NYT: A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-j...

"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 …'”

Thoughts?

The first thing which sprang to mind was the attitude toward women shown by the christ in the gospel of thomas, he and his disciples seemed like a gang of boys forming outside of the playground, different and special. They let a girl join them but with provisos to justify the inclusion, delightfully innocent stuff.

If I were a betting man, I'd lay out heavily that the following paragraph will be almost universally ignored:

She repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said.

The last sentence will also likely be ignored: "But Dr. King said she wants nothing to do with the Code or its author: 'At least, don’t say this proves Dan Brown was right.' "

The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous.

That's not at all helpful for figuring out the context. And as for dismissing it as a possible forgery ... it's hardly a six-sigma effect, as they say in physics. Yes, it would probably be a hard forgery, but like all such things, you get the right person to buy into it, and they promote it to the NYT and the forger gets to delight in pulling one over on the world. Not to mention that there's apparently monetary issues, as "The owner has offered to donate the papyrus to Harvard if the university buys a “substantial part of his collection,” Dr. King said, which Harvard is considering." (That is, he's offering to sell the papyrus to Harvard.)

She repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married.

For crying out loud, it doesn't even offer proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actual.

King is a good scholar, though. I've enjoyed a number of her papers and a book that she edited (Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism). It's too bad that news like this in the popular press can scarcely be distinguished from the likes of that James ossuary nonsense.

That an early (third or even fifth century) text would suggest Jesus had a wife is pretty interesting. But that is about all there is to it.

As far as we know, it full it reads, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife is the Church.'"

Or "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...take her, please.' And the disciples giggled greatly at his words."

>5 paradoxosalpha:: I agree with you that King's scholarship is first rate. The problem, as you say, is not with the scholarship but with what the popular press, ever eager to drum up controversy and conspiracy, will make of the scholarship. When it comes to this kind of stuff, journalists have a tendency to throw judicious skepticism to the wind and jump with both feet down the rabbit hole.

And what if He did have a wife?

That is the interesting question for me. I think rabbis were expected to have a wife and a family. Not Jesus? Not Paul?

The kingdom perhaps too imminent?

The celibacy of Jesus and Paul was a pretty radical notion for that time. Both Jews and Romans were expected to marry and breed as part of the social covenant. Virginity flew in the face of that, perhaps originally because of a belief in the imminent coming of Jesus, but later due to a belief that the Kingdom of God took precedence over the kingdoms of humanity.

"The celibacy of Jesus and Paul was a pretty radical notion for that time." But at the same time, we know that there was another well-established group, the Essenes who, at least according to Josephus, believed in celibacy. So the possibility that Jesus was celibate, and that this did not affect his status as a rabbi, remains, IMHO.

Arctic-Stranger I like your suggested possibilities in #6.

And today, what, if anything would be different if we discovered that He had a wife? We would have to regard Him as a little less God and a little more human? There would be fewer arguments for a celibate priesthood in the RC Church? Any less emphasis on end of the world?

Why is the idea resisted so? History? His and/or the Church's?

#11, in addition to celibacy, Essenes were unique, too, in practising a communal ceremonial meal of bread and wine? Did Jesus spend some of his first 30 years with the Essenes?

"The celibacy of Jesus and Paul was a pretty radical notion for that time." But at the same time, we know that there was another well-established group, the Essenes who, at least according to Josephus, believed in celibacy. '

And the Essenes were a pretty radical bunch of folk! (It is suggested that they also refused to defecate or even urinate on the Sabbath! At least that is what our tour guide at Qumran told us.)

It is possible that Jesus spent time with the Essenes, but that might actually raise more problems than it solves for NT scholars. For example, John is generally thought to be the last Gospel written, and the least accurate, because Jesus uses very Greek language and concepts. However, those concepts (light and darkness, for example) are a hallmark of Essene writing. If John is earlier than previously thought that is a game changer.

We have no evidence that Jesus spent time in Qumran. They were vehemently opposed to the Temple hierarchy, while Jesus vented his spleen against the pharisees, and with few notable, but important exceptions, almost ignored the Temple.

It is more likely that John the Baptist did, but again that is circumstantial.

> 13

No pissing on the sabbath? Harsh! Still, Jesus musta had a boss bladder, so I'm sure he could hack it.

