'Jesus's Wife' papyrus fragment not a forgery, scientists say
Source: Reuters
'Jesus's Wife' papyrus fragment not a forgery, scientists say
By Jonathan Allen
Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:52am IST
REUTERS - Scientists who examined a controversial fragment of papyrus written in Egyptian Coptic in which Jesus speaks of his wife concluded in papers published on Thursday that the papyrus and ink are probably ancient and not a modern forgery.
The existence of the fragment, known as the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife," was made public at an academic conference in 2012. It is seen by some as a glimpse of how ancient Christians thought while decried by others, including the Vatican, as an absurd fake.
Scientific studies performed over the last two years at various universities suggest both the ink and the papyrus are probably no newer than the 9th century and that the language and writing style are authentic for the period.
"All of that points towards the papyrus being ancient and the papyrus having been written on in antiquity," Karen King, the Harvard Divinity School historian who first presented the fragment in 2012, told reporters on a conference call.
Read more: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/04/10/usa-religion-papyrus-idINDEEA390E920140410?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=401
= new reply since forum marked as read
& Rec !!!
I'm off to get re-baptized.
. . . I've had a number of recent discussions online with atheists who make an argument along the lines of, "fundamentalists deserve more credit than moderate Christians because at least they take their faith seriously, rather than picking and choosing." Some of them will even will even try to prooftext their argument by pointing to verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ("All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"
.
But then I point out to them that nowhere in the collection of religious writings we call the "Bible" is there a reference to itself. And even that New Testament passage from 2 Timothy cannot be said to be referring to the "Bible," per se, but at best to the Hebrew Scriptures. indeed, at the time 2 Timothy was written, much of the New Testament had not even been written yet).
Further, I point out that the Bible is a collection of religious texts written over many centuries. Those text span a variety of literary forms, including allegory, poetry, history (with the caveat that 'history' would have been understood rather differently from our modern notion of it as a more or less objective chronological record of events), among many others, and thus the notion that a single standard of literal interpretation should be applied to every part of it is simply absurd. Ironically, the approaches of both biblical literalists and of atheists who try to denigrate non-literal approaches to the bible by insisting only the literalist approach constitutes "taking the bible seriously" are rooted in the very same, post 18th Century rationalist hermeneutic. And many of these atheists don't even realize how much they are buying into literalists' framing of the debate.
plus, as the Wiki entry antiquie points to above says, Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. 116 AD) says 'Christus' was executed by Pontius Pilate, and was the basis for Christianity - and that's a fairly dismissive reference to the religion (" a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular"
, so is unlikely to have been something inserted by a later pro-Christian copier. So the story of the founding of Christianity was certainly around in the 2nd century.
He moved to Japan when he got older, though. Back then he went by the name Daitenku Taro Jurai, and his wife's name was Miyuko. They had three kids and he died there in the mountain hamlet of Shingo at the ripe old age of 106.
True story.
- The rest is history.
K&R
20 years after writing the "Jewish War" Josephus writes his "Antiquities of the Jews". Thus Josephus's "The Jewish War" was written right after the Jewish revolt of 70 AD. There are at least two versions of Josephus's "The Jewish War". One version is on Greek, but there is also a Slovak version of Josephus "The Jewish war". Most of the two are the same, but the Slovak version differs in many aspects from the Greek version we have today (I will refer to the traditional version of Josephus's "The Jewish War" as the "Greek Version" and the Slovak translation as the as the "Slovak" Version).
The Slovak version is the version of the "Jewish War" with the reference to Christ and Christianity. References to Christians are absent in the Greek Version (20 years later Josephus would write the "Antiquities of the Jews" which has references to Christ and John the Baptist, but brief comments only and there is debate if later copiers of those works added or expanded the parts dealing with Christ and John the Baptist):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
Please, note the writers of the above mention the Jewish War (Written about 75 AD) was written 20 years before "Antiquities of the Jews" (Written about 93-94 AD). This would mean the Jewish War was written while Vespasian was Emperor, but "Antiquities of the Jews" was written when Vespasian's son, Domitian was Emperor (And within a few years of the overthrow of Domitian by Nerva, please note Nerva may be Emperor when the"Antiquities of the Jews" came out, the dates are that close and there is an open question as to when the books were first "Published" as we use that term today)
http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/impindex.htm
One has to remember Domitian was the son of Vespasian who had NOTHING to do with putting down the Jewish Revolt of 70 AD. Vespasian's other son, Titus had assisted his father, and later replaced his father when Vespasian become Emperor. Thus Vespasian and Titus knew what went on in Judea during the War (as while as before and after, for that would be required of ANY military leader moving into such a situation). On the other hand, Domitian, had always stayed at Rome. When he became emperor, Domitian tried to straighten out the economic situation, but that meant attacking the privileges of the Senatorial class. Domitian is also noted for going after Jews who had not paid the Special Tax imposed on them for the Jewish Revolt (Thus the Jews as a group hated Domitian). In effect Domitian was hated for he needed money and was doing everything he could to raise that money, mostly by going after the people who had money (We have reports of the Jews bring also hit, but that is from Jewish sources which report the attempts to collect money on the Jews, but not on other people, but we know Domitian went after other groups also, mostly the Senatorial Class where most of the money of war was located).
With the Senatorial Class against Domitian, and no wide spread support from the Army (Which had been more allied with his father and older brother) and having to cut costs to balance the budget at the expense of the Army (Thus losing whatever army support Domitian had), it is surprising Domitian lasted as long as he did. Josephus's "Antiquities of the Jews" was written during this time period of stress, especially on the Jewish Community which Josephus was still one of (Josephus had defected to the Romans during the Jewish Revolt, but he was still a Jew). Nerva and his successors adopted a policy of debasing the currency every time there was a new emperor, not a big problem till the Spanish Silver mines flooded out about 212 AD.
One aspect of the debate on Josephus's attitude to the Chief Priest of the Temple during the Jewish Revolt. In the Jewish War, written right after the Jewish war, the High Priest is given a very sympathetic write up in the Jewish War, but 20 years later when Josephus writes the "Antiquities of the Jews" the attitude is changed, it is much more hostile. Various reasons are given for this change, but one that is NOT presented is the change who was Emperor when both books were written. When the Jewish War was written Vespasian was Emperor and Josephus wanted more then anything else was to get a larger pension. Thus the books had to follow whatever was the official line from Vespasian.
On the other hand when Josephus writes the "Antiquities of the Jews", Domitian is Emperor (or maybe Nerva the dates are close) but during a time period when Domitian's (or Nerva's) hold on being Emperor was weak (Domitian because people were planning on killing him Nerva because he had Killed the ruling Emperor who had been a decent Emperor except to the Ruling Senatorial Class).
Thus the reason Josephus wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" may be to show, it was RADICALS that caused the Jewish revolts NOT normal Jews for by 95 AD, the situation in Rome had changed and putting down Radicals were all the rage, while supporting people who overthrew a "Tyrant" was fashionable.
That would explain the difference in treatment of the High Priest. During the rule of Vespasian, the official line was it was the Jewish people that had revolted and the High Priests had tried to control that tendency to revolt. 20 years later, when the "Antiquities of the Jews" was written, people wanted to hear about how the revolt was caused by Jewish Radicals and thus the Jews were not to blame, but just the Jewish leadership that was destroyed during the suppression of the revolt (i.e. destroy the "Tyrants" you solve the problem, which could also be applied to killing off Domitian, which the Senatorial Class was viewing as a Tyrant, as he tried to clear up the economy).
