Ancient Parchment With Jesus’ Wife Comment Found To Be Authentic.

After a couple of years of back and forth, the ancient piece of writing referring to Jesus’ wife has now been verified as being from as late as the 6th century to as early as the 4th century.  The Catholic Church immediately labeled the writing as fake and will probably continue to do so.

There is a steady trickle in ancient writings from the centuries after the “Time of Christ.”  To the extent to which they are accurate, they give some indication of the variety of beliefs the information flowing about the world in those centuries.

The woman anthropologist who came into ownership of this piece of writing says it does not “prove” Jesus had a wife. What is does suggest is that there were people during that period who believed he had a wife.  This is every bit as important as whether he did or did not.

I’ve read that one of the reasons priests are not allowed to marry is that Jesus was not married.  So, if he was not married, why did someone literate enough to write, which as unusual at the time, think he was married?

There remains all manner of controversy about what the Bible’s main character, Jesus, was all about.  While it seems clear he was apocalyptic  about the eminent end of the world, there are those who say this was not his preoccupation.

One thing is sure.  When the unknown authors of the Bible wanted to drive home some point, they portrayed it as coming from Jesus.

Probably there was someone going around at the time quoting what Jesus had said about his wife.

105 Responses

  1. StanB

    Ever hear of a genre of liturature called historical fiction? Where a person creates a story using past history as a framework for fiction? 3-5 years after the events would seem to qualify. All of Paul’s letter were written in the thirty years after the crucifixion, wouldn’t you consider them more accurate then something written so much later?

    1. Stan 9:54 “All of Paul’s letters were written in the thirty years after the crucifixion, wouldn’t you consider them more accurate that something much later/”

      In terms of history, probably most the time. This little piece of paper says someone who could write thought Jesus had a wife. My guess is on someone wealthy enough to write thought this, someone else did too. It doesn’t prove there was a wife. Just that someone, or someone(s), thought this in an ancient time.

      It’s in the same genre as the several gods that were floating around and written about at the time. There was not one point of view on most anything, just like today.

      1. I was listening to Reza Aslan who wrote the recently released book on the life of Jesus, entitled “Zealot “. He maintained that during the time that Jesus would have been alive, having a wife would have been more probable than his not having a wife. Made sense to me.

        1. Henry

          Why is Jesus having a wife very important to the atheist? There must be a purpose to their attraction to this concept.

          1. entech

            Not really any attraction to the idea, actually no real attraction to the idea that Jesus had a life or a wife.
            This is not to deny the historical Jesus as being an actual person (possibly a compound of several) but certainly anything to point to any doubt, anything that would make you think you may be wrong.

          2. Henry

            Ok. Your “truth” consists of one scrap of parchment. Meanwhile you have historically rejected the Bible, which is based on over 22,000 manuscripts. You are consistent with your bias and level of myopia. You are not alone. You have people considered heavy hitters like Errman in your camp that have the same level of myopia.

          3. Henry 4:39 “OK. Your ‘truth’ consists of one scrap of parchment.”

            The “truth” is not that Jesus had a wife. We don’t know about that. The truth is that there were people who thought he had a wife.

          4. Adam Heckathorn

            I agree with Jon on the significance being not that it’s excepted as gospel or factual but that it gives Us a more focused view of what things were really like at the time. I was taught:

            *** w09 11/1 p. 7 Myth 4: God Is a Trinity ***
            Myth 4: God Is a Trinity
            What is the origin of the myth? “The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.
            “The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father.’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.
            In other words that The council of Nicaea was a fulfillment of Paul’s words: (2 Thessalonians 2:1-5) 2?However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2?not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 3?Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. 4?He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god. 5?Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things? And this: (1 Timothy 4:1-5) 4?However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, 2?by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3?forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth.
            So I was lead to believe that The Early Christians did not believe in The Trinity, a Soul separate from the body, Hell as anything but the grave, Clergy Laity distinction, The Cross as a religious symbol, The absolute long term futility of investing to much in trying to solve societal problems. The view is that Gods kingdom is going to solve Mankind’s problems. Why build a hospital when any moment now God is going to do away with sickness and death.Why work on the symptoms when God is telling You the real problem is The Worlds alienation from God. If You think this way and You really believe it and You have a modicum of empathy for other People Your going to spend Your time in the ministry and Your not going to worry about things like global warming. That’s not to say Jehovah’s Witness’s aren’t willing to lend a hand for their neighbors quite the contrary but it’s all looked at as a temporary fix it’s Gods kingdom that’s going to solve Mankind’s problems. Most other religions think in similar patterns just variations on a Theme.

