Jesus had a wife...new evidence

maguffin

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=3

Actor

Yawn.

Manach

From the 4th century and only a fragment with nothing to place it in context - not very conclusive evidence for that supposition.

JimiTime

Yeah, I'd certainly not put much stock in the supposition based on this. Genuine question though, what would actually be the consequence of this being so?

PDN

Yes, Jesus has a wife. The Church is the Bride of Christ.

philologos

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife ...’ ”

Fourth century - four centuries after Jesus' birth? - Not at all possible to have been written by eyewitnesses.

Never seen in any piece of Scripture - probably heretical. The New Testament dates long before the fourth century and was based on eyewitness testimony. I trust the Bible. See my signature to find out why.

Not good evidence I'm afraid.

Run_to_da_hills

This is an attack on the authority of the bible and the authority of Jesus Christ.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Yes, Jesus has a wife. The Church is the Bride of Christ.

Just wondering, is there any theological issue IF something like this were true? IF (A very gigatic, huge, size of Jupiter IF) it were discovered that Jesus did have a wife, is there actually any issue? Just wondering what I'm missing.

antiskeptic

maguffin wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=3

Perhaps you couldl take it to A&A forum where their always calling for evidence of Jesus' existence (which could be inferred from evidence that he had a wife).

martinedwards

where does it say in the bible that Jesus was unmarried?

it doesn't mention that He WAS married, it mentions that at least one of the Apostles had a mother in law (Peter I think) but doesn't say one way or the other what Jesus' marital status was.

several posters have mentioned the bible.....

I'm from the branch of Christianity that is VERY strict on bible as opposed to church tradition or later revelation, so c'mon folks enlighten me. based on the BIBLE where does it say he wasn't married?

bazza1

I'd be surprised if he wasnt married! Culturally, at that time, it would be unusual for men to be single in their twenties, let alone 33. Would it really matter?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Fourth century - four centuries after Jesus' birth? - Not at all possible to have been written by eyewitnesses.

What, as opposed to the early third century which is when the earliest surviving copies of the New Testament books appear? How many eye witnesses where a live then to write those?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

What, as opposed to the early third century which is when the earliest surviving copies of the New Testament books appear? How many eye witnesses where a live then to write those?

Come on, now you're being totally dishonest. Do you have to derail every discussion with this agenda-driven drivel? The issue is not earliest surviving copies (otherwise we'd be talking about most Greek and Roman classical literature not existing until after 800AD).

Most, if not all, of the New Testament documents were circulating by the end of the First Century and are quoted extensively by other authors in the early Second Century.

The fragment mentioned in the OP, however, is most probably a Gnostic source with no evidence or citations before the Fourth Century.

Jimitime wrote:

Just wondering, is there any theological issue IF something like this were true? IF (A very gigatic, huge, size of Jupiter IF) it were discovered that Jesus did have a wife, is there actually any issue? Just wondering what I'm missing.

I wouldn't see any theological issue at all (not for Christians in my tradition, anyway). In fact, if read evidence were uncovered that Jesus was married, I think it would make my job as an evangelist easier - many people would see Him as being more accessible.

Gweedling

Married Jesus = Kids = Bloodline. The Conspiracy theorists will have a field day!

And the famous line to start off an argument:

"I'M AN ATHEIST BUT!" I don't doubt the existence of Jesus, I believe around that time there were countless bajillions of people claiming to be the messiah, Jesus was just one of them, and he was better at making people beleive him. that's a different kettle of fish. Anyway!

If he was married, there's all likelihood there was kids involved. If there were kids, there's a bloodline. This coincides nicely with the Hold Blood & holy Grail, which I'm struggling through at the moment. Will be interesting to see if the Vatican bring out a public response to this.

Benny_Cake

Gweedling wrote: »

This coincides nicely with the Hold Blood & holy Grail, which I'm struggling through at the moment.

You have my sympathies!

