Atlantis Online
March 29, 2024, 03:23:02 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: DID A COMET CAUSE A FIRESTORM THAT DEVESTATED NORTH AMERICA 12,900 YEARS AGO?
http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php/topic,1963.0.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Papyrus Referring to Jesus’ Wife Is More Likely Ancient Than Fake, Scientists Sa

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Papyrus Referring to Jesus’ Wife Is More Likely Ancient Than Fake, Scientists Sa  (Read 601 times)
0 Members and 25 Guests are viewing this topic.
Danielle Gorree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4269



« on: April 12, 2014, 07:59:52 pm »

Papyrus Referring to Jesus’ Wife Is More Likely Ancient Than Fake, Scientists Say

By LAURIE GOODSTEINAPRIL 10, 2014




 A fragment of papyrus, known as the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife,” has been analyzed by professors at Columbia University, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who reported that it resembled other ancient papyri. Credit Karen L. King/Harvard University, via Reuters





A faded fragment of papyrus known as the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife,” which caused an uproar when unveiled by a Harvard Divinity School historian in 2012, has been tested by scientists who conclude in a journal published on Thursday that the ink and papyrus are very likely ancient, and not a modern forgery.

Skepticism about the tiny scrap of papyrus has been fierce because it contained a phrase never before seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife...’ ” Too convenient for some, it also contained the words “she will be able to be my disciple,” a clause that inflamed the debate in some churches over whether women should be allowed to be priests.
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Danielle Gorree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4269



« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2014, 08:01:01 pm »

The papyrus fragment has now been analyzed by professors of electrical engineering, chemistry and biology at Columbia University, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who reported that it resembles other ancient papyri from the fourth to the eighth centuries. (Scientists at the University of Arizona, who dated the fragment to centuries before the birth of Jesus, concluded that their results were unreliable.)

The test results do not prove that Jesus had a wife or disciples who were women, only that the fragment is more likely a snippet from an ancient manuscript than a fake, the scholars agree. Karen L. King, the historian at Harvard Divinity School who gave the papyrus its name and fame, has said all along that it should not be regarded as evidence that Jesus married, only that early Christians were actively discussing celibacy, sex, marriage and discipleship.

“I took very seriously the comments of such a wide range of people that it might be a forgery,” Dr. King said in an interview this week. She said she is now very confident it is genuine.

“When you have all the evidence pointing in one direction, it doesn’t make it 100 percent, but history is not a place where 100 percent is a common thing,” Dr. King said.

The new information may not convince those scholars and bloggers who say the text is the work of a rather sloppy forger keen to influence contemporary debates. The Harvard Theological Review, which is publishing Dr. King’s long-delayed, peer-reviewed paper online on Thursday, is also publishing a rebuttal by Leo Depuydt, a professor of Egyptology at Brown University, who declares the fragment so patently fake that it “seems ripe for a Monty Python sketch.”

Dr. King presented the fragment with fanfare at a conference in Rome in September 2012, but was besieged by criticism because the content was controversial, the lettering was suspiciously splotchy, the grammar was poor, its provenance was uncertain, its owner insisted on anonymity and its ink had not been tested.

An editorial in the Vatican’s newspaper also declared it a fake. New Testament scholars claimed the text referred to the “bride of Christ,” which is the church — an interpretation Dr. King said was entirely possible.

It is very unusual to test the ink and papyrus of a fragment so small — this one is 4 by 8 centimeters — because it can damage the item, papyrologists say. The authenticity and dates of other famous fragments were determined by paleographers examining the handwriting.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

The “Jesus’s Wife” papyrus was analyzed at Columbia University using micro-Raman spectroscopy to determine the chemical composition of the ink. James T. Yardley, a professor of electrical engineering, said in an interview that the carbon black ink on this fragment was “perfectly consistent with another 35 or 40 manuscripts that we’ve looked at,” that date from 400 B.C. to A.D. 700 or 800.

At M.I.T.’s Center for Materials Science and Engineering, Timothy M. Swager, a chemistry professor, and two students used infrared spectroscopy to determine whether the ink showed any variations or inconsistencies.

“The main thing was to see, did somebody doctor this up?” Dr. Swager said in an interview. “And there is absolutely no evidence for that. It would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible.”

However, Dr. Depuydt, the Egyptologist at Brown University, said that testing the fragment was irrelevant and that he saw “no need to inspect it.” He said he decided based on the first newspaper photograph that the fragment was forged because it contained “gross grammatical errors,” and each word in it matched writing in the Gospel of Thomas, an early Christian text discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. “It couldn’t possibly be coincidence,” he said.

A forger could easily create carbon black ink by mixing candle soot and oil, he said: “An undergraduate student with one semester of Coptic can make a reed pen and start drawing lines.”