          5. Henry

            The Trinity is within both the OT and NT. Your doctrine you still seem to use was reinvented 140 years ago, taking a page from Arianism.

          6. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; your 11:19 is an old standard. There are a lot of words not in the Bible. “Bible” being one. “Twins” is another, yet we know people had them.

          7. entech

            Pope is another word not found in the Bible. There are a few verses that can be ‘interpreted’ that way, all about Simon being called Peter and rocks and things. There is also the similarity between peter and rock in both Aramaic and Greek, I have read Hebrew scholars who talk of a love of puns and word games. So the unstable and moveable rock is the foundation stone? The basis is the man who said, who me? no way, I never even saw him let alone be one of his friends. I guess the good father will correct this when he is finished his preparations for the big event.
            There are pointers in both the old and new that can be thought of as pointers to the idea of trinity things, that can be interpreted that way if you want or need to. Bit like the so called prophecies I suppose.

          8. Wanna B Sure

            Adam @ 4:47; Right out of the Watchtower Organization, and much of it contained in it’s booklet; “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Easily contested, but I won’t waste the time. I will only say the customary use of ellipsis by the “Organization” is a deception. As has been the case several times in the past, when ellipsis show up, a thorough reading of ALL the article/reference is desirable.

            The myth is: The Watchtower is reliable.

          9. Adam Heckathorn

            Wanna I read The Bible from cover to cover and decided I should be Baptized so I went into Kelliher and the first church I came to was the Lutheran Church. I tried to open the door and as it was locked I headed across the street towards I think the Presbyterian Church when The Lutheran Minister came out and asked if He could help Me. When I told Him what I was there for He about dropped His Coffee. Well He had Me join a confirmation class with two or three teenagers I was in My early twenties. We got to a lesson about the trinity and I took Him aside and sheepishly confessed that I some how had missed this entirely and wondered how in reading The Bible from cover to cover I could have missed this teaching so central to Christian Faith. He laughed and reassured Me that The Trinity was a mystery which no man could fully understand and not to worry about it. In the Years since, I’ve discovered The reason I missed it was that neither the word Trinity nor the concept is in the Bible as a matter fact An honest evaluation of all the Mainline Churches and The fundamental beliefs They hold in common will reveal These fundamental beliefs are not from the Bible. Nobody puts more effort into publicizing that than JW’s Why reinvent the wheel? You’ll notice The references from The WT references The Catholic Encyclopedia among other things. I saw a debate between Atheists and a variety of Religious clergy Where the point was made By the Atheists that The Mainline religions don’t do what is in the Bible and We should be grateful They don’t. In My experience JW’s are pretty good at actually doing some of the crueler things mentioned in the Bible but struggle to grasp The things that so many whether religious or not can truly appreciate in the teachings of Jesus. For example “Treat others as You’d like to be treated” and what I consider reasonable advice to resolve conflicts at: (Matthew 18:15-18) 15?“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16?But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17?If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.

          10. Wanna B Sure

            I’ve had this discussion before with JWs. If what you say is true, (I don’t believe it after thorough comparison), why is there the need to misquote, abuse the use of ellipsis to change the content/context to fit their position; not make available to the public the 15th of the month edition of the Watchtower, why so secretive; abrogate past failed prophecies, or even worse yet, deny they ever made them, insist on the name Jehovah, when the professor they use to support the NWT as so accurate, says the use of the name/ word Jehovah is not appropriate or justified; etc. etc. it just goes on and on. There is a back story here that I don’t care to know about why you went to the JW’s. and hit the anti Trinitarian band wagon. The triunity of the Godhead, (Godhead being singular), is not an easily determined mathematical equation, yet the combined sources of both the OT, and the NT point directly to it. If you put enough stones in a pile, a mountain can exist, and most people will recognize the mountain as a mountain. Some may deny the mountain, and walk around it. So it is with all the evidence in the OT and the NT. Even the symbols of triangles, circles, shamrocks, etc. are only weak representations /metaphor . “In the beginning was the Word” and that itself is a metaphor. So is “Let Us”. There are many things in life we know and experience, but are not quantified, much less qualified. Human emotions, likes-dislikes are examples, yet they exist.

          11. Wanna 12:12 “If you put enough stones in a pile, a mountain can exist, and most people will recognize a mountain as a mountain.”

            You point to the central problem of the Bible. People can read it in so many ways it becomes meaningless. I think you see a mountain because the idea of mountain was planted in your head before you even read it. Others see a field of randomly tossed rocks and no mountain.

            The trinity is a trick to compromise the several beings people carried in their heads and worshipped. Call them one and the problem is solved.

