A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus Wife

Guy Incognito said:

That doesn't seem very reasonable.

Click to expand...

What doesn't seem reasonable exactly?

Mya said:

A Harvard historian has identified a faded, fourth-century scrap of papyrus she calls "The Gospel of Jesus's Wife." One line of the torn fragment of text purportedly reads: "Jesus said to them, 'My wife …"

September 18 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=0

Click to expand...

The article makes a lot of assumptions based off of two lines. For example, who said anything about Mary Magdalen? The author just assumes that's who the mystery wife is. Also, it may be authentic in age and composition, but that doesn't mean anything other than it's from around that time. We don't even know who the author is. All that's known is that a piece of papyrus was found, and it says "Jesus said to them, ‘My wife... she will be able to be my disciple.” And this is assuming that the translation is correct. I'm no expert in Coptic, but looking at it, there looks to be more than what the article says there is.



"Jesus said to them, ‘My wife... she will be able to be my disciple.”

Just saying. I don't think rushing to conclusions is the best way to go about this finding.

Ben K. said:

What doesn't seem reasonable exactly?

Click to expand...

The idea that "My wife... " could be the beginning of a parable.

Guy Incognito said:

The idea that "My wife... " could be the beginning of a parable.

Click to expand...

Who said it was? Or that it wasn't? Or he was too busy talking about assaulting people with planks to the eye for being hypocrites to be careful of what he was saying?

Ben K. said:

Who said it was? Or that it wasn't? Or he was too busy talking about assaulting people with planks to the eye for being hypocrites to be careful of what he was saying?

Click to expand...

You said it could mean anything because Jesus was not a literal speaker. He wasn't, but it is not reasonable to think that a reference to one's own wife can be meant other than literally.

Guy Incognito said:

You said it could mean anything because Jesus was not a literal speaker. He wasn't, but it is not reasonable to think that a reference to one's own wife can be meant other than literally.

Click to expand...

Hence the plank and the eye reference. Take a few words out of context and the statement loses all meaning.

Regardless, focusing on these quotes specifically, he uses the future tense referring to "her" in the following fragment. It seems likely he was talking of a prediction of being married or a hypothetical marriage in pursuit of a metaphor. Since we're dealing with media translations from coptic, I´ll await the expert opinion and cast my doubt on how useful it is to draw conclusions from with the information we have.

Ben K. said:

Hence the plank and the eye reference. Take a few words out of context and the statement loses all meaning.

Regardless, focusing on these quotes specifically, he uses the future tense referring to "her" in the following fragment. It seems likely he was talking of a prediction of being married or a hypothetical marriage in pursuit of a metaphor. Since we're dealing with media translations from coptic, I´ll await the expert opinion and cast my doubt on how useful it is to draw conclusions from with the information we have.

Click to expand...

It just does not make sense as a metaphor, or anything but a literal wife. It also jibes with the widely known fact that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and she was revered by a sect of Christians who were later suppressed by the Church.

Guy Incognito said:

It just does not make sense as a metaphor, or anything but a literal wife. It also jibes with the widely known fact that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and she was revered by a sect of Christians who were later suppressed by the Church.

Click to expand...

It's a "fact" that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene?

Okay, you can carry on without me.

Ben K. said:

It's a "fact" that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene?

Okay, you can carry on without me.

Click to expand...

Oh, have I inadvertently tread on religious prejudices?

As a piece of friendly advice, let me advise you to leave your religious baggage at the door when you discuss history, otherwise it becomes impossible to have any serious disussion of history at all.

Guy Incognito said:

Oh, have I inadvertently tread on religious prejudices?

As a piece of friendly advice, let me advise you to leave your religious baggage at the door when you discuss history, otherwise it becomes impossible to have any serious disussion of history at all.

Click to expand...

I'm an atheist.

Guy Incognito said:

It just does not make sense as a metaphor, or anything but a literal wife. It also jibes with the widely known fact that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and she was revered by a sect of Christians who were later suppressed by the Church.

Click to expand...

Right. Because "bride" is never used as a metaphor for the church. Ever. Just until now. I just made it up.

Guy Incognito said:

Oh, have I inadvertently tread on religious prejudices?

As a piece of friendly advice, let me advise you to leave your religious baggage at the door when you discuss history, otherwise it becomes impossible to have any serious disussion of history at all.

Click to expand...

Lol...so I guess it has been revealed you are not the historical scholar you wanted people to believe. You should have just said:

"It is a fact Jesus used an Iphone 7 to send a podcast to the audience in Galilee."

Ben K. said:

I'm an atheist.

Click to expand...

Then why on earth would you get all huffy at the assertion that Jesus was married?

Guy Incognito said:

Professor Pagels has stated, in her sublimely conservative manner, "it is hard to evaluate something so fragmentary at this point."

Harvard Professor Finds 'New Gospel' | News | The Harvard Crimson

I think there are a few people, who shall remain nameless, who could stand to emulate Pagels in her characteristically modest claims. So many people take a somewhat minor thing like this and make way too much out of it.

Click to expand...

Wow. Looks like the same thing many posts in this thread have stated. Scary coincidence.

Furiounova said:

Right. Because "bride" is never used as a metaphor for the church. Ever. Just until now. I just made it up.

Click to expand...

In the first person? I am confident you will quickly provide a citation to this extraordinary claim.
I just don't buy it.

Guy Incognito said:

Then why on earth would you get all huffy at the assertion that Jesus was married?

Click to expand...

Because you said it is a "fact" he was married. You're looking like Benny hinn without the good looks or money.

Guy Incognito said:

In Coptic? I am confident you will quickly provide a citation to this extraordinary claim.
I just don't buy it.

Click to expand...

New International Version (©1984)
Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.
New Living Translation (©2007)
Jesus replied, "Do wedding guests mourn while celebrating with the groom? Of course not. But someday the groom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast.

English Standard Version (©2001)
And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And Jesus said to them, "The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

International Standard Version (©2008)
Jesus said to them, "The wedding guests can't mourn as long as the groom is with them, can they? But the time will come when the groom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
And Yeshua said to them, “How can the children of the bridal chamber fast as long as the groom is with them? But the days are coming when the groom will be taken from them and then they will fast.”
Matthew 9:15 Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

Would you like some more Professor?

Guy Incognito said:

Then why on earth would you get all huffy at the assertion that Jesus was married?

Click to expand...

I get huffy at the assertion of a "fact" (widely known as it apparently is) where none exists. If you asserted jesus is the son of god in the course of conversation I would have let you at it in much the same way. No skin off my nose, I just know we won't be getting anywhere.

Guy Incognito said:

It just does not make sense as a metaphor, or anything but a literal wife. It also jibes with the widely known fact that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and she was revered by a sect of Christians who were later suppressed by the Church.

Click to expand...

You're going to have to cite this claim. I've heard it before, but as for it being fact, I have yet to see any convincing evidence on this claim.

Connery said:

I agree except for the "legend " phase. This is all by "word of mouth", hearsay and popular opinion this does not make for a verifiable biography.

Click to expand...

No, when you are dealing with first person accounts you are dealing with what Historians call "Primary Sources". The level of historical scrutiny that we would have to establish in order to create a historical test to which the Gospels do not hold up as authoritative historical accounts of the life of Jesus would be so sever we would lose pretty much everything we know about ancient history.

Surtr said:

You're going to have to cite this claim. I've heard of it, but as for it being fact, I have yet to see any convincing evidence on it.

Click to expand...

Well, since you are being polite and reasonable I will be pleased to return the favor. It is a well attested fact that there was a branch of the early Church that understood her to be Christ's wife. From that it is simple enough to extrapolate based on the culture of the time that Jesus would have had to have been married in order to be taken seriously as a spiritual leader. So to the extent that there truly was a historical Jesus, he was almost certainly married, and his wide is most likely the wife traditionally attributed Him in early Christianitu literature.

Connery said:

"The fragment’s 33 words, scattered across 14 incomplete lines, leave a good deal to interpretation. But in King’s analysis, and as she argues in a forthcoming article in the Harvard Theological Review, the “wife” Jesus refers to is probably Mary Magdalene, and Jesus appears to be defending her against someone, perhaps one of the male disciples. “She will be able to be my disciple,” Jesus replies. Then, two lines later, he says: “I dwell with her.”

Click to expand...

Something else to keep in mind, though, is that he said similar things about several people, using it in a metaphorical sense- in the sense that spirits dwell with one another.
I'm not saying this is a more accurate interpretation, but that it is definitely a possibility. Much of what he is credited with writing was symbolic and full of metaphor.

A question to those of us here who are Christian: if Jesus had a wife, does it change anything in your mind, regarding your belief system? That is not meant as any sort of challenge, just out of curiosity.

lizzie said:

Something else to keep in mind, though, is that he said similar things about several people, using it in a metaphorical sense- in the sense that spirits dwell with one another.
I'm not saying this is a more accurate interpretation, but that it is definitely a possibility. Much of what he is credited with writing was symbolic and full of metaphor.

A question to those of us here who are Christian: if Jesus had a wife, does it change anything in your mind, regarding your belief system? That is not meant as any sort of challenge, just out of curiosity.

Click to expand...

I don't have a dog in the fight, but I once was a Christian. I don't see how the good words and deeds attributed to Jesus would change at all if it was proven that he had a wife.

Somerville said:

There are four canonical texts, none of which is in total agreement with any of the others. There are passages in each that may be found in one or two of the others and there are passages that are found in only one of the texts.

Click to expand...

yup. Mark, for example, doesn't include some of the source material that was used in writing Luke.

Your definition of "pretty quickly" must include a period from 35-40 years to more than 100 years after the supposed time of the crucifixion, not what I would call pretty quickly.

Click to expand...

Jesus died in about 31-33 AD. The last Gospel to be written was the Gospel of John. The oldest piece of the New Testament is a fragment of a copy of the Gospel of John that was written in about 120 AD. So your older claim of "more than 100 years" is incorrect. Mark was written in the early 50s, Matthew and Luke/Acts in the 60s, all of them using primary source material. John appears to have been written by his disciples upon the occasion of his death. The Epistles were written throughout (starting, perhaps, in the 40s and working their way through the 90s), but the fact is that by the mid-second century not only had the four Gospels all been written, copied, and widely dispersed.

The vast majority of the early xians were illiterate and most of the early teaching had to be oral in nature.

Click to expand...

Not really. All Jewish men learned to read at an early age as part of their religious instruction, and literacy was common in Egypt and Europe where Christianity quickly spread. The Early Church explicitly communicated through letters (some of them make up half the New Testament). But you are correct if you are referring to the process of dictation - which was indeed common.

None of the books found in the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses to the ministry of a man named Jesus - IF any such person ever existed.

Click to expand...

quite the contrary - all four of the books contain material from eyewitnesses, and furthermore, they make themselves immensely falsifiable by directing the reader to where he can find thousands more. the evidence for a historical Jesus is more overwhelming than the evidence for almost any major historical figure. Alexander the Great is less likely to have existed than Jesus, going strictly off the textual information. Julius Caesar is less likely to have existed, going strictly off the evidence.

Oh, another discovery of a "Gospel" from centuries after Jesus died. What a surprise.

We find one about every year or two.