesus was the first ''false prophet of god'' who created a sect for his benefit?

 

[fallingblood]

A lot of comments I've read about it (not necessarily here, but all over the interwebs) seem quick to dismiss it, or to try to interpret it in a way that doesn't necessarily mean Jesus had an actual human woman wife (like saying he was married to the Church, or what not).

I don't understand this. The foundations of Christianity may already be out there, but why couldn't new information be brought into the fold? Is this something that would really rock Christianity that badly? He would have still died, this just means someone may have been a little more upset than everyone else.

It is usually dismissed because it is just of too late of a date. A piece of work from the 4th century just can't really be used in order to say anything historically about Jesus.

On the other hand, there are things in the Gospels that some have used in order to argue that Jesus did have a wife. And in all actuality, what you say is correct. Regardless of Jesus having a wife, he still would have died. For many people, it just would be shocking as people have a very long held idea of Jesus, and to change that can be hard for some people.

 

[fallingblood]

So what we just learned is that Jesus was the first ''false prophet of god'' who created a sect for his benefit?

What? I don't know how you got any of that.

 

[Gui10]

What? I don't know how you got any of that.

I made an assumption based on a couple of things.

Before this news, Jesus ''was not supose to'' have a wife; the bible did not mention it. (It might have, I am not sure, Im just guessing since this seems to be ''new'')

It made me think that if was actually the case then Jesus' whole story is a scam.

As some people still do nowadays, they call themselves prophets of god, they say that god spoke to them personally and they entitle themselves as leaders of sects where they gain fame and women. Jesus might of been the original conceptor.