If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Having absolutely no bias or conflict of interest, Vatican scholars declare the 'Gospel of Jesus' Wife' papyrus to be a fake   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 136
    More: Followup, Jesus Christ, Vatican, Coptic Christians, Coptic, Early Christian, Christendom, Explainer, Jewish weddings  
•       •       •

5010 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Sep 2012 at 2:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



136 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-28 02:01:21 PM
Because someone went to all the effort it would take to fake that.

They started with a piece of 4th century papyrus to confuse the carbon dating. They learned 4th century coptic, and then practiced a writing hand in that language so carefully that it would look natural and regular on the page. They made ink as it was made in the period and mixed in bits of ink from the time so that too would pass radiography and spectroscopic examinations. They wrote the passage, and then distressed the edges so it would be cut off in exactly that spot. They found a way to oxidize the distressed edges so that they would appear to be uniformly antique when compared with the rest of the 1600-year old piece of papyrus.

SO DAMN CLEVER!
 
2012-09-28 02:04:56 PM
And the best part is they did this to do ... what?

To offer a "gotcha" moment to the Pope?
 
2012-09-28 02:05:15 PM
You know, PBS Newshour had an interview about this a week or so ago, and it was really interesting to learn that the actual angle on this story, at least as far as the researcher who started it all is concerned, has nothing to do with Jesus actually having or not having a wife. The parchment is several hundred years older than Jesus and wouldn't be an accurate record of that in any case. What it does concern, purely, is a look at how early branches of Christianity were *talking* about Jesus. Christianity was still really sorting itself out back then, and various factions/interpretations were still elbowing their way around. The researcher's entire point is that this is a look at the fact that, for a while, at least, there was apparently a group of Christians who were *comfortable* with the idea of having Jesus be married. They're obviously not the ones whose viewpoint one, but the fact that they existed is an interesting window on the earliest days of a two thousand year old religion. I know that's not as exciting a media angle as OMG JESUS WASN'T A VIRGIN, but I wish that there could be a little less sensationalism about this story.
 
2012-09-28 02:05:59 PM
It's not fake

/but there's not enough of it to derive any context or conclusions
//stop squealing, your racket is safe
 
2012-09-28 02:11:55 PM

unlikely: Because someone went to all the effort it would take to fake that.


People have done it before. There's a lot of money to be made in fake antiquities.
 
2012-09-28 02:22:10 PM

Pocket Ninja: You know, PBS Newshour had an interview about this a week or so ago, and it was really interesting to learn that the actual angle on this story, at least as far as the researcher who started it all is concerned, has nothing to do with Jesus actually having or not having a wife. The parchment is several hundred years older than Jesus and wouldn't be an accurate record of that in any case. What it does concern, purely, is a look at how early branches of Christianity were *talking* about Jesus. Christianity was still really sorting itself out back then, and various factions/interpretations were still elbowing their way around. The researcher's entire point is that this is a look at the fact that, for a while, at least, there was apparently a group of Christians who were *comfortable* with the idea of having Jesus be married. They're obviously not the ones whose viewpoint one, but the fact that they existed is an interesting window on the earliest days of a two thousand year old religion. I know that's not as exciting a media angle as OMG JESUS WASN'T A VIRGIN, but I wish that there could be a little less sensationalism about this story.


Not as exciting and also not as impactful. Virginity isn't a requirement for his divinity. But the idea that there was Jesus the archetype long before there was Jesus the man would carry some serious implications.
 
2012-09-28 02:24:08 PM
Four left to go.
 
2012-09-28 02:24:26 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: unlikely: Because someone went to all the effort it would take to fake that.

People have done it before. There's a lot of money to be made in fake antiquities.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-28 02:29:17 PM
I'm sure the Catholic Church is very experienced in spotting fakes, having examined many in their time.

www.drkarl.com
 
2012-09-28 02:29:17 PM
This could mean the Divine Right of Kings is legit, true descendants of God!
 