In simple terms, the audience for the book had changed, and Josephus, being a man of his time period changed with the times. Remember a group of members of the Roman Senatorial class were about to kill the ruling Emperor, the son and brother of the last Roman Generals to win any great victories (or had killed off that Emperor and wanted to hear any grounds why that could be justified, including attacking Vespasian and Titus). Thus the conspirators were looking for an excuse, and any excuse would do. Furthermore any additional justification would be helpful. Thus the differences in the two books, may be not to any other reasons but that the ruling elite of Rome had decided to replace the Emperor for they disliked his decision to increase taxes on them to pay for maintaining the Empire.
Now back to the Jewish War and the differences between the Greek and Slovak versions. Remember the Jewish War was written while Vespasian was still alive and had a strong hold on the Emperorship, unlike Domitian 20 years later when Domitian had a weak hold on being Emperor. Remember, history is re-written even today, to show how what is occurring today is justified, even if the same rationale was attacked 20 years ago. Propaganda is NOT knew, it has been around as long as people could write.
Now, the traditional interpretation of the Slovak version of the Jewish War is that it was part of the propaganda war against the Kazakhs of the 11th Century. While I can NOT disprove that theory I have other suspicions
More on Josephus's "The Jewish War" in Slovak:
http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/gnostic_john_baptist/gjb-3.htm
Now, Josephus wrote in Greek. Church Slovak was a language adopted by the Catholic AND Orthodox Churches in the Ninth Century to translate the bible and other books into, so that the Slavs could hear the bible and other stories in their own language.
The Slovak version of Josephus's "The Jewish war" differs not only in language, but two sections in the Slovak version are different then in the Greek Version. The section most noted is that in the Slovak version Early Christians are mentioned, but then the books description if Christian Doctrine is so off the wall, no Christian of the Fourth through Ninth Century would have wrote it.
The second section that was change, was how Josephus survived the death pact among his own followers against the Romans. In the Greek version, when the fighters and Josephus were surrounded by the Romans, they agreed on a murder-suicide pact. Drawing lots, half of the men would kill the other half. Then the survivors drew lots again, and half the survivors would kill the other half. This would continue till only one was left. and he was to commit suicide. Jewish doctrine held suicide worse then murder, thus it was preferred to be killed and kill each other, then to kill oneself. In the Greek Version, Josephus, by the Grace of God was the last man alive, and he defected to the Romans and died of old age on a Roman Pension (which he was trying to increase, which is way he wrote his book).
The Slovak version is different. It is the same till Josephus is the last man alive, but that was NOT do to luck, Josephus drew the lots to make sure he was the last man alive, so he could defect to the Romans.
One historian made the comment, why would anyone in the 4-9th century make these two changes? And he said, no they would not, even the attacks on Christianity by The Emperor Julian (the Apostate) were preserved by Christians Monks in the Dark Ages, and thus no reason for the Late Empire and Dark Age Christians to change Josephus's book.
The historian then pointed out, they was one man who would want that change, Josephus himself. Remember, Josephus wanted an increase in his Pension, thus he wanted to make the Emperor look as good as possible. That was the purpose of the book, to be something pro-Emperor so the sitting Emperor would increase his pension (When the Jewish war came out Vespasian still Emperor). Thus when the "Jewish War" came out it was more to impress Vespasian's then anything else.
Under this theory the Slovak version, started out as a Greek version, but started to be attacked based on how Josephus defected from the Jewish Revolt to The Romans (Vespasian may have objected, and that would have been enough for Josephus to rewrite those sections).
Josephus realized the first version (What I am calling the "Slovak Version" was hurting his claim for an increase pension, so Josephus pulled the earlier version and re wrote how he avoided being killed in the murder-Suicide plan, and while he was at it, decided to delete the section on the Christians, probably because he had learned how far he was off from what the Christian doctrine was, and rather then re-write the section, he simply deleted it (or maybe Vespasian decided to protect the Christians, for after the Revolt of 70 AD, the Christians had finally broke with being Jewish and probably took some Jews with them and thus provided an alternative to the High Priests of the Jewish Religion which Vespasian may have NOT trusted after the Revolt of 70 AD, with such Emperor Protection, Josephus may have decided to avoid the whole subject thus deleted it).