The gospels never specify that Jesus was celibate. Perhaps his marital status was somehow beneath the notice of the early Christians, like his habits in micturition?

Well, I am not convinced that Jesus was an Essene. And being celibate was a shrewd political move, if nothing else. No pesky heirs to claim leadership after he died. Not mention the difficulties an incarnational offspring might present.

Just a beard.

I've often wondered about the members of The Justice League - were any of them secretly married?

Well, Batman and Robin, although they could not legally marry until recently.

If Jesus was married, he would have been an awful husband, traipsing around the Mediterranean while leaving his wife and kids at home. And what Gospel writer would admit that Christ was a bad husband?

If it is true, will the Pope's hat go limp ??

LBT,

How do you rate the Buddha as a husband and father?

Jesus tramped all over Palestine, not the Mediterranean. That would have been Paul. And Palestine is not that big.

> 21

His wife and son became members of his religion, so one would assume they liked him OK.

Like they had a choice.

> 24

No, we're not talking about chrisianity or islam, we're talking about Buddhism. No one put a sword to their throats and told them to convert or die - as far as I know - you have information to the contrary?

A few thoughts:

1. The evidence is strongly in favor of Jesus not being married. It's an argument from silence, but it's very deep silence. Serious scholars have indeed proposed he had a wife—that he was a Jewish rabbi and so a wife is a given. But the case is very very weak. This adds a little bit of evidence, but it's almost nothing.

2. I'm inclined to think this is a forgery. Like the sarcophagus with James' bones—which got scholarly credibility and lots of newspaper play before it fell apart—it's got all the signs. The content is explosive. The origin is murky.

Roger Bagnall is surely right that the world isn't crawling with crooked papyrologists (and Copticists), but I'm sure it's got a few. Notice, incidentally, that the private collector contacted Karen King, specifically an expert in sexuality and gender in ancient Gnostic texts, and Mary Magdalene, asking for a translation. That's going right to the perfect person—the person you need to convince, and the person who'd want it to be real most. (It would be more likely to send it to someone at the largest papyrology collection in the Western Hemisphere—which is at the University of Michigan, not Harvard.) It's too big a coincidence. After all, the chances were 99% that it was documentary or a known text.

So, no, I'm not buying it.

Incidentally, if it's a forgery, it's surely an appropriately-dated papyrus. That was the approach taken by the Vineland-map forger—a good comparandum in terms of explosive content and murky provenance. Indeed, some of the text may be real.

Seattle Times article, with quotes by various Coptologists expressing doubts about the script and grammar, and the peculiar provenance:

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019194705_apeuscholarjesuswife.html

I think I'm with Tim on this one. Besides, even if it were authentic, what would that mean except that some christian groupuscule somewhen held what later became a wildly heterodox opinion.

Now if someone were to unearth a Ketubah, signed by You Know Who, well, that might cause a bit of a flap.

"Experts are doubting the authenticity of that papyrus scrap now that they realize it's actually referencing Jesus' Wi-Fi."

https://twitter.com/badbanana/status/248638032872366080

I don't think that it's likely that Jesus was an Essene, and agree that there's slightly more probability that John the Baptist could have had some contact with them at one time.

But I think that the existence of the Essenes, and Josephus's obvious admiration for them, rules out the argument that goes "Jesus was respected. Jewish leaders without wives were not respected. Ergo, Jesus must have been married."

Finding out that Jesus was married would not do much of anything to my faith. But I think it is odd that if he were married there was not a LOT more happening along the lines of claims for status based on physical relationship to Jesus.

If Jesus was uniquely incarnate God (as I do happen to believe), then there are lots of common sense reasons why it might make sense for him not to have married any specific woman. It would complicate things.

Especially as the mystical tradition of Christianity (backed up by some passages of the New Testament) sees Jesus' bride or bride to be as the Church, the body of believers generally.

This papyrus scrap may be a fraud, but there are a lot of late NT apocryphal fragments. This fits in with those. I think it is fair to say, there was probably some group that told stories in which Jesus talked about having a wife. We don't know for sure that those stories were not meant to be read metaphorically, because we have very limited evidence. We know that the fragment that talks about Jesus using the phrase "my wife" also mentions Mary, and we guess that this might have been Mary Magdalen because of other stories about her which have circulated through the years.