2012-09-28 02:29:18 PM
Where's Jesus' divine woodcarvings? You'd think a god on earth would be pretty badass with a chisel and hammer. Someone, somewhere would have recognized the handcrafted furniture signed, "Yeshua bin Josef" and that it would have fetched a mint at Antiques Roadshow.
 
2012-09-28 02:29:26 PM
Its as real as the Shroud of Turin so far...
 
2012-09-28 02:29:39 PM
The parchment contained the phrase: "Man, those Samoans are a surly bunch".

photos1.blogger.com
 
2012-09-28 02:29:49 PM
A good friend is an expert in this and was the scientist that validated the 'Gospel of Judas'. That is to say, she authenticated that the paper and ink were about 2,000 years old.

I suspect the same thing here: the paper and ink are about 2,000 years old.
 
2012-09-28 02:30:28 PM
It's almost as if this "Jesus" character, who we have no record of at all until hundreds of years after his "life" is actually an amalgam of several different small prophets of the time.
 
2012-09-28 02:30:30 PM
If only they were so skeptical about that silly shroud of Turin.
 
2012-09-28 02:30:32 PM
Isn't the Catholic Church's authority at least in part based on a known forgery? The Donation of Constantine. Glass houses and all that.
 
2012-09-28 02:30:53 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: It's not fake

/but there's not enough of it to derive any context or conclusions
//stop squealing, your racket is safe


Yes, keep sending them money. They will tell you God or Jesus really said and his plans for you. Also, send them your sons.

/biggest scam ever.
 
2012-09-28 02:31:10 PM
Maybe is was some other guy named Jesus. Maybe having a name like Jesus back then was as common as having the name Joe these days. They should have said it was....ummm some other Jesus.
 
2012-09-28 02:31:20 PM
of course Jesus wasn't married.

He hung around exclusively with a bunch of guys, and eventually got nailed by a group of Roman men wearing skirts. It took him 3 days to recover from that banging!
 
2012-09-28 02:32:25 PM
Nothing like a vested interest

PS - it only matters to the religion.

Matters not in the least to His Glory as the Savior Redeemer of those who Believe on Him.
 
2012-09-28 02:32:45 PM
Diogenes: But the idea that there was Jesus the archetype long before there was Jesus the man would carry some serious implications.

Not really... the Old Testament is full of plenty of Jesus archetypes. Isaac, Joshua, The Ark of the Covenant, the serpent on the hill in the wilderness, et al.
 
2012-09-28 02:33:11 PM

LeroyBourne: Maybe having a name like Jesus back then was as common as having the name Joe these days.


Actually, if I remember my early Christian history classes from college correctly, it kinda was.
 
2012-09-28 02:33:13 PM
lucidlilith.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-28 02:33:14 PM
Weren't Cathars of the same opinion until they were wiped away by the inquisition in the 13th century ?
 
2012-09-28 02:33:42 PM

Pocket Ninja: You know, PBS Newshour had an interview about this a week or so ago, and it was really interesting to learn that the actual angle on this story, at least as far as the researcher who started it all is concerned, has nothing to do with Jesus actually having or not having a wife. The parchment is several hundred years older than Jesus and wouldn't be an accurate record of that in any case. What it does concern, purely, is a look at how early branches of Christianity were *talking* about Jesus. Christianity was still really sorting itself out back then, and various factions/interpretations were still elbowing their way around. The researcher's entire point is that this is a look at the fact that, for a while, at least, there was apparently a group of Christians who were *comfortable* with the idea of having Jesus be married. They're obviously not the ones whose viewpoint one, but the fact that they existed is an interesting window on the earliest days of a two thousand year old religion. I know that's not as exciting a media angle as OMG JESUS WASN'T A VIRGIN, but I wish that there could be a little less sensationalism about this story.



That wasn't funny at all. You're slipping.
 