Assuming this is authenticated, all it would prove is that some people in the third century thought that Jesus was married. In short, we're unlikely to ever know one way or another. I don't see that it would necessarily change anything if it was true.

georgieporgy

If true it would mean quite a bit actually. If he had children in this marriage they could likewise claim that God was their earthly father.

georgieporgy

georgieporgy wrote: »

If true it would mean quite a bit actually. If he had children in this marriage they could likewise claim that God was their earthly father.

It's worth noting that if Jesus did indeed have children, and his children survived and had their own children, and so on, then we'd likely be related to him -- or at least all of those of Levantine descent would be. Similar to how almost all of us of European descent are descendants of Charlemagne. An interesting thought.

ehcocmeo

Strange. When Christ rose and showed himself to Mary she called him Raboni, or teacher.

He also asked his disciplines to give up their home and follow him.. Hardly an example with Mary being his wife.

There are no historical facts about Christ having a wife.

The text written in Coptic from 4th century is from a Church that was already separated. One might think the western church could possibly have repressed the truth for their own benefit.. but why would the Coptic Church bother.

Reality is Christ's celibate life has not been questioned because he was celibate.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Come on, now you're being totally dishonest. Do you have to derail every discussion with this agenda-driven drivel? The issue is not earliest surviving copies (otherwise we'd be talking about most Greek and Roman classical literature not existing until after 800AD).

Most, if not all, of the New Testament documents were circulating by the end of the First Century and are quoted extensively by other authors in the early Second Century.

The fragment mentioned in the OP, however, is most probably a Gnostic source with no evidence or citations before the Fourth Century.

The "issue" according to Phil is that these pieces could not have been written by eye witnesses to Jesus because they are dated to the 4th century.

If you think that is silly take it up with him, as you yourself point out none of the surviving copies of the New Testament were written by eye witnesses to Jesus either.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Yes, Jesus has a wife. The Church is the Bride of Christ.

Which Church are you talking about PDN, or does Christ have many brides?

Benny_Cake

Festus wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

Yes, Jesus has a wife. The Church is the Bride of Christ.

Which Church are you talking about PDN, or does Christ have many brides?

Festus, if you want to turn this into sectarian bickering, take it to the Catholic/Protestant megathread.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Which Church are you talking about PDN, or does Christ have many brides?

He's probably talking about this one...

"And you are living stones that God is building into his spiritual temple.

...reckoning, as doth Peter, that the only church (a.k.a. the bride of Christ) God is interested in constructing is one that is made out of people. Not denominations. Nor physical organisations.

It's something that every denomination around here appears to be able to accomodate in their thinking. Bar one.




Adding even more lead to the balloon he continues...

"What's more, you are his holy priests..."

philologos

martinedwards wrote: »

where does it say in the bible that Jesus was unmarried?

it doesn't mention that He WAS married, it mentions that at least one of the Apostles had a mother in law (Peter I think) but doesn't say one way or the other what Jesus' marital status was.

several posters have mentioned the bible.....

I'm from the branch of Christianity that is VERY strict on bible as opposed to church tradition or later revelation, so c'mon folks enlighten me. based on the BIBLE where does it say he wasn't married?

Based on the Bible - there is no reason to believe that Jesus had a wife. If other sources claim this, we should ask where is that found in the Bible. If it isn't found in eyewitness sources, then we can't verify that Jesus having a wife is really true. Considering this is an isolated source, and the New Testament is not, I'll run in favour of the New Testament over this isolated source as the best source for truth concerning Jesus.

I take a Sola Scriptura attitude to the Bible.

Zombrex: PDN's point is still pertinent. There is clear evidence that the New Testament manuscripts were widely used from their infancy in the Christian church. There's no evidence firstly that this fragment was widely accepted within Christianity, and there's no evidence of it being used in the early church. If we can see that the New Testament was widely used from the second century, we know that these texts predate the second century. Therefore by logical extension, it is probably the case that these texts were written within a lifetime of the events that they describe happening. As for the 4th century fragment, there's no such evidence.