          12. entech

            How many rocks does it take to make a pile?
            one rock is obviously not.
            Add one, still not.
            Keep adding one by one, when does it become a pile?
            How many do you have to add to turn a pile into a mountain?

          13. entech

            That would depend on which direction you were approaching it from, if we call east belief and west non belief.
            Approaching from the west it doesn’t matter, if from the east you would have to go straight ahead, a tunnel perhaps, and hope it doesn’t fall on your head.

          14. entech

            Not exactly the religious route is intrinsically circular, “The Atheist” is wandering and meandering all over looking for some indication of what you think you have found.

          15. entech

            40 years or 40 days and nights in the desert, all a bit much for a weak and pampered soul like me I prefer the modern comforts – which reminds I am about to approach a comfortable bed, not around it straight into the middle, good night.

          16. Adam Heckathorn

            Wanna I agree with some of Your assessment of JW’s on some I think Your seeing conspiracies that just aren’t there. I’m supposed to possess a reasonable amount of intelligence Is it to much to ask God to just come right out and explain His nature in a way We could all understand?

          17. Wanna B Sure

            Conspiracies? Not with the evidence direct from the WT. I couldn’t even come close to inventing it.

          18. Adam Heckathorn

            not make available to the public the 15th of the month edition of the Watchtower, why so secretive; As an example there is a Public edition WT for placement and a study edition used at the meetings There is nothing secretive about the study edition They hand them out to any who attend meetings so they can follow the program. The predictions of the end I’d say They do get a little cagey.

          19. Wanna B Sure

            They have refused to hand them out to me. I have offered to pay for them, they refused. I told them I have more questions I would like answered. They know I have their own material that clearly show their deception. I showed them just a little bit on my dining room table, then they left, never to return. Now they refuse to respond. No transparency. It’s not conspiracy when outright deception is clear.

          20. Adam Heckathorn

            I have no reason to doubt what You say I have no idea why they wouldn’t let You have a Magazine. I will say this when I was busy evangelizing I often felt many did not see the forest for the trees and were often moving Us backwards faster than those that would could possibly move Us forward.

          21. Wanna B Sure

            Re. “The predictions of the end I’d say they do get a little cagey”; FALSE PROPHETS. Fortunately for them they aren’t living in the time of the OT. You do know how to tell a false prophet don’t you? Many examples are listed in both the OT and the NT.

          22. Adam Heckathorn

            I am familiar with those scriptures. The thought has occurred to Me I could make wild speculations that don’t come true all by Myself without any help.

          23. Wanna B Sure

            Adam; You must remember they left material inside my door to consider, then they called back. We set up appointments for them to come over, I obliged. In the meantime I closely examined their material before they came. Drew up a list of questions and using their own material and mine, I showed them their deception. They left before I even got a good start. They didn’t know I had almost all the resources they falsely quoted in my vast library. I laid out the very books they misrepresented, pages, paragraph, and sentences, along with the paragraphs prior, and later of their deception. They were essentially- – – speechless. This was even before I had a computer. I doubt they had ever met anyone before so well “prepared”. I actually was interested in what they had to say. Now all I hear is silence. Today, I’m done with them. They have no credibility in ANY area.

          24. Wanna B Sure

            Speculation is one thing, setting dates is another. “This generation” has several applications. To make one absolute is when one gets into trouble. Hal Lindsey and other “Millis” set the time of 40 yr. after the start of the nation of Israel as being the date of the great dispensation. (1948 + 40 = 1988.) It didn’t happen. He said it would in his book The Late Great Planet Earth”. It didn’t happen. False profit, (spelling intended). The Adventists did, and the JW’s followed with the same tradition.

          25. Adam Heckathorn

            I guess I’m still waiting on laundry. You bring up a good point and I would say just about every Christian religion has done the same thing starting with the Apostles I believe Many influential Catholics thought the end was due about a thousand Years after Christ. I predict over a long time period JW’s will become more and more like other religions. As I mentioned in another post I come from a long line of true believers including but not limited to Moravians, French Huguenots, Lutherans, Puritans, Quakers, Methodists, and Many more including many ministers Missionaries and perhaps even a genuine burned at the stake Martyr I shouldn’t forget George Burroughs a distant relative who was a Minister hung in Salem.

          26. Adam Heckathorn

            (I posted this in the Wrong place sorry here’s where I meant it) I agree that those individuals acted in a way that would tend to reduce credibility. It’s interesting that Years ago JW’s dealt with Dogma all the time in the ministry with the new generations there are fewer and fewer that know or care about issues such as the trinity and the presentations are now geared to help people cope with their every day lives. Of course as time goes by what I know about JW’s will become less up to date as I’m certain it already has to an extent. Well I’m off I’ll check in later enjoy Your Day.