Now, Romans were NOT known to throw anything away, thus both versions survived for the next several centuries. The "Greek" version had been the preferred version and thus became well known throughout the Empire (again, if Josephus had presented the Slovak version first, and the Emperor recommended some changes, that became the Greek Version, thus both version ended up in the hands of the Flavian Dynasty. With the death of Domitian, both version may have stayed with his relatives, or Domitian's successor, Nerva. Either way, both versions would have survived in somebody's library.
Another factor, through, probably minor, is that Vespasian was the founder of the "Flavian" dynasty. That Roman Dynasty consisted of him and his two sons and then his family lost control of the Emperor-ship. Constantine, who lived 200 years later, founded a new Dynasty, the Neo-Flavian" dynasty, yes the old family once again became Emperors, but this time Christians. Either version would have been favorable to the Emperors of the Neo-Flavians Dynasty (with the exception of Julian), but the "Greek" version may have been the one used by the most Romans during and between their two reigns for it was the "Approved Text" of Emperor Vespasian (and the more I read of Domitian, he was a loner and somewhat of a book worm, thus not sociable but smart, thus he may have been the one who made the decision as to the changes and thus ended up with both versions). Thus the "Greek" version became the dominate version.
Anyway, under the theory that the Slovak version is an earlier version of "The Jewish War", it survived in somebody's library till at least it was translated into Slovak. On the other hand, the "Greek" version was the preferred version and remains so to this day. The reason for the translation into Slovak may be do to some Slavic King wanted to read anything about Jesus, even if it was clearly not doctrinal. Subsequent to the translation into Slovak, the original Greek version of the Slovak version was lost (probably in the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 of more below).
Now, Church Slovak only lasted a couple centuries, being replaced by Latin for Catholics, and Greek for Orthodox. Thus this translation, sat for centuries till it was uncovered in Russia and people read the differences between it and what had been become known as the "Greek" version of Josephus's "The Jewish War". The debate on how these differences occurred has been as diverse, from a Dark Ages Monk making the changes to it being more accurate then the "Greek" version to other people being involved in these changes. I mentioned he Kazakh's above, who were a people of the Steppes, and were under heavy pressure to adopt Christianity or Islam between 900 and 1100 AD.
Before I go on, lets talk about the Great Library of Alexandria and what happened to it. If one library in the ancient world had both versions, it would have been the Great Library of Alexandria. The reports we have of the "riot" and "fire" that "destroyed" the Great Library, mentions that a "few books" were burned, but the attack was on the temple itself and was a well ordered affair and to understand that we have to look back over 50 years before the destruction of the "Great Library of Alexandria".
Constantine ruled 50 years before, and did two things when he became Emperor, first he increase toleration of Christianity, in fact favored it over all other Religions. Second Constantine put Rome on the Gold Standard. Prior to Constantine, Silver had been the metal of coinage, but had become so debased in the 3rd century (Staring with Emperor Nerva, and increasing exponentially after about 212 when the silver Mines of Spain watered out). Given the inflation of the 20os, something had to be done to replace Silver (the debasing had started under Nero, Domitian tried to undo that damage, but ended up debasing the coinage himself, Nerva and his successor each debased the Coinage when they became emperor, all of this was tolerable, till after about 212 when the Spanish Silver mines watered out and the only way to increase the number of coins in circulation was to debase those coins).
To replace the debased Silver Coinage, Constantine decided to opt for Gold. In the Roman Empire of his time period, the best place to "Mine" for Gold was in the Pagan temples. Constantine and his successor then proceeded to "mine" these sources of gold, by first converting them to Christian Churches, and the Christians would turn over all of the Golden idols to Constantine and his successors to melt down and use to make Roman Gold Coin. Please note, if your pagan temple had no gold or silver in them, they survived till the rule of Justinian, 200 years later.