I guess what we can't say anymore is that there is no evidence that anyone ever suggested that he was married within the groups of people who considered him important in the first few centuries after Jesus' life.

#30: If Jesus was uniquely incarnate God (as I do happen to believe), then there are lots of common sense reasons why it might make sense for him not to have married any specific woman. It would complicate things.

I've always found the interpretations of Jesus that didn't make him God wrapped in flesh to be more interesting, where the temptations were not nominal, but very real. The Bible shows some of this; certainly when Satan is offering Jesus the world, Jesus doesn't pull out the rental agreement and point out that Jesus's name is at the top, Satan's is at the bottom, and oh yeah, there's this little clause that forbids Satan from subletting, so don't let Me catch trying this stunt with some other victim. (Seriously: trying to sell the Earth to God incarnate? how is this supposed to work?)

I find a lot more interesting a Jesus that might share the human desires for intimate companionship and for sex. I don't even necessarily need the Jesus who brought Judas along because he had a nice ass, though that does nicely turn a certain set of Christians apoplectic. More generally, a Jesus who had his coat stolen one winter's night and had to suffer wondering to himself if this night would ever end, who perhaps imagined if he had a sword and could have stabbed the bastard, maybe a few times because damn it's cold and what monster goes around stealing people's coats on a winter night; that Jesus is much more convincing at the Beatitudes then a Jesus that even if he lost a coat, could have stopped the robber with a thought, could have materialized a new coat, who knew exactly what temperatures it was going to reach that night, who even if he had been frostbit, could have fixed it with a wave of the hand.

>31 prosfilaes:: Would it surprise you to know that quite a few theologians have agreed with on this point? To wit, quite a few have argued that, as a human, Jesus' faculties were specifically limited to those of a human. (Thus why the Gospels can say that he "grew in wisdom", Luke 2:52.)

When his coat was stolen on a cold night, he couldn't just zap the robber. He did have to go through the night, frigid and angry.

> 30 But I think it is odd that if he were married there was not a LOT more happening along the lines of claims for status based on physical relationship to Jesus.

But isn't it odd, too, if He were celibate--given the social requirements at the time--that there aren't a whole lot more explanation of THAT? (Standing by for theologists to correct moi :) Rather, aren't there a few references to male concern re uppity women disciples, and then maybe expungement of any mention of worthy women other than His mum?

#32: I wasn't familiar with the exact details, but I was familiar that the way in which Jesus was God on Earth was still an open discussion.

My own understanding of Jesus as God incarnate very much includes his having all of the benefits and limitations of human physicality. Including real hunger, thirst, pain, and sexual longings. I do not assume that the fact that he experienced human longings necessarily means that he chose to act on those feelings by getting married.

#33 "But isn't it odd, too, if He were celibate--given the social requirements at the time--that there aren't a whole lot more explanation of THAT?"

My reason for bringing the Essenes into the discussion is that I think the "social requirements" were not as clear-cut in terms of requiring marriage as some people have made them out to be.

There is an interesting discussion at the beginning of Matthew 19, where Jesus is recorded as saying some things about divorce, greatly limiting it, and the disciples say, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus responds "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (This is Matthew 19:10-11).

Obviously this does not say whether Jesus was someone who had renounced marriage because of the Kingdom of heaven. But it certainly gave later Christians reason to think that it was possible for THEM to renounce marriage for the Kingdom of heaven. And whether or not you think that this accurately reflects a conversation Jesus had with his disciples, it is evidence that some early Christians were discussing such a topic in regard to Jesus. At least, it looks that way to me.

> 35 "My own understanding of Jesus as God incarnate very much includes his having all of the benefits and limitations of human physicality. Including real hunger, thirst, pain, and sexual longings...."

Sexual longings? As in sexual thoughts? As in lust in the heart? As in sin? In a being said to be free from all sin?

Whoa up, hoss. I think maybe there are a couple of billion christians around who might consider you heretical or blasphemous for that particular understanding.