        2. entech

          Henry 4:39
          The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business card sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to the first half of the 2nd century.
          Is this one of the manuscripts that beats that tiny scrap of parchment. It would seem that the same description could apply to either. Another Henry manner of writing, glorification for what he wants to believe over 22,000 manuscripts. and derogation for ‘the other’ , one scrap of parchment.

          How many of these 20 odd thousand that you talk about are complete? How many are fragmentary? How many are of dubious origin, how many are palimpsests, an indication of how many copies were rejected and reused, how many that should have been rejected and stored for reuse found their way into the body of that which was deemed acceptable? It is true that the Bible was the most widely read and studied book in the early centuries after the Book was formalised, and that many copies were made, and that most of the errors were trivial with no affect on meaning. The question is does the number of copies (partial for the earlier and more complete later) have any bearing on whether or not the originals were true and accurate.

          If the existence of god as creator is established or agreed upon it is not certain whether that god is yours, the one that wrote/inspired or whatever the Bible. If there is a creator god, a supreme being, a divine entity it could as well be Brahman or Mazda.

          I don’t know, that is why I ask!

          1. Henry

            entech:“How many are of dubious origin, how many are palimpsests, an indication of how many copies were rejected and reused, how many that should have been rejected and stored for reuse found their way into the body of that which was deemed acceptable?”

            Here is an example of the majority of the 150,000 NT manuscript variants within the 22,000 or so manuscripts:
            Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.
            Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.
            Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.
            Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.
            Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.

            The scrap parchment writing of Jesus’ supposed wife is not of the NT and are not in the 22,000 count. In fact, good luck finding another match, let alone 22,000 other copies of the writing of Jesus’ wife. Myopic and subjective describe Errman’s work well. The atheist revels in it.

          2. entech

            Not even an attempt to address any of the questions:
            does the number of copies (partial for the earlier and more complete later) have any bearing on whether or not the originals were true and accurate. For example.

          3. entech

            Not based on any premise simply asking does volume imply veracity.

            Of cause it does question your premise, the underlying premise behind everything you say.

          4. Henry

            Your premise is that the scrap piece of parchment that speaks of Jesus’ supposed wife is of the 22,000 count. It is not. This parchment would not be included in the canon.

            Volume can point to veracity, but does not give something veracity in and of itself. For example, you repeating Errman’s arguments 1000x does not make it true. However, with ancient works, sheer volume is an indicator of a true copy of the original. We also have the apostolic fathers who bridged the varacity of the copies with those who were witness to the accounts.

          5. entech

            I never said that the scrap of parchment which has been used to suggest that Jesus may have been married was one of the huge number of ‘manuscripts’ you claim as proof of your doctrine. I merely compared it to “Papyrus P52” which is supposed to be the oldest known ‘manuscript’ and is about the same size, i.e. tiny and incomplete.
            Without believing that Jesus was divine married or single is irrelevant. The best argument is that at that period everyone of his age would have been married and it would only have been mentioned if he were different, not a good argument really but a valid point.

            However, with ancient works, sheer volume is an indicator of a true copy of the original the question I asked was what evidence is there that the originals were true. You quote the apostolic fathers, I have said before they are not independent they are part of the club, if they did not agree they would not be part of the club.

            So much of your argument comes from the fact that you believe that there was a creator of the universe, that the three part God of Christianity is that creator and that he inspired the books that you use to verify his existence.
            I could accept the possibility of a creator, just look around it is all there to see, but why should it be your God?
            Psa. 19:1, ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork.” as written in the inspired book; It gets very close to question begging and circularity.

          6. entech 1:21 “Why should it be your God?”

            That’s the question none of our Christian friends here can answer, try as they will.

            I think what bugs Christians about the tiny piece of parchment that refers to Jesus’ wife is that it exists. If it is as old as now seems verifiable, the writing is trouble for believers because if establishes there was more than one view being passed around about who their hero was and what he was all about. If the view being circulated was that he was married, what other things did people believe about him that are different than the company line? And, might the company line be just one of many views passed around?

          7. entech

            Jon, considering the hundreds of years it took to finalize the doctrine, it is not surprising that there were many ideas going around, almost as many as today!
            All different and all true, it is just a matter of how you interpret them.

          8. Henry

            entech:“You quote the apostolic fathers, I have said before they are not independent they are part of the club, if they did not agree they would not be part of the club.”

