Papyrus found Jesus married

[shunyadragon]

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/09/was-jesus-married-ancient-papyrus-mentions-his-wife/

A small fragment of faded papyrus contains a suggestion that Jesus may have been married.

The fragment, with just eight lines of text on the front and six lines on the back, is from a fourth-century dialogue, written in the Coptic language, between Jesus and his disciples. In it, Jesus speaks of “my wife,” according to Harvard professor Karen L. King, who discovered the fragment.

“The most exciting line in the whole fragment…is the sentence ‘Jesus said to them [his disciples], my wife…” King said in a video posted to Harvard’s YouTube channel. The next line of text reads, “She will be able to be my disciple.”

“This is the only extant ancient text which explicitly portrays Jesus as referring to a wife,” King wrote in her paper on the discovery.

© Copyright Original Source

[Jedidiah]

Old hat. See discussion in Unorthodox Theology.

[KingsGambit]

It is very misleading to affirmatively state for sure in a subject line that, yes, Jesus was for sure married... based on a line in a fourth century document.

[Darth Executor]

Shuny passing an old forgery as a new discovery. Shocking.

[whag]

It is very misleading to affirmatively state for sure in a subject line that, yes, Jesus was for sure married... based on a line in a fourth century document.

I agree.

I do wonder if Jesus would've had a more complete human experience had he been married to a woman.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Um, dude, this papyrus was found as a modern forgery. Which incidentally led to the cancellation of the documentary that was going to air about it.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Craig Evans in 2012:

[Note from Brian LePort: I received an email from Craig A. Evans saying that the Harvard Theological Review (HTR) has decided against publishing Karen King's paper on the Gospel of Jesus' Wife. He wrote, "After the analyses of Francis Watson, Mark Goodacre, Gesine Robinson, and others, I think forgery is virtually a certainty." I responded asking if it is becoming a consensus that it is a "modern" forgery and the below post (which he said I could share) is his response. Also, I should add that he did not provide his source, so I've sent him a follow-up email asking where he heard the news regarding HTR's decision. Update: The source appears to be an email from Gesine Robinson whose source is Helmut Koester. ]
Is the Coptic papyrus, in which Jesus speaks of his “wife,” a fake? Probably. We are far from a “consensus,” but one scholar after another and one Coptologist after another has weighed in pointing out serious problems with the paleography, the syntax, and the very troubling fact that almost all of the text has been extracted from the Gospel of Thomas (principally from logia 30, 101, and 114). I suspect the papyrus itself is probably quite old, perhaps fourth or fifth century, but the oddly written (or painted) letters on the recto side are probably modern and probably reflect recent interest in Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The decision of the editors of Harvard Theological Review not to publish Karen King’s paper is very wise. Perhaps we will eventually learn more about who actually produced this text.

http://web.archive.org/web/201209270...craig-a-evans/

[Meh Gerbil]

I do wonder if Jesus would've had a more complete human experience had he been married to a woman.

If he was married it would explain why he allowed himself to be crucified.

[whag]

If he was married it would explain why he allowed himself to be crucified.

Imagine the pain of having multiple wives. Consider how David dealt with them:

"It was before the Lord, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel; therefore I will celebrate before the Lord.

“I will be more lightly esteemed than this and will be humble in my own eyes, but with the maids of whom you have spoken, with them I will be distinguished.”

Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.

That's how you treat 'em ANE style.

[Raphael]

it would appear that they have decided it is not a modern forgery
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-...modern-forgery

[One Bad Pig]

If he was married it would explain why he allowed himself to be crucified.

Clearly it was because of the guys his daughters were dating.

[Paprika]

It is very misleading to affirmatively state for sure in a subject line that, yes, Jesus was for sure married... based on a line in a fourth century document.

It's not fourth century: from the Harvard report, the "papyrus material is ancient, and can be dated to the seventh to eighth c.c.e." Fourth century is the hypothetical .

[Paprika]

it would appear that they have decided it is not a modern forgery
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-...modern-forgery

Depends on who you define "they" as.

The Theological Review also published a rebuttal by Leo Depuydt, an Egyptologist at Brown University, who said he reviewed the test results but remained convinced that the fragment was a modern forgery inexpertly daubed on an ancient scrap of blank papyrus.

[Meh Gerbil]

Clearly it was because of the guys his daughters were dating.

Touche.

[robrecht]

It is very misleading to affirmatively state for sure in a subject line that, yes, Jesus was for sure married... based on a line in a fourth century document.

Not to mention the fact that the author herself was quoted in the news story:

"King stresses that the new discovery “does not provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married.”

And this was from a news report in September of 2012, before there was any chance for peer review, which has raised significant concern about forgery.