One of the gospels that didn't get voted into the cannon - Thomas? - insinuated quite strongly that Jesus was gay. And we know he hung out with prostitutes - the gospels say so. And while he beat the crap out those dishonest temple money-changers he sure was exceptionally forgiving regarding sexual sins - e.g., he just told the adulterous woman to go and sin no more while telling her accusers he who was without sin to cast the first stone (And notice Jesus didn't throw the first stone - maybe he was trying to tell us something indirectly - he was big on that kind of thing.)

My point is there could be more shocking revelations than a married Jesus. So count your blessings.

LOL.

>36 JGL53:

Sorry. But you're entirely wrong. (And wrongness, hostility and flip self-assurance that you understand Christian theology so much better than Christians is pretty insufferable.) Sexual longings are not a sin. Being hungry isn't a sin either. Stealing bread would be a sin, of course and, depending on how you understand "adultery in the heart," doing something like lying in your bed concocting mental fantasies about stealing bread, would be sins. But desires are not sins. This is, sorry, pretty basic Christian morality.

For confirmation we're not being weird here, see something like the conservative "Catholic Answers" forum http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=17435 . More than half get the theology. About 20% do not, making the mistake you made.

#35: My own understanding of Jesus as God incarnate very much includes his having all of the benefits and limitations of human physicality. Including real hunger, thirst, pain, and sexual longings. I do not assume that the fact that he experienced human longings necessarily means that he chose to act on those feelings by getting married.

My problem with the sinless and particularly God incarnate Jesus is that I don't know how much a completely controlled longing means.

I could go up to a gay guy and tell him that I know the attractions that men can have for men, but you just have to man up and get over it, like I have. But I don't think the candle of attraction I've felt a couple times for other men is really comparable; it's probably more like the incandescent wall of flame that has crushed me, burnt me, and left me whimpering in a pile of ashes that I've felt a couple times for women. Sometimes with the sinless Jesus I get the impression it's more the first the the second.

#37: But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28. I can't speak to the Greek, but in the English that pretty much covers all sexual longing. If you want to make comparisons to hunger, that statement is nowhere near as active as concocting; it's the mere passing thought that about grabbing the bread and running.

#37: What gives you the right to speak for all Christians? In the one forum you show, 20% disagree with you; that doesn't mean they're wrong. And you have not even approached Protestant theology.

>37 timspalding:

The Greek might be literally translated as "looking in order to lust after her." But the word "to lust after" is the same word Greek chooses to translate the OT "to covet" ("You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife"). This is, of course, the passage Jesus is commenting on—the sentence before is "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'" One might therefore be licensed to translate it as

"You have heard it said 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that one who looks at a women in order to covet her has already committed adultery in his heart."

The point is a familiar one—Jesus' repeated insistence that the heart, not the action, is what matters, whether it be positively in prayer or negatively in sin. "To look at a woman in order to covet" strikes me as a much higher bar than sexual longing per se.

It's worth pointing out that Christian theology has explored more about Jesus' body than his mind. There are virtually no Christians—since the gnostics—who questioned whether Jesus thirsted. Jesus' mental states are more contested.

The whole hang-up with sex per se seems a little weird to me. But I'm not an orthodox christian, whatever that would be, so apparently it is just my misunderstanding sinking my boat - again.

But I wonder - will my misunderstanding be eternally fatal? Will I miss my chance to spend eternity with Jesus, god, holy ghost, angels, plus timespalding and the rest of the human souls who cut the mustard, grasp the brass ring, leaped the chasm or whatever? Or is my misunderstandings just a temporary setback? Will I be able to leap on the caboose of the train at some point in the ether of the hereafter?

I know what the crazy fundies say. I want to know what a REAL christian like timespalding can tell me - or rather pass on to me from god.

LOL.

>31 prosfilaes:, 32 I agree, both that is very interesting and also that there is a lot of discussion about it.

Jesus was not born knowing that he was God. Jesus was a man, fully human, who gradually realised that he was being called to something special, perhaps that he was something special, reluctantly, confusedly, against his will at times. The discussion around his use of the term "Son of Man" and the fact that references to him as "Son of God" may not have been his own words but a later interpretation by his followers and the early Christian community feed into this. He grew into being God, and there are strands of theology that suggest we can all grow into divinity, becoming "fully evolved human beings" as someone said in another thread (and got sidetracked into an argument about what "evolved" means). At any event, his followers realised that they had seen something of the divine in this man, a breakthrough of the divine into the human realm, and that influenced the way they wrote about him.