The attack on the Temple of Alexandria, appears to have been such a take over and "mining", organized to make sure no one was hurt, but mostly to make sure the gold went to the Emperor. In such a situation books would have been ignored, for they could not be melted down to make coin. They was NO "Riot" for if a true Riot had occurred, the Emperor would have lost his chance to steal ALL of the Gold, thus it was a very organized "Riot", the imperial troops made sure of that.
Now the destruction of the Temple of Alexandria occurred under Emperor Theodosius, who ruled 20 years after Emperor Julian. Emperor Julian was the last member of the New Flavian Dynasty, but while raised a Christian had converted to being a Pagan by his early 20s. While Julian wanted to restore Paganism, he also wanted to continue the policy of Constantine as to making Constantinople the Center of the Empire. Julian wanted both the Christian Hierarchy and its ability to get messages to the people (and to get back messages from the people) and the old pagan gods. Julian never quite understood that how ancient paganism was run, was incompatible with a centralized religion hierarchy. Thus his plan for returning Rome to Paganism could not provide the need to unify the Empire into one country. The Roman Empire of pre 200 had died for it lack the support of the people of the Empire. That support was seen by Constantine was the unifying factor to hold the Empire together. At that time period, the only thing that could unite something like the Roman Empire into something that thought of itself as one, was religion, and the only religion that had connections throughout the Empire and a hierarchy that kept that religion thinking as one was Christianity. Thus Constantine embracing of Christianity was a two way street, Constantine received the gold from the pagan temples AND loyalty of most of the Christians, in exchange to protecting the Christians and closing down the old pagan temples.
Side Note: While some pagan temples were converted to Churches, most were not, Churches were designed to hold everyone who was a Christian inside the Church, so that they could celebrate mass together and the priest could pass along messages of local interests and national interests. It was this concept that Constantine and his successors wanted, for it provided a way to get messages to the people. Pagan temples were small, designed to permit only the priests of that temple inside, while those people who wanted to sacrifice to the god of that temple wanted to see if they sacrifice was accepted by the god of that temple. Thus Pagan Temples tended to be very small and thus unusable as churches (The Acropolis of Athens was converted to a Church, but there are no evidence it was ever a temple, yes it had a huge statute of Athena, but no altars. It appears to have been when the people of Athens kept they money, thus quite large and could be used as church. The Parthenon in Rome, was a central location of the temples of a lot of gods, thus quite large as each pagan god had its own niche. As a large structure the Parthenon was also converted to a church, but the church was the center that had when it was a Pagan, people waited to see if the pagan god they wanted to please took they sacrifice. Thus the Parthenon had a large internal that could be used as a church)
This problem seems not to have troubled Julian, he wanted to Rome to revert to being pagan, like he had. His plan was to lot the Capital of Persia and use that money to revert Rome back to being pagan. He died in that march after the Persians had blocked his way to their capital. His successor was forced to make a peace with the Persians, saving his army but giving up various cities between the two empires. If Julian had been successful in his looting of the Persian Capital, he may have had the money to re-establish the various Pagan Temples destroyed by Constantine and Constantine's son Constantinius II, but it would NOT given him the ability to learn what was happening within his own empire. Between that and the Army apparently being solidly Christian by the time of the rule of Julian (Long after he said he converted to being a Pagan, he still attended Christian Mass during Christian Holidays and buried Constantinus II in a Christian Church, both acts appears to be attempts by Julian to keep the Army on his side.
Now I bring up Julian for during his brief rule we have a couple of letters that imply that Julian was the one who "Destroyed" the Library of Alexandria, by the simple policy of stealing all of the books and sending them to Constantinople. Thus making Constantinople the center of all learning (and thus education under the control of the Emperor). Julian only ruled four years, but that is enough to make such a transfer. Given that it was Christian Emperors who succeeded him, as Christians such rulers had reasons NOT to give credit to the transfer of the books to Julian. Instead such Emperor knew they were in Constantinople and financed it, but ignored how those books came to Constantinople. To say how they came, would have been given credit to Julian, and none of his successor saw any advantages to them to do that. Thus the "Destruction" of the Library was most likely done by Julian, but as a transfer of those books to Constantinople, so to increase the control and power of the Emperor.