            That is your burden of proof. The apostolic fathers are considered ancient authorities whose work has been long accepted. You are implying conspiracy on their part. At this point, the burden of proof is yours concerning their work and of the conspiracy you imply. Errman is trying, but his arguments are myopic and subjective as I have already pointed out. We need more concrete evidence from YOU and Errman on the conspiracy part.

          9. Wolfy32

            Entech… This is obvioulsy blasphemy, but, to account for the different behaviors and types of “God” in the old and new testament. What if God was a title? Much like our president. It changed every 1000 years or so and a new “God” was appointed for humans to worship.

            Or simply put, God is actually a race of supreme beings that each took up leadership of different parts of ancient earth and each left at different points and the key question is why they left?

            Christ’s final ascention was described much the same as Elijahs. Were these human prophets or Supreme beings sent to impact the course of humanity? And now feel that we can move forward on our own with minimal intervention.

            Or they’ve left some behind to blend in with us to continue to guide our civilization’s development?

            It could explain many of the biblical miracles and events. A “cloud” following the israelites during the exidous that rained down food. The walls of jericho coming down with just a trumpet? The complete and utter obliteration of Sadam and Gamorrah. Which, speaks of Lordly travelers that decided to inspect the cities for themselves.

            The story of Sadam and Gamorah fascinate me because it may be an early interaction between humans and beings not from here.

            Humanity, has been deemed to culturally and societally to admire, look up, respect, and try to appease those that have more advancement than itself. Much like the native americans being terrified and doing anything to try to appease the technologically advanced military of the Europeans.

            Technology in the eyes of an ancient person that had nothing to compare to, would seem God like. Someone with advanced medicine could make healing the sick seem like cake walk.

            We’re close to the technology to create synthetic foods. I suspect the nutrients, tastes, textures, and flavors will be greatly developed and improved over the next hundred years. Yet, if beings with these abilities were here thousands of years ago to assist us in our advancement, they would have been seen as Gods. Governments would have feared them, treated them with caution and eventually not tolerated them.

            The question goes back to what is God. Could Ancient Christian texts simply be religion applied to a race of supreme beings that some day, we might be advanced enough (emotionally, physically, and intellectually) to be part of that civilization?

            Are they parasitic in nature? Do they need us for something to continue their own existence? Or are they symbiotic in that they want to see us grow and develop as a race and as a civilization. And when they feel we’re advanced enough to handle their existence they’ll reveal themselves?

            What boggles me is that whether God is a supreme race, or a single supreme entity, neither are revealing themselves in person.

            Sending Elijah and Jesus and then showing them vanish into a beam of light. Leaves many questions. (The critical question being, if any of it actually happened in any way shape or form.)

            There’s so much biblical evidence of simply a technologically advanced race, that those in control of the documents had to make the writing more ambiguous and more ethereal to impose their own thought control. I can’t imagine if all the original documents were reviewed? How much would be revealed? Would we have many more first hand accounts of beings coming and going as in the story of sadam and Gamorah and as in the story of elijah?

            What if the writings supported some form of alien race interacting with ancient civilization on a daily basis? Could even explain some of the longer life spans if we were monitored and rejuvenated by their advanced technologies and methods. For all we know they caught a highly destructive disease from us, or they realized their welcome was overdue, or something fell apart within their internal civilization.

            It’s maybe a fraction of a percentage higher chance than the great banana king or the spaghetti monster orbitting saturn.

          10. entech

            Henry @ 4:42 pm
            That is your burden of proof. The apostolic fathers are considered ancient authorities whose work has been long accepted. You are implying conspiracy on their part
            Once again, in your inimitable fashion, deliberately misconstrue what I say. By definition the “Apostolic Fathers” are Christians, there writings form an important part of the development of the church, they are members of the club. No one would imply that they were lying, which I presume is what you mean by conspiracy. My point is that they cannot be considered independent witnesses, they are part of the ‘inner sanctum’, so to speak. They wrote what they believed to be true, if they had not been Christians they would not have believed – correct me if I am wrong but aren’t those beliefs a part of being a Christian.

            The Apostolic Fathers are a small number of Early Christian authors who lived and wrote in the second half of the 1st century and the first half of the 2nd century. They are acknowledged as leaders in the early church, although their writings were not included in the New Testament. They include Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, the author of the Didache, and the author of the Shepherd of Hermas.

            Note the halo and the title saint, NOT independent of the church, part of it.

        3. Fr. James

          Reza is a Muslim and not a scholar of Christianity. If I wrote a biography of Muhammad how much credence would you give it?

          1. Adam Heckathorn

            depends on how much You’ve studied the subject. I suppose I’d rely on the testimony of others in the field and their opinion of Your Scholarship.