The old musical "Jesus Christ Superstar" actually portrays this type of thinking pretty well. I know it's entertainment, not canonical, not the official doctrine of most Christian denominations, but I find it a helpful and challenging way of thinking about Jesus the Christ.

Jesus was not born knowing that he was God. Jesus was a man, fully human, who gradually realised that he was being called to something special, perhaps that he was something special, reluctantly, confusedly, against his will at times…

FWIW, you're on much rougher ground theologically, at least in Catholic circles. I think we've gone through some of this before, but there definitely isn't unanimity here.

~28

"Now if someone were to unearth a Ketubah, signed by You Know Who, well, that might cause a bit of a flap."

Ah, the spouses don't sign the Ketubah.

~37

"Sorry. But you're entirely wrong. (And wrongness, hostility and flip self-assurance that you understand Christian theology so much better than Christians is pretty insufferable.)"

Yah, what an insulting attitude. Good thing that no one else ever does that sort of thing.

>43 timspalding: but there definitely isn't unanimity here

Definitely. I'm aware of that. But still there are a lot of discussions in less than official Catholic circles.

>35 RRHowell:

I have a very good chance of overreaching my knowledge of Greek with this interpretation, but given the verb tense and preposition in Mt 5.28, an over literal translation might be something like this.

"Each who continues watching a woman with the purpose of desiring upon her has already committed adultery in his heart."

The present tense suggests continuous watching, or habitual watching.
The preposition suggests purpose and intent.

I don't think the present tense on the participial form has more force than the English "looking" or maybe "gazing at." Blepsas would mean, I suppose, "glancing at." But I don't think you need to think of habitual or very extended looking.

I do think "covet" is right here, insofar as it preserves the parallelism that's readily apparent in the Greek, between the passage Jesus is referring to and his own words.

#47 and #48, What about "Each who looks at a woman in order to long for her...?"

I would note that in order for there to be adultery, there has to be a marriage mismatch--i.e. you have to be looking at a woman other than your wife if you are married, or a married woman if you are single.

I will grant that the passage does not say this explicitly, but if the sense of the passage is that you are judged for the intents of your heart, then I would argue that looking at a woman that you could conceivably legitimately marry, and wishing that you could do so and have sex with her (as well as all the other things that go along with marriage) doesn't count. I concede others may see this differently.

#41, JGL53, I will risk the hubris of a reply, of thinking that I am a REAL Christian, though not necessarily a right Christian. I am fairly confident that the light of eternity will show me a number of points about which I have been mistaken. And if I knew now which points they will be, I would change now, but alas...

IMHO, God will be the judge, not me, for which I am grateful. And I believe that God will judge in such a way that I will still be able to proclaim that God is good when all is said and done. However, if our salvation is dependent on our being completely right on every point of doctrine, and every understanding of theology, we are in as much trouble as if our salvation were dependent on all our actions being sinless. And I believe that the gospel, the good news, is that the way to salvation has been made through Jesus' death on the cross and that it is a matter of trust/faith. We do not give ourselves this faith, it is a gift of God, but a gift God longs to give us. Hebrews 11:6 says that anyone who wants to come to God must believe that God exists, and that God rewards those who earnestly seek for God. So, if you care, seek God and see what happens.

And to atheists and agnostics reading this who may be offended, I would say, if you are totally convinced that there is no God, then what does it matter to you if I say that God may exclude you from his presence? And if some part of you suspects that there may be a God after all, why not seek that God?

For myself, I will say that as I sought God, beginning with serious doubt that there even might be such a being, my path brought me to a place where I could/had to believe that Jesus really was God, that he had died on the cross for my sins, and been raised from the dead...and all that bizarre Christian stuff that had seemed such a crazy story when I was younger.

I don't know what the outer limits of God's love are. I don't know what will happen after death, whether there are some chances to make other decisions then. I certainly hope that MY understandings and knowledge of God will grow. I am confident (at this point, with my limited understanding) that none of us will
get to heaven apart from the effects of Jesus' death on the cross. I grow much less confident that you have to have that all sorted out, with some magic formula words on your lips and in your heart before you die in order to experience those benefits. So perhaps I am losing my standing as an orthodox evangelical Christian.