As to the report of the Destruction of the Library of Alexandria, the first report of destruction of more then a couple of books is Centuries later, at the time of the alleged Destruction all that is reported destroyed is the temple the library was associated with:
More on the Destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria:
http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm
http://christianthinktank.com/qburnbx.html
That Constantius II had set up a Library in Constantinople, just before Julian Succeeded him as Emperor:
http://www.onlinecollege.org/2011/05/30/11-most-impressive-libraries-from-the-ancient-world/
I bring this up, for something like the Library of Alexandria (and its successor in Constantinople) would have both version of Josephus's Jewish war. In the ninth Century I can see a Slavic King asking for a version of both versions of the Jewish War being translated into Slovak so he could compare them. Constantinople may have had the only version of what we call the Slovak version and it was from that city both versions came from.
What we call the "Greek" version, existed outside of Constantinople and thus survived the destruction of that city in 1204. The rarer "Slovak" version, in its original Greek, was most likely lost in that attack.
Thus the comments on Christ in Josephus's the Jewish war, appears only in the Slovak translation of a Greek Original (Remember that is true, if the Slovak version is a translation of an alleged earlier version of the Greek version of "The Jewish War" . Thus the comments are written in a different hand, for it is a translation and any translator will change things for you are talking about two different languages. You can NOT do a word by word translation, for Greek and Slavic have different sentence structures, thus some interpretation has to be involved in any translation. I went into the above to show that while it is possible for scholars to say the Slovak version was written by someone else other then Josephus, that is true THE TRANSLATOR is rewriting the story to a degree and that change will be reflected in any translation.
Thus the Slovak version may be an earlier version of our Greek Version of Josephus's "The Jewish War" that was re written on the request of the Emperor Vespasian to further Vespasian's position on that war (made it better propaganda). That would explain the difference between the two version.
Furthermore I can see some Slavic Prince wanted to read BOTH versions in Slovak around 1000 AD, and see both versions translated. The Greek Version would have been dismissed as a translation into Slovak, while the Slovak version some how survived in an Orthodox Library till discovered and reprinted in the West in the 18th Century. We can NOT trace the Slovak version back before about 900, but it was translated from the Greek. The real issue are the changes in the Slovak version of "The Jewish War" a product of the 9th or 10th Century or a product of Josephus himself. The above is the argument that it is a product of Josephus himself. I can NOT dismiss the issue that it is a product of the 9th and 10th Century for reasons that appeared to be good to some translator of that time period. Thus it may be such a product, but as a whole I go with Josephus doing the work under the "suggestion" of Emperor Vespasian.
Such re writes are common today, I keep thinking of the various movies and photos made by the Soviet Union during the days of Stalin, showing Stalin as part of the leadership that took over Russia in 1917-1921, but then saw him "removed" from those movies and photos after 1955 (one movie had a shadow of a Russian Soldier covering that part of the film where the acting portraying Stalin was acting. In the US we are NOT that much better, in the 1950s we had a movie on the troops that supplied the Army that swept through France in 1944, the "Red Ball Express". Great move, showing how the white American Soldiers (and a few African Americans) of the "Red Ball Express" faced all types of obstacles to get supplies up to US Troops at the front. The only problem was the "Red Ball Express" was overwhelming African American in composition, but glorifying African Americans was NOT part of the American Agenda in the 1950s, so the movie had White Soldiers instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ball_Express
Thus even in the US, we re-write history, thus such a rewrite can not be excluded as a explanation for anything written in the past.
Hi hoe the dairy oh Jesus had a wife. 
