Ancient coptic manuscript dating from garmany dating
At the time of Hippocrates, new physicians swore upon a number of healing gods to do their job adequately and ethically.
Even if Hippocrates didn't write the oath, he was revered for his ethical standards, so it makes sense that it would be attributed to him.
One side of the fragmentary text reads, word-for-word: ..[to] me. According to Tom Bartlett of The Chronicle of Higher Education, "she's been asking around for ideas on a new, less exciting name".
The opposite side of the text reads, word-for-word: ..moth[er]...three...forth ...
He further explained that, "during the rise of the monastic movement, you had quite a lot of monk-type folks and evangelists who travelled in the company of a sister-wife" and that the term "wife" was open to interpretation.
It will not have a great deal of importance for the Christian church.
The discovery was announced during a ceremony in which Egypt's Minister of Antiquities Dr Khaled El-Enany received the Greek minister of digital policy, telecommunications and media, Nikos Pappas.
According to King, the earliest and most reliable information about Jesus is silent on the question of his marital status.
Testing has dated the papyrus itself to somewhere between the seventh and ninth centuries, and Professor Christian Askeland of Indiana Wesleyan University has shown that the text is written in Lycopolitan, a Coptic dialect that fell out of use during or prior to the sixth century.
King told the International Congress of Coptic Studies that the text does not prove that Jesus had a wife.
I think however, what it leads us to do, is not to answer that question one way or the other, it should lead us to re-think how Christianity understood sexuality and marriage in a very positive way, and to recapture the pleasures of sexuality, the joyfulness and the beauties of human intimate relations.
Ben Witherington, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Asbury Theological Seminary, said that while the text might contribute to the study of Gnosticism in the 2nd or 4th century, it should not be considered significant for those studying Jesus in a 1st-century historical context.