Fanny Cradock

Assuming we take the missing sentence to say something like "Jesus said to them, 'My wife and I are off to Greece for two weeks. Would yo mind feeding the cat.'". It suggests somebody about 300 years after Jesus thought that he had a wife. Great.

And in other news...

Manach

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

"Jesus said to them, 'My wife and I are off to Greece for two weeks. Would yo mind feeding the cat.'".

Being Jesus, I'm assuming it was just the one fish left to fed the feline with

georgieporgy

I wonder if his wife was a priest.:rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock

Manach wrote: »

Being Jesus, I'm assuming it was just the one fish left to fed the feline with

J C

JimiTime wrote: »

Just wondering, is there any theological issue IF something like this were true? IF (A very gigatic, huge, size of Jupiter IF) it were discovered that Jesus did have a wife, is there actually any issue? Just wondering what I'm missing.

... the Merovingians would be correct ... if this was right!!!:eek:
http://www.google.ie/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=morgovinian+dynasty&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TEUA_en___IE498&q=merovingian+dynasty&gs_upl=0l0l1l3080761lllllllllll0&aqi=g4&pbx=1

martingriff

georgieporgy wrote: »

I wonder if his wife was a priest.:rolleyes:

This I was thinking myself. If Jesus had a wife and I say it is possible what role had she in the church does it mean Jesus did not mind women priests or priests getting married which for many centuries they were anyway

Seaneh

martingriff wrote: »

This I was thinking myself. If Jesus had a wife and I say it is possible what role had she in the church does it mean Jesus did not mind women priests or priests getting married which for many centuries they were anyway

The idea of a priest was pretty alien to the early church, they moved away form that structure (the jewish structure) and had married men as elders.

mathepac

gvn wrote: »

It's worth noting that if Jesus did indeed have children, and his children survived and had their own children, and so on, then we'd likely be related to him -- or at least all of those of Levantine descent would be. ...

There is another concern I have and that is the big deal made in the New Testament about Jesus' descent from David e.g Joseph registering for the census / taxation in David's royal city, etc.

This would mean that any off-spring of Jesus' union with his wife, say Mary Magdelene for now, would be seen by some as Jewish "royalty", or direct descendants of David. The same could equally argued about the off-spring of Jesus' brothers. (I'm not pushing the line about Joseph of Amramethea and a pregnant Mary Magdelene fleeing the Holy Land to Gaul). The problem here is that Jewish lines are traced through the mother's side as before DNA tests etc. it was easier to demonstrate who had given birth to a child in the recent past rather than trying to trace the father back nine months. So if Jesus had a wife her status as a descendant of David is important.

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Strange. When Christ rose and showed himself to Mary she called him Raboni, or teacher.

He also asked his disciplines to give up their home and follow him.. Hardly an example with Mary being his wife. ...

Which Mary, Mary the mother of Jesus or Mary Magdelene? Jesus is also quoted as saying "I must be about my father's work" putting temporal responsibilities in the context of his bigger mission.

The other issue of course is which Jesus are they talking about? There are 5 or 6 of them that appear to have lived around the same time in the same area, some referred to in the official New Testament and others in the dead sea scrolls and other works excluded from the Apocrypha and the books of the New Testament.

Some may be the same person, but it's difficult to get the auld head around it. Here are the ones I know of thanks to Robert Eisenmann's books:

ben Joseph
ben Ananias
ben Gamala (married to Boethus' daughter, Martha)
ben Yohozedek
son of Damnaeus
son of Sapphias

Wading through his New Testament Code is a chore with his 1,000+ page reference book in one hand and a bible in the other.

totus tuus

It was probably the local fishwrap!

tommy2bad

Peoples front of Judea and a very naughty boy.:rolleyes:

lmaopml

maguffin wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=3

There is a very large trade in illicit anitiquities. The piece of Papyrus was donated by somebody who apparently has it since the 90's and now wishes to remain anonymous.

