All  
Papyrus referring to wife of Jesus

Scientists say papyrus referring to wife of Jesus is no fake

Print

In September, 2012, a faded fragment of papyrus, which has controversially come to be known as 'The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife', made international headlines when it was unveilled by Harvard Divinity School historian Karen L. King.  The announcement, unsurprisingly, was met with both anger and elation, as well as a great deal of skepticism as it contained a phrase never seen before in any other scripture: " Jesus said to them, my wife…." , and " she will be able to be my disciple", a phrase that stirred debate over whether women should be allowed to be priests.  An editorial in the Vatican’s newspaper declared that the papyrus was a fake, as did a number of other scholars. However, the fragment has now been thoroughly tested by scientists who conclude, in a report published in the Harvard Theological Review , that the ink (actually pigment) and papyrus have ancient origins, and the fragment is not, therefore, a modern forgery.

The papyrus fragment has now been tested by scientists at Columbia University, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), who carried out carbon-dating as well as micro-Raman spectroscopy to determine the chemical composition of the ink. The results revealed that: the papyrus can be dated to approximately 700 to 800 AD, it is consistent with other papyri from the fourth to the eight centuries, the carbon black ink (actually a type of pigment) was typical of that used on other papyri of the time, and the text did not show any variations or inconsistencies which would suggest doctoring.

The text is written in Sahidic, a language of ancient Egypt, and the study authors have suggested that it may be a transcription of an earlier Coptic text that was based on a Greek copy made centuries earlier, as many early Christian gospels are. Therefore, a date of 700 to 800 AD does not mean that this was the first time the text appeared.

However, scientific analysis is not always enough to convince some. The Harvard Theological review, is also publishing a counter piece by Egyptologist at Brown University, Leo Depuydt, whose paper predates the scientific analysis. According to a report on the story in the New York Times , Dr Depuydt said that testing the fragment was irrelevant and he saw “no need to inspect it”. He said he decided that it is a fake based on a newspaper photograph of the papyrus in which he saw “grammatical errors”, as well as similarity to writing in the Gospel of Thomas. In a rebuttal, King finds Depuydt’s textual analysis unpersuasive.

Dr King has been quick to point out that the test results do not prove that Jesus had a wife or disciples who were women, only that the fragment is ancient rather than forged. She does hope, however, that the discussion, commentary, and focus can now move on from ‘is it fake?’ to ‘what does all this mean?’

Featured image:  The front of a papyrus fragment from an early Christian codex on which is written the Gospel of Jesus's Wife. Photo credit: Karen L. King

By April Holloway

Comments

Just because my enemy in Jr High wrote I was a Cheater Contemporaneously with my being in Jr High doesn't mean it's true. He didn't like me. So he wrote something. Big Deal. An old piece of writing shows up just as they are trying to destroy Christianity and it's objection to Gays.

angieblackmon's picture

so the papyrus is real, that doesn't have to mean the information on it is though, right? i could write all types of things on a piece of paper and it could be found in thousands of years...doesn't mean what i wrote is the truth...but the paper and ink are real and from the correct time period. i feel like the main question in the story hasn't been answered...we're still stuck on if it's real, and not what does it all mean...just an observation!

love, light and blessings

AB

sorry , link was wrong ;-), here's the right one:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/

the Zeitgeist content about this topic is entirely based on the scientific work of D.M. Murdoch, which is ackknowledged by many other scholars, see here: http://live.daserste.de/de/index.html#programm

Which is based on outdated theories; research it rather than take it at face value and you'll find that the theories that Mithras was born on 25th December and was resurrected are now discredited (it was pure speculation with no supporting evidence).

Yes, resurrection was a fairly common element of ancient myths, but scholars don't tend to agree that the Jesus story was a complete rehashing of what came before: there was a trend at the start of the last century that went crazy drawing lines between all these newly discovered ancient religions, which has been largely replaced by other methods of analysis. Unfortunately, no one told the Zeitgiest lads before they made the film... (which I think is great by the way, despite its flaws).

And the fact that "sun" and "son" sound the same in English... well I don't think I need to break that one down.

Pages

Next article