Harvard professor Karen L. King made headlines around the world in 2012 when she spoke about the existence of the tiny papyrus that Jesus was married to. The artifact appeared to be a torn page from Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. But now the professor admits that he is most likely fictitious. New research into the origins 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 early Christian history, shocked an academic audience at the International Congress of Coptic Studies by detailing an Egyptian papyrus fragment that contained the first known evidence that Jesus was married. In the fourth of the incomplete eight lines, which are contained on the papyrus, were the words "Jesus said to them:" My wife ", and in the next line: "She is able to be my disciple." King emphasized that the "Gospel of the Wife of Jesus" cannot be taken as proof that the historical Jesus was ever married, as there is no evidence to support this. Nevertheless, she was confident that the artifact was genuine, as analysis by two experts in the field indicated thatthat this papyrus is ancient.
Public reaction
This statement immediately caused controversy, because it actually changes Christianity and all our knowledge about it. The Vatican called the papyrus a modern counterfeit. Some of King's colleagues, who doubted the authenticity of the artifact, pointed to grammatical errors in the papyrus that a Coptic speaker could never have made. 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, which found no evidence of fabrication. The papyrus was dated to the seventh or eighth century AD, and the composition of the ink was consistent with that time.
Promotional video:
Revealing article
A new article, written by journalist Ariel Sabar, who appeared in the latest issue of Atlantic Magazine, called the papyrus a fake. Although King confirmed that she saw a 1999 bill of sale from the owner of the artifact, who wished to remain anonymous, she did not do much to trace its further origin. Sabar, however, did a thorough investigation of the owner and found out his name. It turned out to be Walter Fritz, who lives in Florida.
Who is the owner of the artifact?
According to Fritz, he acquired 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 was never interested in antiquities and was not in Germany at the time when, according to Fritz, the sale of papyrus took place. The title deeds for this artifact are most likely fabricated as well.
Fritz admitted that he was the owner of the papyrus, but vehemently denied its falsification. He has ensured that neither he nor any third parties have ever falsified, altered or otherwise manipulated the artifact and inscriptions on it since it was acquired. Nevertheless, Fritz, who studied Egyptology and Coptic in the late 1980s and early 1990s in Berlin and later ran a company that provided services to collectors, has the knowledge and ability to perform such manipulations.
Possibility of falsification
Although scientific testing has determined that the papyrus is of ancient origin, this does not mean that it has not fallen into the hands of a modern forger. The article suggests that someone might have gotten a piece of ancient papyrus (perhaps even on EBay, where antiques are usually auctioned off), mixed ink according to old recipes, and copied the Coptic style fairly tolerably, especially if the person had some scientific preparation.
Conclusions of the Harvard professor
After reading the article and examining the obvious signs of fabrication, King relented, saying that the fragment was most likely a fake. She admitted that she had never investigated where Fritz got the artifact from, or tried to verify the authenticity of the documents he provided about the alleged origin of the papyrus. King said that another check would be done, especially since the papyrus may still be genuine, despite the fact that the story of its origin is not completely clear.
Despite these revelations, neither King herself nor Harvard officials are going to publish a rebuttal. The editors of the magazine noted in a statement that they are avoiding committing themselves to the question of the authenticity of the papyrus fragment. The editors say that, since the magazine has never stated its position on this matter, now there is no need to make a statement either.
However, King said she was not going to give up her job. According to her, research work always allows for the possibility of forgery. “I have always taken science as a conversation,” she says. - You express your best thoughts, and then people bring in new ideas and evidence. But you continue to work anyway. Still, King said she understood one thing. She will never again agree to work with artifacts from anonymous owners.