Dr. King first learned about what she calls “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” when she received an e-mail in 2010 from a private collector who asked her to translate it. Dr. King, 58, specializes in Coptic literature, and has written books on the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, Gnosticism and women in antiquity.



Karen King seemed to 'decide' with some collaborators that the piece of papyrus was legit before even submitting it to tests, and not only that, but talked it up, showed it to the NYT ( they love this stuff ) wrote a paper on it, spoke about it, and now apparently decided that it might be a good idea to discuss whether it's genuine or not with other scholars? Apparently the owner is looking to sell it to Harvard University....

The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions.

The NYT journalist did his job - and not only that but demonstrated his lack of knowledge about the 'roiling' among Christians and anything at all about why women are not priests in the Catholic Church. He also demonstrated that he hasn't got a clue that the word 'disciple' is not provocative at all in relation to women......clearly a bit of sensationalist lazy journalism. I'm not surprised.

However, I am surprised at King - who should have known better and been more professional imo. Some people believe everything they read is true, Dan Browns books are a testament to it -

It's all about the money.

Here's a more sensible piece....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/jesus-wife-papyrus-authen_n_1897169.html

ehcocmeo

Daily Mail..

Ancient papyrus that 'proves Jesus was married' declared 'a forgery', 'unconvincing' and 'suspicious' by historical experts


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205673/Jesus-Wife-papyrus-Proof-Jesus-married-declared-forgery-unconvincing-experts.html

martingriff

Seaneh wrote: »

The idea of a priest was pretty alien to the early church, they moved away form that structure (the jewish structure) and had married men as elders.

Okay teachers or whatever you call the disciples. My question still stands if he was married what was her role. The role of women in the religon

ehcocmeo

[Mod Edit:reference to deleted post removed]

One word out of context in coptic means what?

I heard some suggest that his wife was hidden to promote celibate priests.. But Priestly celibacy wasn't a discipline until the 10th century.

So the real question is why would the council of Nicaea both to hide the fact he was married?

PDN

Mod Warning
Please note that a number of off-topic posts have been deleted.

Posters wishing to argue about Protestants & Catholics can take that little squabble to the Protestant/Catholic debate thread.

Those wishing to induldge in the usual atheist assertions against the integrity of the Bible can take their diatribes to the Atheist/Christian Debate Thread.

Mean while those that wish to discuss whether Jesus had a wife or not can do in a hijack-free thread.

Any further attempts to hijack this thread will be infracted by the Department of Homeland Security's special air marshals.

Gumbi

ehcocmeo wrote: »

Daily Mail..

Ancient papyrus that 'proves Jesus was married' declared 'a forgery', 'unconvincing' and 'suspicious' by historical experts


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205673/Jesus-Wife-papyrus-Proof-Jesus-married-declared-forgery-unconvincing-experts.html

I think only fools considered it proof of anything

Onesimus

There was a lot of false Gospels floating around in those days due to Christian sects that existed. Doesnt surprise me.

Festus

Onesimus wrote: »

There was a lot of false Gospels floating around in those days due to Christian sects that existed. Doesnt surprise me.

To my mind this is a piece of papyrus that contains words written by some distant ancestor of Dan Brown who took it to a local theatrical producer to get it on stage and the producer rightly saw it for what it was and tore up the script.

lmaopml

''Department of Homeland Security Special Air Marshals'' *titters*

This is kind of like a situation that if I were to go out tomorrow and bury a piece of stone, that some person dug up 500 years from now that said, 'Jesus said 'Je suis Irlandais' and all of a sudden he became French speaking and Irish to the Irish , and chose to ignore the date, time and history, influences, for the sake of it.