Where I remain (I think) an orthodox Christian, is in my belief that Jesus died for me and for you, that He is and was and ever shall be Lord of all, and my Lord, the one who makes a way for me into the presence of God the Father, the one who gives me the Spirit of God to lead guide and comfort (and trouble) me on the way. And in my confidence that if you reach a point where you can call on Jesus as Lord, and believe that God raised him from the dead, you will find that there is a transforming life in that sort of faith in God.

>39 prosfilaes:: "What gives you the right to speak for all Christians? In the one forum you show, 20% disagree with you; that doesn't mean they're wrong. And you have not even approached Protestant theology."

The next time an atheist poster in these threads makes a sweeping generalization about "believers", will you step forward to affirm that, like Tim, they do not have the right to speak for all?

I was told in youth group that looking with lust meant taking that second look. You see a good looking woman, and something stirs, that is ok, but if you look again, that is lusting in your heart.

To which one of my seminary profs said, "Make sure the first look is a doozy!"

But along a more serious note; I have taken this passage to mean that we do not turn women into objects. Porn, sexual fantasies, etc run the risk of turning women into sexual objects, devoid of any real humanity. (Salon ran an article a few months ago on how a woman realized that in the middle of having sex, she was being "porned." The guy she was with was setting up a mental porn encounter in his head, which he was trying to play out in bed with her. She realized she was no longer part of relationship, but a set piece for his masturbatory fantasies.

I realize this is probably pretty far from anything Jesus might have meant when he said this, but I also imagine he would not disagree if he were to browse the internet these days.

51: "But along a more serious note; I have taken this passage to mean that we do not turn women into objects. Porn, sexual fantasies, etc run the risk of turning women into sexual objects, devoid of any real humanity. "

Well said, and this accords well with points I was trying to make over in the Christianity and Sex thread, though my every effort was derailed by those who assumed that because I waited until marriage, I was a misogynistic throwback.

>51 Arctic-Stranger: With reference to Catholic priestly celibacy we always used to say that they can stop you eating but they can't stop you looking at the menu.

Mind you, we also used to say don't finger the goods if you're not going to buy.

#52

I seriously doubt anyone thinks you're misogynistic for having sex only ever with your wife. It sounds like you don't know what "misogyny" means.

#51

I read something similar, but it was about an incident shown on a TV show (can't remember the name--could it be something as bland as "Girls"?) The woman noticed her boyfriend was acting out some "nasty little girl fantasy". The problem is the noticing, I think--if you can't share the fantasy, and you can't keep it to yourself, give it up, man.

>51 Arctic-Stranger: I realize this is probably pretty far from anything Jesus might have meant when he said this, but I also imagine he would not disagree if he were to browse the internet these days.

One of the principles of theology, I think, is that the bible (or any other document) does not answer questions which were not asked at the time of writing. That's one of the many reasons why literalism doesn't make sense. But when new questions come up, we can still mine the bible and other church documents, using hermeneutical techniques, to try to discern how the teaching of the time can be applied to the new issues. I suspect that this is one such case. As you say, Jesus was unaware of internet porn, but there are things he said which can be applied to it.

>52 nathanielcampbell:: "I seriously doubt anyone thinks you're misogynistic for having sex only ever with your wife. It sounds like you don't know what "misogyny" means."

Odd, since you said the following in that thread:

Anything that reduces marriage and babymaking can only be good for the planet.

I wasn't going to post in this thread again, filled as it is with piously droning noises of some faraway, alien civilisation--fascinating, and needing no comment--but what the heck, SOMEONE has to put on the record, loud and clear, the opinion that sex is a lovely thing in itself, a sensual pleasure that can be partaken of in spirit of play and a snack as well as a sacred ritual and a banquet, that so-called "short-term relationships" have their place, use and pleasures, that not everyone who doesn't want to get married is missing out on supreme bliss or being victimised if they still, in their unmarried state, insist on having sexual relationships, that women were liberated by the contraceptive pill and the laws acknowledging their humanity and personhood AGAINST the programme of every major religion and every bloody church's political meddling.