But the scientists say that modern carbon black ink looks very different under their instruments. And Dr. King said that her “big disappointment” is that so far, the story of the fragment has focused on forgery, not on history


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/science/scrap-of-papyrus-referring-to-jesus-wife-is-likely-to-be-ancient-scientists-say.html?hp&_r=1
Report Spam   Logged
Danielle Gorree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4269



« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2014, 08:01:49 pm »

Translation: it is genuine.
Report Spam   Logged
TWGilbert
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2014, 09:44:46 pm »

Those who practiced Yogic techniques at that time for the preparation of inner discoveries of the higher principles regarding spiritual disciplines would never have married; yet if they had, like Ramakrishna in the mid 1800s, they would have still remained celibate. Regarding Dan Brown's final analyses, if he had actually been able to stumble onto "real" truths regarding the unusual MASTER teacher of 2000 years ago and attempted to put it into print, he would have been assassinated before any of his speculations ever made it into print. And the political hack editors (fabricators) at the Council of Nicea under that notorious homicidal maniac Constantine did such an incredible job of undoing anything purposeful and genuine regarding the real history of the Master teacher (it's like reading the Warren Commission Report on Kennedy) that what we have today has no resemblance to the facts of 2000 years ago. These are interesting sites to study carefully:

Historical Jesus

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/1stC_Hist.htm

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

It just may be that the one historical Jesus, the Essene, the one that was stoned to death and hung on a tree and died around 100 BC, may have been the Jesus who was reincarnated almost immediately as Apollonius of Tyanna (Apollo [mentioned in Acts], A-PAUL-O, or Paul), and why Acts looks so much like the historical record of the first four gospels (too many parallels)................. What a marvelous conundrum for the ages.....................
Report Spam   Logged
Rennes-le-Château
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3588



« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2014, 01:48:13 am »

So we have the timeline wrong of the real Jesus?   Interesting, but Paul and the others claim to be his disciples...
Report Spam   Logged
TWGilbert
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2014, 07:15:40 am »

The editors at the council of Nicea "fused" the two lives of the same reincarnated Entity (Jesus and Paul: Yeshua and Apollonius) together into one single life, yet there are clues all the way along in the narrative as there are huge problems with the editing, which is why the Catholic church for hundreds of years refused to allow parishioners to even read the Bible.

From the Authorized King James Version:

Acts, Chapter 5, verse 30: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.”

Now wait a minute. I thought it was a cross. You mean it was a tree? And not a cross? I really thought there was a difference?

Acts, Chapter 10, Verse 39: “And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:”

There’s that tree again. Come on, now, was it a tree or a cross?

Acts, Chapter 18, verses 24 & 25: “And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scripture, came to Eph’-e-sus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.”

Is this Apollos the same as Apollonius? How would Apollos know John the Baptist?

Acts, Chapter 18, verses 27 & 28: “And when he was disposed to pass into A-cha’-ia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.”

And this Apollos, whoever he was, helped the disciples? And another thing, also, I thought it had just said he was Jewish? Why would he have to ‘mightily’ convince the Jews, if he was one, that Jesus, who was a Jew, was Christ, if he was one? I’m confused.

Acts, Chapter 19, verses 6 & 7: “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake in tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.”

And Paul had twelve people here that he laid his hands on and they received the Holy Ghost, and they spoke in tongues? Did I read this somewhere else before? A teacher with twelve friends?

Acts, Chapter 20, verse 25: “And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.”

And Paul is saying this? I thought someone else said this.

;Acts, chapter 20, verses 28 – 31: “ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, Which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.”

Three years? I thought someone else was back out of the wilderness to do that? What is this, a carbon copy issue or something?

Acts, Chapter 21, verses 11 – 14: “And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.”

I thought someone else did this? What am I looking at?

Acts, Chapter 21, verses 27 & 28: “And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.”

These seven days wouldn’t be the time of Passover, would they? Where have I read this before? I’m getting confused.

Acts, Chapter 21, verses 33 & 34: “Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done. And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude: and when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle.”

This wouldn’t be the same castle where Jesus was taken to, now, would it be?

Acts, Chapter 21, verses 37, 38, & 39: “And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? Art not thou that E-gyp’-tian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Ci-li’-cia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.”

Now wait a minute. This guy asks Paul if he can really speak Greek, and so Paul must be able to? And then he asks him if he’s that Egyptian? Like Apollos? Then Paul states that he’s a Jew from Tarsus [Tyanna is in Tarsus]?

