'Jesus wife' manuscript

[Mike D]

If you have the patience to read this through, it is a very interesting read concerning of a piece of journalistic detective work carried out on the provenance of the 'Jesus wife' manuscript.

The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife

[sandwiches]

This also interesting:

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/karen-king-responds-to-the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/487484/


For four years, Karen L. King, a Harvard historian of Christianity, has defended the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” against scholars who argued it was a forgery. But Thursday, for the first time, King said the papyrus—which she introduced to the world in 2012—is a probable fake

[Mike D]

It takes a lot of guts to 'fess up to being fooled. Kudos to King, and I hope her career can recover from this.

[ignorantianescia]

Jun 20, 2016 12:26:08 GMT Mike D said:

It takes a lot of guts to 'fess up to being fooled. Kudos to King, and I hope her career can recover from this.

It will. She remains a leading scholar of 'Gnosticism' (she rejects the category but putting it another way wouldn't be very clear) and it helps she always distanced herself from the inane claims of the tabloids.

[domics]

Jun 30, 2016 17:37:45 GMT ignorantianescia said:

Jun 20, 2016 12:26:08 GMT Mike D said:

It takes a lot of guts to 'fess up to being fooled. Kudos to King, and I hope her career can recover from this.

It will. She remains a leading scholar of 'Gnosticism' (she rejects the category but putting it another way wouldn't be very clear) and it helps she always distanced herself from the inane claims of the tabloids.

My credit to King as scholar have failed when I have read this: "Though King makes no claims for the value of the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” as, well, a marriage certificate, she says it “puts into greater question the assumption that Jesus wasn’t married, which has equally no evidence,” she told me. It casts doubt “on the whole Catholic claim of a celibate priesthood based on Jesus’ celibacy. They always say, ‘This is the tradition, this is the tradition.’ Now we see that this alternative tradition has been silenced.”link
It is evident the use of her research with an agenda that has nothing to do with academic research. A statement out of place for a scholar even if the fragment were authentic.

[Mike D]

I don't see it as that awful a statement. With the Smithsonian Magazine hyperbole removed, all it says is there may have been a tradition within parts of the early church that Jesus was married, even though the fragment couldn't tell one way or t'other whether this tradition had any basis in fact, and this is counter to the received tradition.

[ignorantianescia]

I think domics is less annoyed at the speculation than at her use of it as a counterexample to celibacy.

I'm not really surprised to be honest as it fits in with other statements of hers, though I would say it's a little poor form. It may also explain why she kept to the line for longer than many scholars would think was defensible. Though I'd advise against going all out on the agenda card as the same point also extends to more conservative scholarly views (moreso, I'd say).

[Mike D]

Jul 13, 2016 15:46:12 GMT ignorantianescia said:

I think domics is less annoyed at the speculation than at her use of it as a counterexample to celibacy.

I'm not really surprised to be honest as it fits in with other statements of hers, though I would say it's a little poor form. It may also explain why she kept to the line for longer than many scholars would think was defensible. Though I'd advise against going all out on the agenda card as the same point also extends to more conservative scholarly views (moreso, I'd say).

Yeah, fair to say - that part of her statement does read like someone pursuing an agenda...