• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Claim Jesus Was Married Is Based on a Forgery (1 Viewer)

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The recent scholarly claim that Jesus had a wife seems to have been based on a forgery. The Harvard Theological Review nonetheless has no plan to issue a retraction.

Coptic cop-out? Religion journal won’t pull paper based on bogus ‘gospel’

with 3 comments
What the Harvard Theological Review giveth, it evidently will not taketh away.
The venerable publication about religious matters is refusing to retract a 2014 article by a noted scholar of early Christianity despite evidence that the article — about Jesus’s wife — was based on a forgery.
The paper, by Harvard theologian Karen King, described a Coptic papyrus called “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife,” which, among other things, includes language that suggests Christ was married: Read the rest of this entry »

[FONT=&quot]Yesterday, the dean of Harvard Divinity School, David Hempton, released a statement on the matter, which provides a bit more background:[/FONT]
The June 15, 2016 issue of The Atlantic Monthly published an article entitled The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife. The article called into question the provenance and authenticity of a papyrus fragment, purportedly stating “Jesus said to them, My wife” that is the subject of research by Professor Karen King of Harvard Divinity School.
Reached for comment by The Boston Globe after publication of the Atlantic article, Professor King was quoted as stating that “It appears now that all the material [owner Walter] Fritz gave to me concerning the provenance of the papyrus … were fabrications.”
On June 16, 2016, The Atlantic published an interview with Professor King by the same author, in which Professor King stated that the Atlantic‘s investigation “tips the balance towards forgery” and that the preponderance of the evidence now presses in that direction.
The mission of Harvard Divinity School, its faculty, and higher education more generally is to pursue truth through scholarship, investigation, and vigorous debate. HDS is therefore grateful to the many scholars, scientists, technicians, and journalists who have devoted their expertise to understanding the background and meaning of the papyrus fragment. HDS welcomes these contributions and will continue to treat the questions raised by them with all the seriousness they deserve.
[FONT=&quot]However, the journal issued a statement about the article, a cop-out of — bear with us — Biblical proportions:[/FONT]
Harvard Theological Review has scrupulously and consistently avoided committing itself on the issue of the authenticity of the papyrus fragment. HTR is a peer-reviewed journal. Acceptance of an essay for publication means that it has successfully passed through the review process. It does not mean that the journal agrees with the claims of the paper. In the same issue (HTR 107:2, April 2014) in which HTR published Professor Karen King’s article and the articles on the testing that were represented or misrepresented in some circles as establishing the authenticity of the fragment, it also published a substantial article by Professor Leo Depuydt arguing that it was a crude forgery. Given that HTR has never endorsed a position on the issue, it has no need to issue a response.




 
It is a common misconception that Peer Review Journals are like regular newspapers or magazines. For one, the person submitting has to pay to do so and pass a certain set of criteria. Average cost to be published in a Peer Review Journal is between 1 and 2 thousand dollars. I would bet Harvard is on the higher end. And the purpose of a Peer Revew Journal is not to take a stance and declare with authority. Only provide a public forum for professionals to exchange ideas. After a person does the research and formulates their hypothesis, they submit it for peer review. Which means they say "Hey look at this, Can you prove it wrong?" In this case they did, doesn't mean they should pull the paper. Because then the rebuttal paper written to prove that one wrong would only be one sided and make no sense to people in the future.

So to recap, a Peer Review Journal exists to offer other people a chance to prove the paper wrong. Not to sell copies, or prove an agenda. So it would be fruitless to retract everything proved wrong in a Peer Review Journal. Of course you can ignore this, and continue treating the medium as a form of public journalism. Luckily, tools of higher education aren't susceptible to public opinion. As they don't really serve the public.
 
It is a common misconception that Peer Review Journals are like regular newspapers or magazines. For one, the person submitting has to pay to do so and pass a certain set of criteria. Average cost to be published in a Peer Review Journal is between 1 and 2 thousand dollars. I would bet Harvard is on the higher end. And the purpose of a Peer Revew Journal is not to take a stance and declare with authority. Only provide a public forum for professionals to exchange ideas. After a person does the research and formulates their hypothesis, they submit it for peer review. Which means they say "Hey look at this, Can you prove it wrong?" In this case they did, doesn't mean they should pull the paper. Because then the rebuttal paper written to prove that one wrong would only be one sided and make no sense to people in the future.

So to recap, a Peer Review Journal exists to offer other people a chance to prove the paper wrong. Not to sell copies, or prove an agenda. So it would be fruitless to retract everything proved wrong in a Peer Review Journal. Of course you can ignore this, and continue treating the medium as a form of public journalism. Luckily, tools of higher education aren't susceptible to public opinion. As they don't really serve the public.