Perhaps the piece is cut from another piece, this is part of the trade these days, that's why standards are so high - perhaps it's genuine, perhaps it is not - but the 'historical' and verified facts about the actual life of Christ and also the Scriptural message suggest that he didn't marry, he was about his Fathers mission.

GastroBoy

I wish he did have a wife, and hopefully he did. Then the ridiculous idea of priests not having wifes/husbands wouldnt be so taboo.

philologos

GastroBoy wrote: »

I wish he did have a wife, and hopefully he did. Then the ridiculous idea of priests not having wifes/husbands wouldnt be so taboo.

Look to the Bible particularly Titus and 1 Timothy and also 1 Corinthians 9. Even Peter was married.

Also look to other reformed denominations and you'll see that married clergy is the norm.

There's no good evidence Jesus was married so I don't assume it.

Peregrinus

The gospels do not say directly either that Jesus was married, or that he was not.

From this we can infer that it wasn’t a major preoccupation of the evangelists.

You can argue that there’s indirect evidence that he wasn’t married. His mother, his father, his brothers and his sisters all make at least one appearance, and three of them – Mary, Joseph, James – are actually named. How likely is it that there was a wife around, and somehow she never came up in conversation? Plus, there are passages which some scholars read as recording a probably defence by Jesus of criticism directed at him for not being married. But it’s all very circumstantial.

The scholars who have presented this latest discover are at pains to say that it is not evidence that Jesus was married. It may tell us something about the second-century Coptic community thought to have produced the text, but nothing about the historical Jesus.

Apart from anything else, the text is so fragmentary that we do not even know if the word “wife” is being used in a literal or analogical sense. The canonical gospels record Jesus as teaching who his true brothers and sisters were (his followers, not his family) and its entirely possible that this fragment preserves a tradition in which Jesus used the concept of “wife” in a similar analogical context (possibly, indeed, in response to criticisms of him for not having an actual wife).

Fanny Cradock

If you have 7 minutes to spare I would recommend watching this video from Ben Witherington

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjscNiQDs4I

GastroBoy

philologos wrote: »

Look to the Bible particularly Titus and 1 Timothy and also 1 Corinthians 9. Even Peter was married.

Also look to other reformed denominations and you'll see that married clergy is the norm.

There's no good evidence Jesus was married so I don't assume it.

And your point is what exactly?

philologos

GastroBoy wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Look to the Bible particularly Titus and 1 Timothy and also 1 Corinthians 9. Even Peter was married.

Also look to other reformed denominations and you'll see that married clergy is the norm.

There's no good evidence Jesus was married so I don't assume it.

And your point is what exactly?

That you can see Christian communities with married priests spread irrespective of Jesus' marital status.

We've no good evidence to show he was married so I don't assume.

Onesimus

Gumbi

Onesimus wrote: »

Who actually believed that?

Peregrinus

In fairness, the people who have produced this papyrus are at pains to say that it is not evidence that Jesus was married. Karen King:

"No, this fragment does not provide evidence that Jesus was married. The comparatively late date of this Coptic papyrus (a fourth century CE copy of a gospel probably written in Greek in the second half of the second century) argues against its value as evidence for the life of the historical Jesus . . . It does provide evidence, however, that the whole question about Jesus’s marital status arose as part of the debates about sexuality and marriage that took place among early Christians at that time [late second century]. From the very beginning, Christians disagreed about whether it was better to marry or to be celibate, but it was over a century after Jesus’s death before they began using Jesus’s marital status to support their different positions. Christian tradition preserved only those voices that claimed Jesus never married, but now the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife shows that some Christians claimed Jesus was married, probably already in the late second century."

I'm not convinced that it shows even that, to be honest. But there's pretty universal agreement on all sides of the debate that it does not do anything to show that Jesus was married. The only people who even raise the spectre that it might, ironically, are those who vigorously attack the idea, which gives rise to the impression that if they put a lot of energy into refuting the idea the idea must be out there, and it must have some legs.