          2. Adam Heckathorn

            The book has sure got a lot of attention I can’t claim to know much about it but I’m curious. I apologize My 6:04 was misplaced here

        4. Adam Heckathorn

          I agree that those individuals acted in a way that would tend to reduce credibility. It’s interesting that Years ago JW’s dealt with Dogma all the time in the ministry with the new generations there are fewer and fewer that know or care about issues such as the trinity and the presentations are now geared to help people cope with their every day lives. Of course as time goes by what I know about JW’s will become less up to date as I’m certain it already has to an extent. Well I’m off I’ll check in later enjoy Your Day.

  2. Wanna B Sure

    Actually the headline said; “Ancient, not fake”,(forgery.) Datedfrom 6th to 9th century, and possibly to the 4th century. “Ancient” does not make it authentic, authoritative, or valid.

    1. Wanna 10:21 “Ancient, not fake.”

      I agree. Perhaps better title would have included the term, “authentically ancient”. My admin role does not allow me to change the title.

      As to valid, I’m not sure what that means. I can only say someone with enough wealth to have been taught to write referred to Jesus’ wife. I conclude if someone that wealthy and educated talked of a wife, more the one other person did as well. But, that’s just an assumption.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        All the Gospels papyri date as early as 250 AD, and John at 200 AD. Acts at 250 AD, Romans, Hebrews at 300AD.

  3. entech

    Ever hear of a genre of liturature called historical fiction?
    Yes, there is a collection of about 66, more or less depending on what you want to include, such works combined into one omnibus edition. It is simply called the book.

  4. entech

    “Ancient” does not make it authentic, authoritative, or valid.
    Good point, I have been saying that about the entire collection for years.

      1. entech

        Yep, all good stories, all very interesting, none a good guide to the origins of the life, the world and everything.

          1. entech

            What is surprising is that there are so many people that take all of this seriously.

            There are still Zoroastrian followers around, less than 200,000 but it is still an extant religion. All three had an influence in some way or other on what became Judaism.

  5. H.P.D

    The Tabloids have been around at least a couple of thousand years at least, the bible is the living example of bad journalism, with some good advice thrown not much different from today’s publishing standards

  6. H.P.D

    Gee, we have not heard from the crazy today. Maybe we will hear from him on his next binder! Actually I feel sorry for the mentally ill, in this guy’s case I will make an exception.

    1. entech

      Sometimes wonder what goes into that communion wine, went to the funeral of a good Sicilian neighbour, he drank it all himself.

  7. Candyman

    someone, somewhere found on a piece of parchment saying something that Jesus was married? Even more interesting than this is the countless of ancient scrolls that have been found all over the Holy Land verifying the historical authenticity of the OT including the life of Christ. Even the independent third party historical account Josephus, St Thomas Aquenious and Justin the Martyr verified Christ and His claims. Yet you believe some piece of parchment, by somewhere, sometime… I it all back what I have shared that you have no faith! It takes faith to believe in your point of view! It takes logical reasoning to trust the claims Christ!

    1. entech

      And lots of archeology proving that the chronological and geographical OT is wrong. A lot from people give a commission to find the title deeds to the holy land being told that the Exodus never happened.

      1. Candyman

        that’s lunacy! what research have you done? Name, state author? You must have abviously researched the world wide flood? or the Eygption hyrogricphs of the 7 yrs of blessings followed by a 7 yr famine? Or the largest relocation of people in recorded history? The exdus of the Jewish people from Eqypt? what archeological evidence have you researched? the Arc of the Covanant has been found,,, I can go on…Evidence demands a verdict!

        1. entech

          The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein

          an Israeli archaeologist and academic the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze Age and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University.
          Co-director of excavations at Megiddo in northern Israel.
          Director of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University from 1996-2002.

          1. Adam Heckathorn

            Candyman 3:37 I’ve listened to a Archaeological Podcast for Years called Stone pages self described as “the latest archaeology news mainly related to prehistory”. They send Me a print form to My email also. You can find and listen to back issues on Itunes. What I appreciate about the audio podcast is the Guy doing it teaches Archaeology and will put new discoveries into context why they’re important and how They relate to other discoveries, why We should be a little skeptical about something or often why We need to see more work done before any conclusions can be drawn. Years of listening to this doesn’t make Me an Archaeologist but has forced Me to come to an opinion that concurs Entech.

        2. Candyman..3:37 The government of Israel has funded scientists for years to look for evidence of the Exodus. It’s in the interests of Israel’s politicians to establish proof of fleeing from persecution. Without the record of persecution they have trouble justifying much of what they do.

          They have come up with nothing. Is there a good video of parting the waters?

          1. Candyman

            I’ve posted them before Jon but, as always your fear, false evidence appearing real, will keep you from the truth you are so disparity searching for. This Wed at 700pm @ the Salm EVFree Church in Mhead is hosting the “claims and evidence” supporting the Resurrection. YOu may want to stop by…

          2. Candyman 7:35 “..will keep you from the truth you are so disparity searching for.”

            I see in your post to entech you claim Noah’s ark was “found” somewhere. It has been found lots of times in several locations. The more Noah’s Arks are found, the more real the story?

            On the program in Moorhead, I’ll stick with what we know. It is that the stories of the resurrection are based on visions a very few of the characters in the Bible’s stories had. Others in the stories doubted the meaning of those visions. I join the doubters.

        3. Wolfy32

          Most archeologists and scientists, don’t believe, even if the flood happened, that it happened at a global level.

          The best explanations I’ve heard and give some credence to both (if their’s any accuracy at all) is that the story of the flood of Noah, is in different cultures, told in different ways, but, all very relational to the story of Noah. A flood, a guy chosen to save a few by building a boat. That story isn’t originally of the bible, there’s stories that predate the noah story of the flood. I suspect a writer got lazy and plaguarized. But, thousands of years later there’s no proof either way.

          Just keep in mind, all of the known and studied ancient cultures of Earth include some incarnation of “dragons” within their culture. The bible even makes reference to dragons, yet, so far, no scientists have uncovered draconic beings. Unless humans lived with dinosaurs… There’s a whole other issue then.

          So, my two thoughts on the global flood are simple: 1. is the writer was referencing his known world. The writer couldn’t have known about the rest of the world, few, if any knew anything about America at the time the story of Noah was written. So, as an author, they’d have no idea what the whole world would mean. so, one could deduce their known world was flooded. It could simple mean their local village was flooded and they floated around until they came to a non flooded area. Could be 50 miles, could be 500 miles.

          Lastly, there is proof of ice ages. When the world was covered in layers of ice, but, these are thought to be long before the story of Noah, and it didn’t say he built a sled to slide on the glaciers.

          1. Adam Heckathorn

            Even if We assume complete integrity which I tend too It’s still a game of telephone played out over Millennia.

      2. Candyman

        don’t be foolish! The fool says in his heart this is no God. Look at the historyical evidence left behind… Noah’s Arc has been found in Turkey! Marker anker stone are all over the landscape. Evidence of the crossing at the Golf of Aquoba. Kind Solomen marked the crossing with a column with insignia explaining what took place here. I can continue…but retrobate has no hope.

        1. Wolfy32

          If I told you I found a bunch of ancient writings, and ancient archeological sites that contained technology beyond what people would have had 5000 years ago, would you believe me unless I presented you 100% factual proof and presented pictures and detailed analysis of the technology, dating, etc.

          And even then, some of the evidence might be threatening to the bible, so, you’d most likely not trust the evidence then either.

          In the same way you are presenting me with a bunch of stories, no pictures, very few, if any archeological facts, and asking me to believe something that could be summed up as political propaganda of the time.

    2. Fr. James

      It’s Easter. Time to bash Christianity in the media and resurrect old myths rather then celebrate the real resurrection of Jesus.

      1. entech

        No room to get in and bash Christians, they are all busy and taking all the space available for bashing with self flagellation.

        1. Fr. James

          We don’t need to beat ourselves. Plenty line up to beat us and then pat themselves on the back.

      1. Candyman

        so let me get this straight? you believe Jesus has a wife written from someone, somewhere, sometime in ancient past but you refuse to acknowledge the written histroyical account of Christ by Jocephus or Thomas Aquanious ? YOu can’t help people who won’t help themselves.

        1. entech

          Josephus wrote no historical account of Jesus, of Christians or the Jesus Movement was probably a better description at that time, less than a hundred years. He did say something about them believing in a messiah and that he was crucified by Pilate. He did not give testimony to the divine nature and resurrection, if he had believed such things do you think he would not have converted on the spot. Give me something positive I will convert on the spot.

          Aquinas was a theologian writing more than 1200 years later.

  8. Michael Ross

    “I’m hoping now that we can turn away from the question of forgery and talk much, much more about the historical significance of the fragment and precisely how it fit into the history of Christianity and questions about family and marriage and sexuality and Jesus,”
    ~Karen King, Harvard Bible “Scholar”

    She is not interested in scholarship but creating doubt in the minds of Christians as to the authority of the Scriptures. She, like Jon, is beating a dead horse.