Misogyny is the universal problem which endangers women, the all-pervasive and variously expressed notion that the female is something lesser and worse than the male. In every language I know there exist variations on "don't be such a girl!"; the opposite is completely unthinkable, gibberish. Misogyny victimises women, not sex. (How incredibly offensive is that idea?! Sex is something men "do" to women?! Sex is something women suffer?!)

The implication seems to be clear: the guy who was "piously droning noises of some faraway, alien civlisation" (that would have been me, talking about waiting to have sex until marriage) was contributing "misogyny, the universal problem which endangers women." Since, in your estimation, "Anything that reduces marriage (...) can only be good for the planet."

And even if you won't admit to those implications, we can look at modalursine's posts 71 and 85, which pretty clearly accuse me of perverting sexuality to serve the oppressive purposes of patriarchy (never mind modal's assertion in post 49 that I must have a virgin fetish).

#56

Oh, god, what a dumb, rubbish reading. I guess it takes a theologian... No, dear, I wasn't implying anything about you at all, merely reminding us, in the context of that silly, frivolous attack on sex, what is the real danger for women. Not sex, not pre-marital sex as such, not any kind of sexual activity, behaviour as such... but misogyny.

Well, for the record, some of the most sexually active people I know ARE misogynists. I would not want to be one of their conquests.

But I am NOT saying that all sex outside of marriage is misogyny.

>57 LolaWalser:: Then why did you weigh back in to the conversation to quell the "piously droning noises of some faraway, alien civilisation," when what I was arguing for the whole time was sexual justice and equality and an end to misogyny?

ref 44

Well, their names are written in. I guess in the old days they wouldn't have had pre printed forms with the names left blank, so the scribe would write the name along with the boilerplate.

Then again, the parents sign so you'ld have Jesus's fathers signature, which would be ....hmmm.....well!...wouldn't want to start another controversy over that, would we?

Well coincidentally, regarding the sex question, I have used hermeneutical techniques in mining the bible in order to discern how the old teachings apply to new issues, and I have come to the conclusion that we should not spit pubic hairs.

BTW, just on the subject of Catholicism and what's what regarding sexual matters, I once knew (biblically) a very devout Catholic woman who has got to be one of the most promiscuous women in a 500 mile radius of my home town who isn't a professional. (She always carried her prayer beads in her purse - and, no, she never used them for THAT - what, are you SICK?)

By devout I mean she never missed a Sunday mass or confession or whatever the heck Catholics do. She also would conscious no hint of blasphemy or disrespect for religion - so while "dating" her I had to watch my mouth in non-sexual ways also.

Her reasoning (regarding the perfectly spiritual acceptability of her blatant sexuality) was that sin was when one committed harmful acts on purpose - plus god convicted one in one's heart if one sinned, i.e., one knew intuitively what sin was, and if god did not convict one in one's heart that an act was a sin, then it was not a sin (i.e., there had to be full knowledge and deliberate consent).

BTW, her priest went along with this understanding, apparently being a liberal catholic himself. She apparently did not keep anything back from him in confession. He hit on her (big surprise, huh?) but she turned him down. As I said, she was devout and knew priests all take vows of celibacy and that to fuck a priest WOULD be a sin, for the both of them.

Again, on the subject of Catholicism and sex, one of my buddies in high school had an weekend job as a handyman/janitor at priest's home at a local private catholic school for girls. He really like the job until the priest hit on him. He was so freaked out he quit that day.

So my point is that I suspect the diversity among christians of all brands is rampant, based on my real life experiences rather than just academic conjecture. And who's to prove that christian swingers (Google it) haven't got it right - or the Metropolitan Community Churches, where gay is not only good, it's considered GRRR-RATE - or my aforementioned open-minded catholic girlfriend?

#59

"Quelling", lol...

Let's just say I don't agree with your notions about "sexual justice" and your way of fighting the good fight against misogyny (which, by the way, I think I was the first to mention), IF that's what you're doing.

#58

So do I. I grew up in the Med, choking on machismo served fifty different ways, morn to eve. If I had a penny every time I ran into some dickhead professing he "loved" women when what he meant was that he loved to fuck them, I could take a sabbatical and write that love story I have in me.

The Med? As in Club Med? Med school?

