(visit the link for the full news article)
A New Testament scholar claims to have found evidence suggesting that the Gospel of Jesus's Wife is a modern forgery.
Professor Francis Watson, of Durham University, says the papyrus fragment, which caused a worldwide sensation when it appeared earlier this week because it appeared to refer to Jesus's wife, is a patchwork of texts from the genuine Coptic-language Gospel of Thomas, which have been copied and reassembled out of order to make a suggestive new whole.
Six of the eight incomplete lines of GJW recto are so closely related to the Coptic GTh, especially to Sayings 101 and 114, as to make dependence virtually certain. A further line is derived from Matthew; just one is left unaccounted for. The author has used a “collage” or “patchwork” compositional technique, and this level of dependence on extant pieces of Coptic text is more plausibly attributed to a modern author, with limited facility in Coptic, than to an ancient one. Indeed, the GJW fragment may be designedly incomplete, its lacunae built into it from the outset. It does not seem possible to fill these lacunae with GTh material contiguous to the fragments cited. The impression of modernity is reinforced by the case in line 1 of dependence on the line-division of the one surviving Coptic manuscript, easily accessible in modern printed editions. Unless this impression of modernity is countered by further investigations and fresh considerations, it seems unlikely that GJW will establish itself as a “genuine” product of early gospel writing. (Source)
Originally posted by TheLonewolf
Just read the article and it's riddled with "he believes, he thinks and he say's" Just because someone thinks, says or believes something does not make them an expert..How do we know this guy isn't a ignorant, narrow minded bible thumper?
Francis Watson is a Christian scholar and professor of New Testament Exegesis at the University of Durham. He formerly taught at the University of Aberdeen where he was the Kirby Laing Chair in New Testament. Watson is a respected scholar in the areas of biblical interpretation and the theological interpretation of Scripture. He has an MA and DPhil from Oxford. (Source)
Originally posted by sylent6
Jesus wife is God's organization, his government, his people. People its symbolic.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by TheLonewolf
Just read the article and it's riddled with "he believes, he thinks and he say's"
Um, that's the Guardian article.
Go read the original paper, which is here. The words "believe", "think" or "says" do not appear in it.
Contacted by AFP, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi refused to call into question King’s competence as a historian but said that “we do not really know where this little scrap of parchment came from.”
“This does not change anything in the position of the Church which rests on an enormous tradition, which is very clear and unanimous” that Jesus Christ was not married, he said.
“This changes nothing in the portrayal of Christ and the gospels. This is not an event that has any influence on Catholic doctrine,” he said.
A professor at the Protestant Faculty of Theology in Paris, Jacques-Noel Peres, pointed out the text was from a relatively late period.
“I have never read texts from any preceding period which spoke about the veracity of Jesus being married,” Peres said.
The professor added that in the language of the time “wife does not necessarily mean spouse.”
Originally posted by Jakes51
I kind of thought that this text would turn out to be a fraud. Especially with all the fanfare it received when the story broke. The hoopla began before any biblical scholars and historians could mull over the document to determine origin and authenticity.
Originally posted by hawkiye
The kicker is these scriptures which clearly shows he is the groom at the Wedding at Cana
1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
2 and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.