Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert


www.guardian.co.uk

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
markgoodacre.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married
'Proof' Jesus was married found on ancient papyrus that mentions how son of God spoke of his wife




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Well, I rather doubt that this will get even remotely close to the attention of the original, sensationalist coverage of the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife", but here is an expert in early Christian writings, stating that an analysis of the Coptic text demonstrates that it is, effectively, a "cut and paste" of text out of the Gospel of Thomas. It could be a Fourth Century fraud, but more likely a modern one.

Watson also notes similarity to the previous case, the forged Secret Gospel of Mark.

Time will tell if additional study supports or refutes Watson, but he seems to make a very good case for modern forgery.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

The summary, from Watson's original article (GJW = Gospel of Jesus' Wife, GTh = Gospel of Thomas):


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)
edit on 21-9-2012 by adjensen because: Added summary from original article



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert,


Wow! an expert!! What would we do without experts?


+9 more 
posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
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? So i just looked this guy up and guess what? He is a bible banger..Go figure, he would dispute this
edit on 21-9-2012 by TheLonewolf because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
NEWSFLASH!
Those claiming Jesus wife document is a fake may be... trying to fake you out too.
Like they tried to do with the Jesus tomb discovery.
Nice try. I know how you feel. I felt the same way after discovering much of what I'd been told was not necessarily true.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Jesus wife is God's organization, his government, his people. People its symbolic.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

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?


Because he's a scholar who has studied early Christian writings for decades, I suppose. Do you have other qualifications that make a person an expert in your eyes?

Prof Francis Watson


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)


Sounds like a pretty standard New Testament scholar to me, and Oxford educated, to boot.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Expert : Christian Scholar with publications financed by the Vatican. lololol



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sylent6
Jesus wife is God's organization, his government, his people. People its symbolic.



Yep, people don't seem to understand Jesus constantly called the church his Bride.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I am convinced this is a psyop just like that fake youtube smear vid.


This was designed to get christians angry,confused,defensive. TPTB know this little trick of playing with people's core beliefs like a toy or piece on a chess board. All emotional psyop. That's why I don't believe most of the "shocking discoveries" that come from mainstream corporate media.

Problem. Reaction. Solution. Repeat.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Having a "degree" does not mean that you are a scholar of knowledge, or true knowledge for that matter.

All it means is that who ever has that particular degree has memorized what their school has taught them, like the nice little student they are.

There is a reason for classes, teachers, and school records. They need to know who will ask the right questions and who wont.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

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.


Interesting stuff glad you posted it,



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
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. As far as I am concerned, my view on this particular document is indifference. When it comes to matters of faith, it does not matter how much scholarship, science, or historical context is provided to explain a particular dogma or doctrine.

More often than not, the learned explanations usually fall short to prove the authenticity of biblical events. People believe what they want. Still, I would not hoot and holler about this particular document or any of the more recent biblical finds. At least not until a battery of tests have been done and a significant analysis by scholars and historians can provide explanation to it's authenticity. It takes a lot to change 2,000 years of tradition. Here is the Vatican and a prominent Protestant historians' opinion on this parchment.

‘Wife’ of Jesus theory attracts skepticism


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.”


There are quite a lot of clever fraudsters out there. As it stands now, I don't foresee this as being a Gospel breaker, or a reason to rewrite the text. Too much skepticism, and not just coming from the Catholic Church, but other historians and denominations. As the saying goes, "Patience is a virtue."



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


It's interesting how expert opinion and analysis only holds water when it's being directed against the bible or Christianity, and not when its in either's favor.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

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.


Perhaps this is why this seems to be "rushed" and poorly vetted: Smithsonian Channel, airing 30 September, 2012.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Would it surprise anyone if Jesus had multiple wives? I mean a guy of his stature, back then. He could probably have had a few hundred children if he wanted.

Maybe the church decided to include monogamy in scripture as a means of population control, then a little while on they said we can do even better, no wife for Jesus at all. Conspiracy! Speculative..

Or is that a little too blasphemous?
edit on 9/21/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/21/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/21/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
The Bible itself teaches Jesus was married. Th Wedding at Cana was his wedding. First it was the custom back then for the Bride groom to be in charge of the wine. and the mother of the groom to run the wedding. You could not be a rabbi if you were unmarried etc. His enemies would have castaged him much sooner for not following the law had he not been married.

The kicker is these scriptures which clearly shows he is the groom at the Wedding at Cana

John:2:1
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.
3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”
4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.”
5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
6 Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each.
7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim.
8 And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him.
9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom,

10 and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

The head waiter called him the bridegroom...



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
The kicker is these scriptures which clearly shows he is the groom at the Wedding at Cana

John:2:1
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.


Why would Jesus be invited to his own wedding?


Sorry, but it's pretty obvious that Jesus was not the groom at the Wedding at Cana.





new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join