The gospel of Jesus' wife may turn out to be a fake

Harvard professor Karen L. King was in the headlines of newspaper articles around the world in 2012, when she told about the existence of a tiny papyrus, according to which Jesus was married. The artifact seemed to be a torn page from the novel "Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown. But now the professor admits that he, most likely, is fictitious. New research on the origin of papyrus made her completely change her mind and admit that this is most likely a forgery.

Sensational statement at the International Congress of Coptic Studies

In September 2012, Harvard University professor Karen L. King, who teaches the history of early Christianity, shocked the academic audience at the International Congress of Coptic Studies, detailing a fragment of Egyptian papyrus, which contained the first known evidence that Jesus was married. In the fourth of the incomplete eight lines that are contained on the papyrus, the words "Jesus said to them:" My wife ", and in the following line:" She is able to be my disciple. " King stressed that the "Gospel of the wife of Jesus" can not be accepted as evidence that the historical Jesus was ever married, since there is no evidence to support this. Nevertheless, she was confident that the artifact was genuine, since the analysis of two experts in this field indicated that this papyrus is ancient.

Public response

This statement immediately provoked controversy, because it actually changes Christianity and all our knowledge about it. The Vatican called papyrus a modern fake. Some of King's colleagues, who doubted the authenticity of the artifact, pointed to grammatical errors in papyrus, which the Coptic adverb could never admit. It was assumed that the papyrus could be copied from another ancient text - the Gospel of Thomas. However, in 2014, Harvard published the results of radiocarbon analysis and other scientific tests that found no evidence of fabrication. Papyrus was dated to the seventh or eighth century AD, and the composition of ink corresponded to this time.

Expository article

A new article written by journalist Ariel Sabar, which appeared in the latest issue of Atlantic Magazine, called the papyrus a fake. Although King confirmed that she saw the 1999 purchase from the owner of the artifact, who wished to remain anonymous, she did not do much to trace his further origins. Sabar, however, conducted a thorough research on the owner and found out his name. It was Walter Fritz, who lives in Florida.

Who was the owner of the artifact?

According to Fritz, he purchased the artifact in November 1999, along with other papyri from his business partner Hans-Ulrich Laukamp, who died in 2002. However, Laukamp's relatives and friends said that he had never been interested in antiquities and was not in Germany at the time when, according to Fritz, there was a sale of papyrus. Documents on ownership of this artifact are likely also fabricated.

Fritz admitted that he was the owner of the papyrus, but categorically denied his falsification. He guaranteed that neither he nor any third parties had ever falsified, altered or conducted any other manipulations with the artifact and inscriptions on it since it was acquired. Nevertheless, Fritz, who studied Egyptology and the Coptic language in the late 1980s and early 1990s in Berlin, and then ran a company that provided services to collectors, has the knowledge and capabilities to implement such manipulations.

The possibility of falsification

Although scientific testing has determined that papyrus is of ancient origin, this does not mean that it did not fall into the hands of a modern falsifier. The article says that someone could get a piece of ancient papyrus (maybe even on EBay, where antiques usually sell at auction), mix the ink according to old recipes and copiously copied Coptic style, especially if this person had some scientific Training.

The conclusions of the Harvard professor

After reading the article and studying the obvious signs of fabrication, King gave way, saying that the fragment is, most likely, a fake. She admitted that she had never investigated where Fritz got this artifact, and did not try to verify the authenticity of the documents he had provided about the alleged origin of the papyrus. King said that another check will be made, especially since the papyrus can still be authentic, despite the fact that the history of its origin is not completely clear.

Despite these revelations, neither King herself nor Harvard's representatives are going to publish a refutation. The editors of the magazine noted in their statement that they avoided making commitments on the authenticity of the fragment of papyrus. The editorial office says that since the magazine has never stated its position on this issue, now there is no need to make a statement either.

Nevertheless, King said that she was not going to renounce her work. According to her, research work always allows for forgery. "I always viewed science as a conversation," she says. - You express your best thoughts, and then people bring new ideas and evidence. But you still continue to work. " And yet, King said that she understood one thing. She will never again agree to work with artifacts from anonymous owners.