Evidence that Jesus had Wife Emerge

[outhouse]

Does the number of these "many scholars" significantly outnumber those who have not concluded the papyrus is a modern-day forgery? If so, evidence of this would be appropriate. What ya got?

It doesn't matter if real or not. It changes nothing at all.

The unknown status of jesus REAL life does not change because some 4th century Hellenist created fiction. They were doing this in the first century let alone the forth.

 

[outhouse]

Your title of the OP is also misleading.

This is not credible evidence Jesus had a wife IF REAL.

This only reflects what people thought hundreds of years later, and we already know there was wide diversity.


More then likely this is a fraudulent piece so don't get your hopes up.

 

[outhouse]

The current consensus among scholars is that the Gospel of Jesus' Wife is a modern forgery.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Leigh_King

 

[Theweirdtophat]

A worthless rag, with no historical value at all.



unsubstantiated rhetoric



Probably was.

You seem to be naysaying very often. But why? What do you base this on? There are documents, most of which in France that have hinted of Jesus having a family even before this piece came up. It's not just the bible that says he's a descendent of King David either. There was a reason why he was called King of the Jews. It appeared according to the documents that he was just trying to fulfill the Messiah Prophecy in order to establish change in a Jewish state that held up the status quo for too long.

 

[jojom]

The current consensus among scholars is that the Gospel of Jesus' Wife is a modern forgery.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Leigh_King

Actually, your source says:

"writing on his blog, Christian Askeland, a Coptic scholar currently affiliated with Indiana Wesleyan University, summed up the general feeling about the fragment. The specialists at the conference who had seen the photo were “split,” he wrote, “with almost two-thirds … being extremely skeptical about the manuscript’s authenticity and one-third … essentially convinced that the fragment is a fake.”

A near-consensus began to emerge among the scholars who studied the photos: the fragment seemed to be a fake.

Indeed, in the scholarly world of ancient history and ancient texts, little is truly unimaginable—because so little, in the end, is truly known. Despite the piles of evidence suggesting that the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife is a forgery, there remains the possibility, however slim, that it is authentic."
source​

However, in light of all that's said in the article, it doesn't seem at all likely that the scrap is meaningful.



.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I'm more interested in Yahweh's wife, personally. It's never said in the Bible that Jesus was celibate anyways.

 

[jojom]

I'm more interested in Yahweh's wife, personally. It's never said in the Bible that Jesus was celibate anyways.

I think that's the universal presumption and conclusion.


.

 

[Skwim]

It doesn't matter if real or not. It changes nothing at all.

The unknown status of jesus REAL life does not change because some 4th century Hellenist created fiction. They were doing this in the first century let alone the forth.

No doubt this irrefutable knowledge comes from your years as an ecclesiastical history scholar.

 

[outhouse]

Actually, your source says:

My source?


Sorry mine said quite clearly I might add, The current consensus among scholars is that the Gospel of Jesus' Wife is a modern forgery.[6]

 

[outhouse]

You seem to be naysaying very often. But why?

Because it was written by people with no CREDIBLE education on the topic who promote pseudo history.

 

[dust1n]

Because it was written by people with no CREDIBLE education on the topic who promote pseudo history.

How does this differ from any given Gospel about Jesus?

 

[outhouse]

No doubt this irrefutable knowledge

Don't put words in my mouth I never said.


Its not honest, and I expect more from you.

I have studied this at high levels from credible academia, but thank you.

 

[outhouse]

How does this differ from any given Gospel about Jesus?

The gospels are written somewhat in the time period of the events. They can be studied for historical content. And it factually contains credible history with study.

The rag that was promoted, is a piece of fiction, that has no credible history that can be pulled from no matter how extensive the study is.


So scholars study the gospels.

And fiction writers who were not scholars created the other.

 

[outhouse]

However, in light of all that's said in the article, it doesn't seem at all likely that the scrap is meaningful.

Which is my exact point here.

The piece IF real, can only show what later people far removed from any actual event, created and believed. There is s a lot of pseudepigrapha from these periods and they serve as a reflection of the LATER evolution of the movement.

 

[dust1n]

The gospels are written somewhat in the time period of the events. They can be studied for historical content. And it factually contains credible history with study.

70 years later counts as somewhat in time period? That being the earliest? And what historical content?

 

[outhouse]

70 years later counts as somewhat in time period?

Sorry your not entirely accurate about that date.

Mark is dated 70CE ish meaning 4 decades after his death. It was also a compilation of traditions written and oral, meaning some parts go back very close to that Passover when he was crucified.

That being the earliest?

Paul is the earliest less then 2 decades later

And what historical content?

Quite a bit being the gospels are factually not all mythology.

 

[outhouse]

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8265.html

This is the current state of historical Jesus study in context.


If you need help understanding it let me know, I can help.

 

[dust1n]

Sorry your not entirely accurate about that date.

Mark is dated 70CE ish meaning 4 decades after his death. It was also a compilation of traditions written and oral, meaning some parts go back very close to that Passover when he was crucified.

Huh? How can we know that what Mark said 80's later is accurate representation of any historical accuracy? He compiled written traditions (which we don't have) and oral traditions (which we also don't have). So, I guess I just fell to see how any given gospel can be claimed to be more factually accurate than any other, given that the smallest gap between Jesus and anyone who wrote about him was 80 years apart.

Paul is the earliest less then 2 decades later

Thanks.

Quite a bit being the gospels are factually not all mythology.

I'm just curious as to an example?

 

[George-ananda]

If Jesus had a wife and brothers (as even more suggest) or even children I don't see why that would be a big issue.

 

[Skwim]

My source?

Sorry mine said quite clearly I might add, The current consensus among scholars is that the Gospel of Jesus' Wife is a modern forgery.[6]

I'm talking about the link on which your quote is based: [6] <------