2012-09-28 02:33:59 PM
Considering Jesus' age and the fact that he was Jewish, it is more likely that he was married than not.

They haven't figured out how to make him non-Jewish yet, right?
 
2012-09-28 02:34:07 PM

Pocket Ninja: You know, PBS Newshour had an interview about this a week or so ago, and it was really interesting to learn that the actual angle on this story, at least as far as the researcher who started it all is concerned, has nothing to do with Jesus actually having or not having a wife. The parchment is several hundred years older than Jesus and wouldn't be an accurate record of that in any case. What it does concern, purely, is a look at how early branches of Christianity were *talking* about Jesus. Christianity was still really sorting itself out back then, and various factions/interpretations were still elbowing their way around. The researcher's entire point is that this is a look at the fact that, for a while, at least, there was apparently a group of Christians who were *comfortable* with the idea of having Jesus be married. They're obviously not the ones whose viewpoint one, but the fact that they existed is an interesting window on the earliest days of a two thousand year old religion. I know that's not as exciting a media angle as OMG JESUS WASN'T A VIRGIN, but I wish that there could be a little less sensationalism about this story.


This. These stories crop up with predictable regularity, and rarely is there any real historical (much less theological) analysis offered, just a big bunch of sensationalism.
 
2012-09-28 02:34:23 PM
Why does it even have to be a fake, to have no historical value? It could be a 100% genuine 4th century troll trying to annoy the fundamentalists by daring to suggest that Jesus took a wife.

If it claimed to be from a 1st century document, it would have more potential religious value, but this is like me trying to give historical details on something that happened in 1700. I might be right, I might be wrong, but it certainly couldn't be considered a primary source. Neither can this fragment, even IF it's not a fake.
 
2012-09-28 02:36:24 PM

Itstoearly: Diogenes: But the idea that there was Jesus the archetype long before there was Jesus the man would carry some serious implications.

Not really... the Old Testament is full of plenty of Jesus archetypes. Isaac, Joshua, The Ark of the Covenant, the serpent on the hill in the wilderness, et al.


I would go back further to the Teacher of Righteousness of the Essenes. And that's just in the cultural lineage. I'm sure there are archetypes in other cultures that evolved in parallel.
 
2012-09-28 02:36:26 PM
Flying spaghetti monster approves. Flying spaghetti monster disapproves.
 
2012-09-28 02:36:29 PM

ParaHandy: [lucidlilith.files.wordpress.com image 379x564]


Loved this book!
 
2012-09-28 02:39:41 PM
His Wife: Jesus Christ, can't you do anything?
 
2012-09-28 02:42:30 PM
Are you trying to tell me that the Catholic church would discredit evidence that would argue against their narrative?



That's just crazy talk!
 
2012-09-28 02:43:20 PM

Diogenes: Not as exciting and also not as impactful. Virginity isn't a requirement for his divinity. But the idea that there was Jesus the archetype long before there was Jesus the man would carry some serious implications.


Divinity required Mary to be a virgin. Hell, even her mother conceived Mary immaculately.
 
2012-09-28 02:43:29 PM

Pocket Ninja: You know, PBS Newshour had an interview about this a week or so ago, and it was really interesting... etc.


Agreed. If it's an all around genuine article, it's very fascinating from an early Christianity historical POV, and certainly valuable in its own right.

However, there's also a chance that it's a clever forgery, in which case it has no historical value.
 
2012-09-28 02:43:44 PM
One of my climbing partners has been involved in the study of this particular fragment. IIUC, the general consensus is that it's a fake, albeit an old one.

There are some kind of problems with the writing style or tools, but the biggest issue is that this one fragment has exactly enough info to establish who they're talking about and the context... and nothing beyond that. The problem is that you couldn't take a similar-sized chunk of any other document from the period and get such a complete, understandable set of statements. Not technically impossible, but the likelihood is so vanishingly small as to be effectively impossible.
 
2012-09-28 02:45:44 PM

vwarb: It's almost as if this "Jesus" character, who we have no record of at all until hundreds of years after his "life" is actually an amalgam of several different small prophets of the time.


Dozens of years, actually. There was a Roman historian who mentioned him somewhere around 60 CE.

Oddly, though, no one has any trouble accepting that Mohommed or Sidartha actually were real people even though their teachings were oral for centuries.
 
2012-09-28 02:46:11 PM
i1245.photobucket.com
no word on this guy yet?
 
2012-09-28 02:47:16 PM
Having some expertise in this kind of thing, it actually looks fake. For example, the letters look as if they were written to fit onto the fragment, instead of looking like they had been written for a larger codex that subsequently degraded. The letters also look like their shape is partly determined by the imperfections in the papyrus (especially notable toward the middle of the sheet). Yet if it had been written when the papyrus was new, the sheet should have been relatively smooth.
 
2012-09-28 02:48:36 PM
In this one, Jesus is a retarded whorespawn, as discovered by a disturbed Christian time-traveller, who...well, you get the Christ you deserve, I suppose. Or you write the one you require.

2.bp.blogspot.com 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behold_the_Man_%28novel%29 (spoilers!)
 
2012-09-28 02:50:13 PM

Robert1966: Having some expertise in this kind of thing, it actually looks fake. For example, the letters look as if they were written to fit onto the fragment, instead of looking like they had been written for a larger codex that subsequently degraded. The letters also look like their shape is partly determined by the imperfections in the papyrus (especially notable toward the middle of the sheet). Yet if it had been written when the papyrus was new, the sheet should have been relatively smooth.


Let me guess - you're a Birther? ;-)

"I can tell by the papyrus...."
 
2012-09-28 02:50:57 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Pocket Ninja: You know, PBS Newshour had an interview about this a week or so ago, and it was really interesting... etc.

Agreed. If it's an all around genuine article, it's very fascinating from an early Christianity historical POV, and certainly valuable in its own right.

However, there's also a chance that it's a clever forgery, in which case it has no historical value.


I disagree. Clever forgeries have immense value in history, because they inform us about which notions and to what degree rational people were willing to suspend disbelief.

See "holy relics", "prayer cloths" and "healing oils".
 
2012-09-28 02:54:31 PM
Elsewhere in the Bible, "wife" is synonymous with "the church"... isn't it just easier to argue it away as saying that maybe Jesus meant the Church?
 
2012-09-28 02:54:38 PM
not enough there

didn't Jesus call the church his bride at one point in a gospel, or was that in one of the later books

/don't feel like going and researching right now
 
2012-09-28 02:55:24 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: LeroyBourne: Maybe having a name like Jesus back then was as common as having the name Joe these days.

Actually, if I remember my early Christian history classes from college correctly, it kinda was.


It wasn't the most common of names, but there was at least one other example in the Bible itself: Joshua. We get Joshua's name straight from the Old Testament's Hebrew, but the New Testament was written in Greek, so the name "Jesus" is technically a translation into that language, which later got translated again.
 
2012-09-28 02:56:10 PM

zetar: A good friend is an expert in this and was the scientist that validated the 'Gospel of Judas'. That is to say, she authenticated that the paper and ink were about 2,000 years old.

I suspect the same thing here: the paper and ink are about 2,000 years old.


what about the gospel of GAGA
 
2012-09-28 02:56:25 PM

loonatic112358: not enough there

didn't Jesus call the church his bride at one point in a gospel, or was that in one of the later books

/don't feel like going and researching right now


7s :)
 
2012-09-28 02:57:11 PM

HailRobonia: I'm sure the Catholic Church is very experienced in spotting fakes, having examined many in their time.


It might surprise you to know that the Roman Catholic Church avoids taking any official position on whether the Shroud is a fake, allowing individuals to make their own judgments.
 
2012-09-28 02:58:40 PM
That biatch ain't my wife....

sethandray.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 50 of 136 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report