avelanch Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Wondering why Jesus had to be a bachelor anyway. Isn't 'go forth and multiply' a prime directive? Or was the need to keep women excluded back then so great that the bible was revised? Wondering if this information will be accepted by the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Some things to consider: According to an article in the Washington Post, an ancient manuscript claiming that Jesus had a wife has just been discovered. I’ll tackle this new discovery with some Q&A. What is this new find? Karen King, the Gnostic scholar who published the manuscript, has titled it the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife (see the scholarly article here). It is a very small fragment, only 12 partial lines, of an ancient Gnostic book. The fragment, written in Coptic, dates from the fourth century, but it is a copy of an older book, perhaps written in the late second century. According to the fragment, Jesus refers to “my wife.” Is the manuscript genuine? It’s too early to tell. When manuscripts are discovered, it usually takes some time of examination and scholarly vetting before forgeries are discovered. There are some concerns about Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’s unknown provenance and history of ownership, but the initial reports make it seem likely that this is a real fourth-century Gnostic document. That doesn’t mean that the document is true or has anything to do with Jesus! How is this related to the so-called Gnostic gospels? The Gnostics wrote a number of short collections of sayings that they attributed to Jesus: the Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and others. Technically, these are not really gospels, at least when compared with the canonical gospels. The four gospels in the New Testament are full biographies of Jesus, directly tied to eyewitness accounts, and written within 25 to 60 years of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Gnostic gospels, in contrast, are short collections of sayings, with little or no biographical material. They are written by people more than a century removed from Jesus, with no connection to the eyewitnesses. Generally, these works are easily identified because they try to make Jesus sound like a Gnostic. This newly discovered fragment has a few lines that sound like the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. What does the document say about Jesus’ wife? Not much! Here is the entire text of the document: 1 ] “not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe…” 2 ] The disciples said to Jesus, “.[ 3 ] deny. Mary is worthy of it 4 ]……” Jesus said to them, “My wife . .[ [ 5 ]… she will be able to be my disciple . . [ 6 ] Let wicked people swell up … [ 7] As for me, I dwell with her in order to . [ 8] an image [ 1 ] my moth[er 2 ] three [ 3 ] …[ 4 ] forth which … [ The ellipses indicate unreadable material. As you can see, there is very little to work with. However, as King points out, it seems that “My wife” in line 4 refers to “Mary” in line 3, although we can’t be certain. Although Mary was a very common name, the prominent relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus in other Gnostic documents makes it seem likely that this is Mary Magdalene and not some other Mary. So the Gnostics thought Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene? Not so fast. Marriage, kissing, and the “bridal chamber” were metaphors in Gnosticism related to enlightenment and their initiation rituals. Some Gnostics thought that all actual sexual intercourse was evil. So the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife may be using Gnostic metaphor. You may recall from several years ago that the Gospel of Judas was so packed with opaque Gnostic metaphor that scholars are still debating whether it portrays Judas as a hero or a villain. Then does this document tell us whether Jesus was married or not? All it tells us (sort of) is what Gnostics thought. Since Gnostics weren’t around until the second century, and Gnostics are notorious for making up sayings of Jesus, this tells us absolutely nothing about the real Jesus. Karen King, the scholar who published the fragment, partially agrees with this evaluation. You can bet that this important fact will be overlooked or downplayed when you see it on the cover of news magazines or watch the forthcoming Smithsonian documentary. Aside from this manuscript, how likely was it that Jesus was married? There are three reasons that Jesus was probably not married. First, the New Testament never mentions a wife. Since the NT authors mention Jesus’ mother, father, four brothers, some sisters, an aunt, and some cousins, it is very unlikely that Jesus had a wife and no one mentioned it. Second, Jesus described a special calling of celibacy to allow a greater focus on the kingdom of heaven (Matt 19:10-12; cp. 1 Cor 7:7-9). This strongly implies that Jesus was celibate. Third, the church fathers, some of whom had access to reliable oral tradition about Jesus, believed that Jesus never married (Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Chrysostom, as King points out). But wasn’t it the norm for Jewish men to get married? Yes, it was strongly encouraged. In later Judaism (second century), it was almost a requirement. But there are significant examples of celibacy in Judaism, including Jeremiah, some Essenes, the female Therapeutae, possibly the prophet Bannus, and the second century sage Ben Azzai. Does it really matter whether Jesus was married or not? In one sense, it doesn’t matter. If the Gospels had told us that Jesus was married, it would not be disturbing, and we would consider it as part of his incarnation and genuine humanity. However, Jesus and Paul clearly thought