It's a matter of connecting ALL of the dots.........................................
Report Spam   Logged
Rennes-le-Château
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3588



« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2014, 01:34:25 am »

That's an interesting observation. There are no Roman or Jewish records of Jesus' existence from what I heard. The Jewish records, in fact, all date to well after the  traditional time period given for Jesus' existence. (See the article, "History Ignores Him.") Of course, now that I think of it, wasn't our calendar invented by the Romans, too?
Report Spam   Logged
Rennes-le-Château
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3588



« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2014, 12:32:32 am »

Anything more new on this..?
Report Spam   Logged
Danielle Gorree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4269



« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2014, 02:52:17 am »

Testing Indicates "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" Papyrus Fragment to be Ancient

By Jonathan Beasley
April 10, 2014

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.,—A wide range of scientific testing indicates that a papyrus fragment containing the words, "Jesus said to them, my wife" is an ancient document, dating between the sixth to ninth centuries CE. Its contents may originally have been composed as early as the second to fourth centuries.

The fragment does not in any way provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married, as Karen L. King, the Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School, has stressed since she announced the existence of the fragment in the fall of 2012. Rather, the fragment belongs to early Christian debates over whether it was better for Christians to be celibate virgins or to marry and have children. The fragment is weighing in on this issue, according to King.

"The main topic of the fragment is to affirm that women who are mothers and wives can be disciples of Jesus—a topic that was hotly debated in early Christianity as celibate virginity increasingly became highly valued," King explained.

After receiving the fragment in December 2011 from the owner, King took the papyrus to New York in 2012 to be examined by Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University. After Bagnall's initial assessment that the fragment was ancient based on handwriting and other features, further analysis began in earnest. 

Over the past two years, extensive testing of the papyrus and the carbon ink, as well as analysis of the handwriting and grammar, all indicate that the existing material fragment dates to between the sixth and ninth centuries CE. None of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery.

Two radiocarbon tests were conducted to determine the date of the papyrus. In the first test, the sample size was too small and resulted in an unreliable date. A second test performed by Noreen Tuross at Harvard University in conjunction with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute produced a date of origination for the piece of papyrus from 659 to 859 CE. Other testing with FT-IR microspectroscopy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) confirmed the homogeneous chemical composition of the papyrus and examined patterns of oxidation.

James Yardley, Senior Research Scientist in the Center for Integrated Science and Engineering, Columbia University, and Alexis Hagadorn, Head of Conservation at Columbia University Libraries, used a technique called micro-Raman spectroscopy to determine that the carbon character of the ink matched samples of other papyri that date from the first to eighth centuries CE.

Malcolm Choat from Macquarie University examined the fragment at HDS and offered an independent assessment of the handwriting.

Microscopic and multispectral imaging provided other significant information about the nature and extent of the damage and helped to resolve a variety of questions about possible forgery.  For example, if ink had pooled on the lower fibers of the front, it would have shown the papyrus was written on after it had been damaged. Or if the alpha had overwritten a sigma in line four, it would have shown that someone tampered with an ancient fragment that read “the woman” by changing it into “my wife.” No evidence of this kind is apparent, however.

After all the research was complete, King weighed all the evidence of the age and characteristics of the papyrus and ink, handwriting, language, and historical context to conclude the fragment is almost certainly a product of early Christians, not a modern forger.

King first announced the existence of the fragment on September 18, 2012, at the International Coptic Congress in Rome, and dubbed it "The Gospel of Jesus's Wife." The use of the word "gospel" makes no claim to canonical status. The title refers to the fragment's most distinctive claim (that Jesus was married), and serves as a short-hand reference to the fragment.

Nothing is known about the discovery of the fragment—which measures only about one-and-a-half inches by three inches—but it is assumed to have come from Egypt because it is written in Coptic, the form of the Egyptian language used by Christians there starting in the Roman imperial period.

Twice in the tiny fragment, Jesus speaks of his mother, his wife, and a female disciple—one of whom may be identified as "Mary." The disciples discuss whether Mary is worthy, and Jesus states that "she can be my disciple."

The real author of the fragment is not known and would likely remain unknown even if more of the text of the Gospel of Jesus's Wife had survived. This remaining piece is too small to know anything definite about who may have composed, read, or circulated it, except that they were Christians.

"This gospel fragment provides a reason to reconsider what we thought we knew by asking what the role claims of Jesus's marital status played historically in early Christian controversies over marriage, celibacy, and family," King said.
HDS Shield    

HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL, 45 Francis Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138   617.495.5761


http://gospelofjesusswife.hds.harvard.edu/testing-indicates-gospel-jesuss-wife-papyrus-fragment-be-ancient
Report Spam   Logged
Danielle Gorree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4269



« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2014, 02:52:55 am »


"Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'": Update on Coptic Papyrus Fragment

Testing Indicates "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" Papyrus Fragment to be Ancient
Report Spam   Logged
Danielle Gorree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4269



« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2015, 12:56:41 am »

New scientific evidence further supports the premise of The Da Vinci Code.
A fragment of papyrus containing the first-known reference to a married Jesus Christ has been analyzed by professors at Columbia University, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who declared it an authentic document. To learn more about it, visit , , and


http://www.danbrown.com/news/#news/new-scientific-evidence-further-supports-the-premise-of-the-da-vinci-code/
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy