Da allora sono stati completati molti test scientifici: tutti hanno fin qui dimostrato che il papiro è vero, la lingua (il Copto) è corretta e coerente con l'ambiente che il testo descrive, gli inchiostri sono autentici, il radiocarbonio conferma le date.
Non si tratta di un falso.
E' il frammento di papiro in cui un personaggio chiamato Gesù fa due volte riferimento alla madre, alla moglie e ad una discepola il cui nome è Maria.
La scopritrice (Karen L. King, Hollis Professor della Harvard Divinity School) ha più volte detto che questo non prova affatto che il Gesù storico fosse sposato. Probabilmente, il testo si riferisce ad un periodo in cui il dibattito sul celibato tra i cristiani era molto acceso.
Comunque, non si tratta di un falso.
Testing indicates 'Jesus's wife gospel' is ancient
A wide range of scientific testing indicates that a papyrus fragment containing the words, "Jesus said to them, my wife" is an ancient document, dating between the sixth to ninth centuries CE. Its contents may originally have been composed as early as the second to fourth centuries.
The front side of the fourth-century papyrus fragment
[Credit: Karen L. King/Harvard Divinity School]
The fragment does not in any way provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married, as Karen L. King, the Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School, has stressed since she announced the existence of the fragment in the fall of 2012. Rather, the fragment belongs to early Christian debates over whether it was better for Christians to be celibate virgins or to marry and have children.
The fragment is weighing in on this issue, according to King. "The main topic of the fragment is to affirm that women who are mothers and wives can be disciples of Jesus—a topic that was hotly debated in early Christianity as celibate virginity increasingly became highly valued," King explained.
After receiving the fragment in December 2011 from the owner, King took the papyrus to New York in 2012 to be examined by Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University.
After Bagnall's initial assessment that the fragment was ancient based on handwriting and other features, further analysis began in earnest.
Over the past two years, extensive testing of the papyrus and the carbon ink, as well as analysis of the handwriting and grammar, all indicate that the existing material fragment dates to between the sixth and ninth centuries CE.
None of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery.
Two radiocarbon tests were conducted to determine the date of the papyrus. In the first test, the sample size was too small and resulted in an unreliable date. A second test performed by Noreen Tuross at Harvard University in conjunction with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute produced a date of origination for the piece of papyrus from 659 to 859 CE.
Other testing with FT-IR microspectroscopy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) confirmed the homogeneous chemical composition of the papyrus and examined patterns of oxidation.
James Yardley, Senior Research Scientist in the Center for Integrated Science and Engineering, Columbia University, and Alexis Hagadorn, Head of Conservation at Columbia University Libraries, used a technique called micro-Raman spectroscopy to determine that the carbon character of the ink matched samples of other papyri that date from the first to eighth centuries CE.
Malcolm Choat from Macquarie University examined the fragment at HDS and offered an independent assessment of the handwriting.
Microscopic and multispectral imaging provided other significant information about the nature and extent of the damage and helped to resolve a variety of questions about possible forgery.
For example, if ink had pooled on the lower fibers of the front, it would have shown the papyrus was written on after it had been damaged. Or if the alpha had overwritten a sigma in line four, it would have shown that someone tampered with an ancient fragment that read “the woman” by changing it into “my wife.”
No evidence of this kind is apparent, however.
After all the research was complete, King weighed all the evidence of the age and characteristics of the papyrus and ink, handwriting, language, and historical context to conclude the fragment is almost certainly a product of early Christians, not a modern forger.
King first announced the existence of the fragment on September 18, 2012, at the International Coptic Congress in Rome, and dubbed it "The Gospel of Jesus's Wife."
The use of the word "gospel" makes no claim to canonical status.
The title refers to the fragment's most distinctive claim (that Jesus was married), and serves as a short-hand reference to the fragment.
Nothing is known about the discovery of the fragment—which measures only about one-and-a-half inches by three inches—but it is assumed to have come from Egypt because it is written in Coptic, the form of the Egyptian language used by Christians there starting in the Roman imperial period.
Twice in the tiny fragment, Jesus speaks of his mother, his wife, and a female disciple—one of whom may be identified as "Mary." The disciples discuss whether Mary is worthy, and Jesus states that "she can be my disciple." The real author of the fragment is not known and would likely remain unknown even if more of the text of the Gospel of Jesus's Wife had survived.
This remaining piece is too small to know anything definite about who may have composed, read, or circulated it, except that they were Christians.
"This gospel fragment provides a reason to reconsider what we thought we knew by asking what the role claims of Jesus's marital status played historically in early Christian controversies over marriage, celibacy, and family," King said.
View the full Harvard Theological Review online from Cambridge University Press.
Author: Jonathan Beasley |
Source: Harvard Divinity School [April 10, 2014]
Read more at: http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.it/2014/04/testing-indicates-jesuss-wife-gospel-is.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheArchaeologyNewsNetwork+(The+Archaeology+News+Network)#.U0rakyh7DfV
Follow us: @ArchaeoNewsNet on Twitter | groups/thearchaeologynewsnetwork/ on Facebook