that some people should fully devote themselves to kingdom service by abstaining from marriage. Jesus’ celibacy confirms what we already know about Jesus: that his entire life was completely and undistractedly devoted to advancing the Kingdom of God. -Gary T. Manning Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 Mary not a virgin. Check. Mary had many children, not just Jesus. Check. Jesus was married. Check. Jesus fathered a child/children. Next? The church would say otherwise, but these things things matter. It means that Jesus did not 'ascend into heaven to be at God's side.' It means that Jesus was just a man. And if Jesus was just a man, then how could he be the son of God? Jesus was a good dude. But if he saw what we were doing to his legacy today, he'd say no thanks, brah. Unless he were a megalomaniac. But that doesn't sound good. Jeez, maybe the Jews are right on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Mary not a virgin. Check. Mary had many children, not just Jesus. Check. Jesus was married. Check. Jesus fathered a child/children. Next? The church would say otherwise, but these things things matter. It means that Jesus did not 'ascend into heaven to be at God's side.' It means that Jesus was just a man. And if Jesus was just a man, then how could he be the son of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Mary not a virgin. Check. Mary had many children, not just Jesus. Check. Jesus was married. Check. Jesus fathered a child/children. Next? The church would say otherwise, but these things things matter. It means that Jesus did not 'ascend into heaven to be at God's side.' It means that Jesus was just a man. And if Jesus was just a man, then how could he be the son of God? Jesus was a good dude. But if he saw what we were doing to his legacy today, he'd say no thanks, brah. Unless he were a megalomaniac. But that doesn't sound good. Jeez, maybe the Jews are right on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Mary was a vigin when she conceived Jesus. Check Mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 According to whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 A good read: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/was-jesus-married-a-careful-look-at-the-real-evidence/ "Nevertheless, there are some who argue that the silence of the New Testament gospels should be taken as strong evidence for the marriage of Jesus." "In 1970, for example, William E. Phipps published Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition. In this book Phipps argued that the silence of the New Testament about the marital status of Jesus indicates that Jesus was in fact married. Why? Because virtually every Jewish man in Jesus’ day did marry, especially those who were considered to be Rabbis." But, Mark Roberts goes on to conclude that Jesus wasn't married based on evidence in canonical and non-canonical texts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 "My made up literature say's he was married" "Mine say's he wasn't!" Who cares.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Another thing to think about. Jesus loved to set an example for how we should treat and love others. He was basically known for accepting sinners, low life's, and people who the regular Jewish community shunned. If Jesus did marry Mary he would be setting the ultimate example of non-judgement, forgiveness, acceptance, and love (as it is commonly believed she was a prostitute). You can bet that Pharisee's mouths would have dropped at this. And also given the attitude of the disciples towards Samaritans, Romans, and other's it wouldn't be surprising that Jesus was arguing with them about her being his wife and disciple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 Mark Roberts had responded to the Da Vinci Code, but has he already discredited this new evidence? It seems that the more we dig up the past, the more the church doesn't like it. However, all they would have to do is reject/discredit the findings and move on. Faith doesn't require proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Mark Roberts had responded to the Da Vinci Code, but has he already discredited this new evidence? It seems that the more we dig up the past, the more the church doesn't like it. However, all they would have to do is reject/discredit the findings and move on. Faith doesn't require proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 Since the 70's eh? Damn women's lib... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Since the 70's eh? Damn women's lib... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Since the 70's eh? Damn women's lib... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Next thing we know Jesus is going to turn out to have been female... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tystick Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Mary not a virgin. Check. Mary had many children, not just Jesus. Check. Jesus was married. Check. Jesus fathered a child/children. Next? The church would say otherwise, but these things things matter. It means that Jesus did not 'ascend into heaven to be at God's side.' It means that Jesus was just a man. And if Jesus was just a man, then how could he be the son of God? Jesus was a good dude. But if he saw what we were doing to his legacy today, he'd say no thanks, brah. Unless he were a megalomaniac. But that doesn't sound good. Jeez, maybe the Jews are right on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Revealed as forgery by Alin Suciu, an expert in papyrology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Who's this Jesus guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 So this new (un proven for authenticity) evidence is nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.