Thank you for the review no one needs. The OP is taken from Retraction Watch, a MacArthur genius grant-funded site established to monitor the integrity of those peer reviewed journals. Their take:

[FONT=&quot]What the Harvard Theological Review giveth, it evidently will not taketh away.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The venerable publication about religious matters is refusing to retract a 2014 article by a noted scholar of early Christianity despite evidence that the article — about Jesus’s wife — was based on a forgery.[/FONT]
 
A forgery? You don't say?

Since there is ZERO evidence that Jesus even lived, how could there be evidence of a wife?
 
Thank you for the review no one needs. The OP is taken from Retraction Watch, a MacArthur genius grant-funded site established to monitor the integrity of those peer reviewed journals. Their take:

[FONT="][I]What the [URL="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=HTR"]Harvard Theological Review[/URL] giveth, it evidently will not taketh away.[/I][/FONT]
[FONT="]The venerable publication about religious matters is refusing to retract a 2014 article by a noted scholar of early Christianity despite evidence that the article — about Jesus’s wife — was based on a forgery.[/FONT]

And those people can advocate for censorship all they like, Peer Review Journals are free to retract anything they like at their discretion. And until the day I die, I will defend their right to do so. Just like I will defend Fox New's right to say any blithering nonsense they want. And your right to tell me I am full of crap.
 
And those people can advocate for censorship all they like, Peer Review Journals are free to retract anything they like at their discretion. And until the day I die, I will defend their right to do so. Just like I will defend Fox New's right to say any blithering nonsense they want. And your right to tell me I am full of crap.



 
A forgery? You don't say?

Since there is ZERO evidence that Jesus even lived, how could there be evidence of a wife?

There is historical evidence of Jesus, mainstream Christianity just doesn't acknowledge it. Scholars believe his name was Joshua, and he was a rabbi.
 
A forgery? You don't say?

Since there is ZERO evidence that Jesus even lived, how could there be evidence of a wife?

Even the most secular historians agree that Jesus lived.
 

You act like these are some big watchdogs, keeping Science safe. Peer Review Journals don't censor the papers they are paid to publish by the author. They don't care if the papers are proven false, and they run low profit margins. Constantly printing retractions wouldn't kill Harvard, but it would some of the smaller niche journals. I have no doubt these institutions, and even your intentions are noble, but the only people who are in danger of being led astray by a disproven paper are people who shouldn't be quoting Peer Review Journals in the first place. And pressuring Journals into constant retractions will cause them to start censoring what papers they let in, and that hurts science more than a retraction helps it.
 
There is historical evidence of Jesus, mainstream Christianity just doesn't acknowledge it. Scholars believe his name was Joshua, and he was a rabbi.

Citation?
 
You act like these are some big watchdogs, keeping Science safe. Peer Review Journals don't censor the papers they are paid to publish by the author. They don't care if the papers are proven false, and they run low profit margins. Constantly printing retractions wouldn't kill Harvard, but it would some of the smaller niche journals. I have no doubt these institutions, and even your intentions are noble, but the only people who are in danger of being led astray by a disproven paper are people who shouldn't be quoting Peer Review Journals in the first place. And pressuring Journals into constant retractions will cause them to start censoring what papers they let in, and that hurts science more than a retraction helps it.

"Censoring what papers they let in" is the point of peer review.
 
[h=3]Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn't add up ...[/h]https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../did-historical-jesus-exist-the...


The Washington Post


Dec 18, 2014 - Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed ...



[h=3]Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible - Biblical ...[/h]

www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people...in.../jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/



Nov 18, 2015 - Tacitus's brief reference corroborates historical details of Jesus' death from the New Testament. The pictured volume of Tacitus's works is from ...


 
There is historical evidence of Jesus, mainstream Christianity just doesn't acknowledge it. Scholars believe his name was Joshua, and he was a rabbi.

Yeshua is the Hebrew name for Jesus and, yes, His followers called him rabbi sometimes.
 
"Censoring what papers they let in" is the point of peer review.

Censoring the methodology to which the person has reached a consensus is the point of a Journals in-house Peer Review, the larger community of professionals that read the journal are the judges of what the paper says.
 
Censoring the methodology to which the person has reached a consensus is the point of a Journals in-house Peer Review, the larger community of professionals that read the journal are the judges of what the paper says.

In academic publishing, the goal of peer review is to assess the qualityof articles submitted for publication in a scholarly journal. Before an article is deemed appropriate to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, it must undergo the following process:

  • The author of the article must submit it to the journal editor who forwards the article to experts in the field. Because the reviewers specialize in the same scholarly area as the author, they are considered the author’s peers (hence “peer review”).
  • These impartial reviewers are charged with carefully evaluating the quality of the submitted manuscript.
  • The peer reviewers check the manuscript for accuracy and assess the validity of the research methodology and procedures.
  • If appropriate, they suggest revisions. If they find the article lacking in scholarly validity and rigor, they reject it.
· Because a peer-reviewed journal will not publish articles that fail to meet the standards established for a given discipline, peer-reviewed articles that are accepted for publication exemplify the best research practices in a field.

What Is A Peer-Reviewed Article? - Evaluating Information Sources ...

guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/c.php?g=288333&p=1922599

Lloyd Sealy Library


Feb 9, 2016 - ... State University Libraries, gives a quick definition of a peer-reviewed article. ... In academic publishing, the goal of peer review is to assess the ... Because a peer-reviewed journal will not publish articles that fail to meet the ...
 
In academic publishing, the goal of peer review is to assess the qualityof articles submitted for publication in a scholarly journal. Before an article is deemed appropriate to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, it must undergo the following process:

  • The author of the article must submit it to the journal editor who forwards the article to experts in the field. Because the reviewers specialize in the same scholarly area as the author, they are considered the author’s peers (hence “peer review”).
  • These impartial reviewers are charged with carefully evaluating the quality of the submitted manuscript.
  • The peer reviewers check the manuscript for accuracy and assess the validity of the research methodology and procedures.
  • If appropriate, they suggest revisions. If they find the article lacking in scholarly validity and rigor, they reject it.
· Because a peer-reviewed journal will not publish articles that fail to meet the standards established for a given discipline, peer-reviewed articles that are accepted for publication exemplify the best research practices in a field.

What Is A Peer-Reviewed Article? - Evaluating Information Sources ...

guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/c.php?g=288333&p=1922599

Lloyd Sealy Library


Feb 9, 2016 - ... State University Libraries, gives a quick definition of a peer-reviewed article. ... In academic publishing, the goal of peer review is to assess the ... Because a peer-reviewed journal will not publish articles that fail to meet the ...

And until this one was published and disproven, it met the criteria. I am failing to see why I should change my mind. It's been disproven, what more do you want. Oh, you want it removed from view because uninformed people constantly quote it in a pointless discussion that I don't care about. I did have an insult here, but realized that was poor form. My apologies.
 
Um, that's the Jesus of Christianity. Not sure what you're getting at.

Well you wanted a source to him being referred to as Joshua. If you want one to a source that says historical Jesus is different from the Bibles Jesus and Christians ignore it. I point you to the internet. You can also take a free Religious Studies course offered by Harvard through Edx.org That offers both secular and religious version of Jesus.
 
And until this one was published and disproven, it met the criteria. I am failing to see why I should change my mind. It's been disproven, what more do you want. Oh, you want it removed from view because uninformed people constantly quote it in a pointless discussion that I don't care about. I did have an insult here, but realized that was poor form. My apologies.

I quite agree that it met the criteria for publication, helped along, I'm sure, by the fact the author was a Harvard professor publishing in a Harvard journal. The problem with not retracting is that downstream, after the current controversy has faded, it risks being cited in good faith by unknowing researchers.
 
I quite agree that it met the criteria for publication, helped along, I'm sure, by the fact the author was a Harvard professor publishing in a Harvard journal. The problem with not retracting is that downstream, after the current controversy has faded, it risks being cited in good faith by unknowing researchers.

I understand your point, and it isn't wrong. I just can't condone pressuring them. It's fine if they do it for their own reasons. But its a slippery slope once we start forcing these Journals to capitulate because of public opinion. I am just amped up from a discussion elsewhere, someday's I just don't like people.
 
I understand your point, and it isn't wrong. I just can't condone pressuring them. It's fine if they do it for their own reasons. But its a slippery slope once we start forcing these Journals to capitulate because of public opinion. I am just amped up from a discussion elsewhere, someday's I just don't like people.

Fair enough.
 
Well you wanted a source to him being referred to as Joshua. If you want one to a source that says historical Jesus is different from the Bibles Jesus and Christians ignore it. I point you to the internet. You can also take a free Religious Studies course offered by Harvard through Edx.org That offers both secular and religious version of Jesus.

I see. Sooo, I have to take a paid course to discover what you're talking about. In other words, you've got nothing.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
I see. Sooo, I have to take a paid course to discover what you're talking about. In other words, you've got nothing.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Nope, 100 percent free. You only have to pay 100 bucks if you want accredited. Which I don't know if that does anything or not. And me going into a long debate on Jesus, a very contested point even among historians, wouldn't be on point to this topic. The class is cool though, I take two or three from Edx every year.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom