Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 02:53PM

Okay, I don't know if Denial C. Peterson was in the "believer" camp on this one, but I figure he'll appreciate knowing we haven't forgotten him.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/28/us-religion-jesuswife-idUSBRE88R0NT20120928

>(Reuters) - An ancient papyrus fragment which a Harvard scholar says contains the first recorded mention that Jesus may have had a wife is a fake, the Vatican said on Friday.

>"Substantial reasons would lead one to conclude that the papyrus is indeed a clumsy forgery," the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, said in an editorial by its editor, Gian Maria Vian. "In any case, it's a fake."

>Joining a highly charged academic debate over the authenticity of the text, written in ancient Egyptian Coptic, the newspaper published a lengthy analysis by expert Alberto Camplani of Rome's La Sapienza university, outlining doubts about the manuscript and urging extreme caution.

What boggled my mind was how it was a Harvard scholar who first brought the fragment to light. I am rapidly losing respect for that institution and its credibility (Barry Fell comes to mind), and that's troubling because another Harvard researcher recently put forth some claims about a "third migration" in the area of Native American migrations to the New World. I can't pass judgment on the science, but there was a very dubious tie to some linguistic claims that a third, very northern population of Old World admixture couldn't possibly have been relevant to. It seemed far more "politics and hyperbole than science" to me, at least as far as it was reported in the popular media.

On the same subject, here's a nice summary of the "James Ossuary Trial" (the alleged forger was acquitted, but the judge declined to rule on whether the artifact was authentic). This is admittedly a "scientific spin," and readers seeking another point of view can Google up what Hershel Shanks has to say.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/25/opinion/la-oe-burleigh-bible-ossuary-forgery-20120325

>In Israel's James Ossuary Trial, science was the loser

Some noteworthy anlyses...

>Israeli prosecutors were badly underfunded (the nation has its eye on bigger problems than relic forgery), and its investigators never mounted the kind of international, follow-the-money detective work that would have bolstered their case by showing a pattern of criminality involving a number of lesser-known objects that were also part of the case — allegedly ancient lamps and Old Testament-era royal seal impressions that scientists said were fakes.

>And while the scientists for the state conducted their investigations and testified for free, the defense paid for-hire scientists, who were willing to say the objects at issue were entirely authentic.

>In the end, the judge explicitly declined to rule on the authenticity of the objects. "The prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt what was stated in the indictment: that the ossuary is a forgery and that Mr. Golan or someone acting on his behalf forged it," the judge stated. "This is not to say that the inscription on the ossuary is true and authentic and was written 2,000 years ago.... [T]here is nothing in these findings which necessarily proves that the items were authentic."

Religion is definitely big business, or at least writing about it is...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bignevermo ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 03:10PM

FlattopSF just graduated from there...I need to call him anyway!! have a safe day Cabbie!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: 3X ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 03:51PM

Perhaps FlattopSF will now return to his roots (RFM)?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bishop Rick ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 03:19PM

Why don't we wait until a consensus of scientists unrelated to Vatican or christianity weigh in on the matter.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ava ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 03:38PM

But I don't trust the vatican either. They have a vested interest in the papyrus being fake.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: xyz ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 04:30PM

Did they even let anyone at the Vatican analyze the real thing? Sounds like they're just blowing their horn so they can keep their dog in the fight.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 05:02PM

And personally, even if it were authentic, I would suggest the papyrus is only evidence that some 4th Century Coptic Christians in Egypt believed Jesus was married...

Given what I've seen people here locally in Utah believe, that's not saying anything at all...

As for my close friend FlattopSF, well, he earned his Master's in an "artistic field" (which does have scientific components). I can tell you for a fact that he was already a talented professional artist.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: xyz ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 05:10PM

"that some 4th Century Coptic Christians in Egypt believed Jesus was married..."

I'm on that page with you. Everything else seems pretty much conjecture on someone's part.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lulu ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 11:02PM

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And personally, even if it were authentic, I would
> suggest the papyrus is only evidence that some 4th
> Century Coptic Christians in Egypt believed Jesus
> was married...

That's all the Harvard professor is claiming. But that would not be shockingly out of line with one of the Gnostic gospels.

Now, whether or not there was even a historical figure meaningful related to the Christ of the bible, we usually reserve that argument around here for Christmas and Easter ;)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 04:36PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: xyz ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 04:43PM

That will happen the same day they also put everything in Vatican City up for auction at Sothebys, Christies, Phillips, etc., put all their urban real-estate on the market, and give all the proceeds back to the poor they've been robbing all these millennia.

Don't hold yer breath...

Options: ReplyQuote
Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: cecil0812 ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 04:43PM

Yeah, I agree with a few other comments. I'm not going to believe that it's fake because the VATICAN says so. The Vatican is quite obviously going to be extremely biased in this matter. I'll reserve judgement for now.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Utah County Mom ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 04:43PM

I'm just as skeptical of the Vatican claiming this a forgery as much I'd be skeptical of the LDS church claiming it was a genuine document.

It would be much more appropriate I'd think to have a group of scientists who have nothing to prove or disprove to examine the document.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Questionaire ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 05:59PM

There really wasn't even a question on this.. the heresy was in the middle east at that time. It thrives all the way until Mohammed comes around and he takes the Gnostic teaching and runs with it... being the first "prophet" that gives Jesus a "sexual side".

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lulu ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 06:06PM

online English version of L'Osservatore Romano only has this. It would be interesting to see what Alberto Camplani's lengthy analysis says. Not that I read Italian.

http://www.osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?JSPTabContainer.setSelected=JSPTabContainer%2FDetail&last=false=&path=/news/cultura/2012/223q12-Il-testo-copto-con-la-presunta-allusione-al.html&title=A papyrus adrift &locale=en



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 06:09PM by lulu.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: forbiddencokedrinker ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 06:25PM

I thought Harvard was just a place for rich kids to go, so they could pretend they are smart. MIT for the real geniuses.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richpol ( )
Date: November 30, 2012 03:45PM

Let scientific testing sort it out. The Vatican is hardly in a position to make a judgment on ANYTHING, from its messed up views on abortion, birth control or pedophile priests. It is time we showed Christ as a REAL MAN and not a fabricated deified phony.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: John_Lyle ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 09:31PM

As a trained historian, I agree this means absolutely nothing.

There is absolutely no context, if it is real. Nothing is known about the author. Have they even radio-carbon dated the piece?

I haven't seen anything about the provenance of the papyrus - but I don't have a TV, so I might have missed something.

If I were interested in middle-eastern history, which I am not, I would put this piece aside and look for things to confirm it or that, at least, were contemporary and gave us some context. Actually, if I dug this up in Poland, (where I am interested in the history), I'd think the same thing.

Right now, this is about as credible as something my dog would dig up in the back yard. And, again, even if it says what it says, it doesn't mean anything.

I can't understand why any historian would risk their reputation a couple of weeks after this thing was 'found' and start making absolute statements such as have been made. I don't know why it came out this fast.

Besides, I prayed about it and JS told me that it was the Book of Greed. So, I know it's true... LOL

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lulu ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 10:52PM

The plan is to test the ink. The papyrus could be ancient but the writing recent. Carbon dating would distroy too much of the ink so they plan to go with spectroscopy.

Would have been good to have it tested before the announcement and before the conference, on the other hand, even academics have schedules to meet.

Provenance is real shakey, especially because the collector wants the university to buy the rest of his collection.

Divinity schools aren't exactly the intellectual heart of universities either any more, on the other hand, they do know their ancient Middle East languages.

We'll see.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/world/europe/vatican-says-papyrus-referring-to-jesus-wife-is-probably-fake.html?_r=0



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 10:56PM by lulu.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: September 29, 2012 02:17AM

The question is whether the ink is organic, and I'm way past my level of understanding on that one, but Google mentions that soot or tar might've been used as a pigment, and that would likely be problematic. Yes, if the soot were from a modern carbon source, it would "prove" a forgery, but that's all.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Marcion ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 10:20PM

Did anyone even think to ask the Lard's profit what he thought about the papyrus? I mean, he is the mouthpiece of the Lard.

Yeah, I didn't think so. They always get a pass.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: September 28, 2012 11:24PM

It just keeps on getting funnier.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: summer ( )
Date: September 29, 2012 01:51AM

I still think that it's yet to be determined. I don't believe that Camplani has even looked at the papyrus.

The Vatican has a vested interest in the papyrus being fake. The Catholic church does not want to upset the apple cart.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: scooter ( )
Date: September 29, 2012 09:34AM

it's not like the papists don't have a dog in this fight.

and that's not even counting the Rottweiler.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: summer ( )
Date: September 29, 2012 09:41AM

What struck me was how *quickly* the Vatican came out with its statement. Not even a, "well, it appears highly dubious but we would certainly like to have our experts take a look at it."

They're not interested in the truth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Twinker ( )
Date: September 29, 2012 10:27AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **    **  **     **  **    **  ********  ********  
  **  **   ***   ***  ***   **  **    **  **     ** 
   ****    **** ****  ****  **      **    **     ** 
    **     ** *** **  ** ** **     **     ********  
    **     **     **  **  ****    **      **        
    **     **     **  **   ***    **      **        
    **     **     **  **    **    **      **