    1. Wolfy32

      Michael, the issue is not around proving a piece of paper true or not… I do have issue with humans being required to abstain from meeting their human needs and then becoming a destructive institution. Ever been around an amazing smelling, looking, and just desirably scrumptious desert. And told yourself I’m going to sit in front of this and not eat it all day so I can keep my mind clear? The more you try not to think about the desert, the more the desert invades your mind and becomes the only thing you can think about.

      I can’t imagine for priests, denying sexuality, which is something we were born with and cannot deny, it must be all they think about day and night. It’s inhuman to deny that which, is instinctually something most agree we need in order to be healthy functional human beings. It’s no wonder to me that the institution is perverted. And yet, we bring up the possibility of Jesus being married, meaning he was a healthy, human, adult that had adult relations, and therefore was human, and suddenly we’re scoffers?

      In my opinion it makes Christianity more valid that Christ took on a wife, than if he didn’t. I would be led to believe moreso because it is more believable. I don’t believe any human male could deny their sexuality. And so many of the christian institutions especially now, around easter point out that for easter to be true, Christ had to be 100% human. He was in no way part God or more than human. (even though his “miracles” were more than human powers…) He bled like us, pooped, peed, and I would hope had sex, if he was human at all.

  9. The Julius Project

    It included the exact misprint as found in a Google search. Sounds verifiably ancient to me.

  10. Fr. James

    A parchment was discovered last week that proves that Christopher Columbus was in fact an alien from Alpha Centauri. He was actually a Klingon warrior.

    I realize that this was 500 years ago and the parchment was written last week. It is “authentic” in that it was definitely written one week ago. Of course some people believe he was an alien, so that is important. However, if you believe a 6th, or 8th century, parchment about Jesus being married that should be no problem for you.

    Of course dismissing 1st century evidence in the gospels or fathers of the Church does seem a bit odd. You are so quick to dismiss them and trust a source that is centuries later with no evidence to back it up. Why is that? Because it says what you WANT to believe. You have great faith in things you cannot prove as long as they serve your prejudices.

    Plenty of Jews were literate at the time. They did write about Jesus. They never mentioned he had a wife or children. Those who did write about him told that he was celibate. I will take their word over what someone else might have claimed 500 years later.

    PS: Also note that once again Jon interjects sex into another post in his blog. So who is the one obsessed with sex?

    1. Wolfy32

      “I realize that this was 500 years ago and the parchment was written last week. It is “authentic” in that it was definitely written one week ago. Of course some people believe he was an alien, so that is important. ”

      The same logic could be applied to the bible, it may have started out as tabloid news. One of the few propaganda items that was able to make it into mainstream media at the time. How do we accept this as literature any different from the writings of The Odyseey? The Trojan Horse? Hercules, and many other Greek myths?

      1. Fr. James

        Wolfy, in the NT we have documents written just a few years after Jesus’ resurrection. Some mss date to the early 2nd and possibly 1st century.

    1. entech

      Wrong and Why?
      As you are so fond of saying it depends on interpretation and that every other interpretation except your is wrong.
      The bit of “papyrus” that some are interpreting as an indication that Jesus was married is just that a bit of old writing. Many theologians and others in the field have said, “So what”.
      This bit from Bradford is talking about a new book he has written. Actually he has some interesting points. Much is made of Jesus being the son of a lowly carpenter, while non-believers say if this is true where did he get all his knowledge etc from – as the son of an architect he would have had a pretty high level of education for the period.

      If you say we have to accept the existence of the papyrus scrap and the new book, that is so obvious as to be stupid. It is surely possible to believe that either is accurate and true or that neither are.
      Obviously neither are acceptable to your tradition. Tradition is often faeces gone hard with age.

        1. Fr. James 7:30 re Catholic World Report response to Ehrman

          I read that. It’s quite obvious the author has not read Ehrman. He must have read another critical review. He does refer to what Ehrman actually says.

          1. Fr. James

            Oh Jon, of course he read Ehrman. Fr. Barron is incredibly intelligent and erudite. Which is why you can’t refute what he says and instead go after him. Interesting that you have so much faith in Bart.

          2. Fr. James 6:17 “Oh Jon, of course he read Ehrman.”

            Neither of us really knows if he did or not. I just base my view he did not because when he refers to Ehrman’s positions, he does not do it accurately. It makes me think he did not read Ehrman.

            On this fellow being smart and well read, I don’t tend to take people seriously who say in effect, “You have to understand I know how to read this stuff, other people who disagree with me do not.” I don’t take them seriously because there are so many of them and they disagree with each other.

Comments are closed.