>62 LolaWalser:: "which, by the way, I think I was the first to mention"

A quick search through the thread (gotta love Ctrl-F) reveals that I was the first to mention misogyny, in post 75 and following.

I'm a misanthrope. I think misogyny is for punks.

More seriously, I surely agree that misogyny is a terrible thing. But if misogyny turns a woman into an Andrea Dworkin, then misogyny wins. And that is very sad thing.

#63

The Mediterranean, Mare Nostrum, Mare magnum, the middle sea, the inner sea, the one and only sea... and by "sea" I mean the coasts it laps too, obviously.

#64

ok

>65 JGL53:: Because it happens so rarely, we should all pause and take note of the fact that I agree with JGL. (I like the misanthrope line. My version was often, "I'm an equal-opportunity discriminator. I discriminate against everybody, regardless of sex, race, or creed.")

And Med Men are worse than Mad Men?

Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert (Guardian)

Coptic Scholars Doubt and Hail a Reference to Jesus’ Wife (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/papyrus-fragment-that-refers-to-jesus-wife-...

64

Wow - you just did me a huge favour! I didn't know about Ctrl-F (though actually it's Cmd-F on a Mac) so now I will start using it.

I may have forgotten this by morning. Do remind me again.

According to the following (which I cannot independently verify), the Harvard Theological Review has decided not to publish the fragment: http://danielbwallace.com/2012/09/26/jesus-wife-fragment-judged-a-fake/

According to an email from Dr. Craig Evans, the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia University and Divinity College, experts (including the redoubtable Bentley Layton, who is pretty much the single most authoritative expert on gnosticism the world has known since the time of Marcion) have "found the fragment wanting".

UPDATE: Others from more reputable sources (or at least, I consider FirstThings more reputable, even if this is from one of their blogs) are also hearing the rumors that Harvard will decline to publish: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/09/26/harvard-theological-re...

This piece also poses some penetrating questions about how the speed and volatility of the Internet can endanger good scholarship, which demands circumspection rather than a rush to judgment.

Some more musings, especially questioning the "timing" of the original NYT piece: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/09/26/harvard-rejecting-jesus-wif...

These kind of "shake the foundations of Christianity" pieces have become de rigueur at Christmas and Easter, so why was this bomb dropped in Semptember? If we presume that there must be some ulterior motive, proposals include the idea that this plays into the "Church's war on women" meme in the lead-up to the election; or that it was timed to allow Prof. King to present the piece at the Coptic Conference in Rome.

Maybe the usual suspects need a new book subject - Judas has apparently run out of steam.

If I were a defender of organized religion I wouldn't bring up the subject of any "ulterior motive". That's a two-edged sword that cuts nine ways to Sunday.

~73

Yept, those conspirators against the True Faith are at it again. Not surprising that it is in election season. (OMG it was also during the High Holy Days. We know what that means, don't we?)

The line break is pretty good evidence. I called it. :)

It reminds me of a similar situation in my life. When I was at Michigan I had the misfortune to be a TA to the "Roman Sport" class much beloved by jocks looking for easy As. (The class was easy, but they were also herded into it because the various teams actually employed other Classics department students as backup tutors.) Anyway, I ended up uncovering a massive cheating ring among these students and extending beyond it. (They submitted their stuff mostly electronically. I ended up writing a program to find common patterns and, if I had been smart, would have turned it into Turnitin.com—which didn't exist yet—and become rich. But I was not.)

Anyway, in their final exams—done on blue books but a take-home—one of my students turned in a surprisingly good essay. Previous essays had been borderline illiterate, so I was hopeful but dubious. There was one sentence, however, that struck me as really odd. It had this utterly bizarre grammatical construction. I surmised that it may have been introduced by a copying error, so I asked all the other TAs to be on the watch for the sentence. Lo and behold we found another blue book with exactly the same essay and the missing line that made the sentence make sense. The copier had actually skipped a line when copying.

>73 nathanielcampbell: There are a lot of programmes now on the documentary channels on our satellite TV network which claim to "shake the foundations" of Christianity. On the odd occasions when I'm bored enough to watch them I find they are mainly just recycling stuff which I was taught in the seminary over 30 years ago and which is considered pretty mundane amongst biblical scholars, theologians and church historians.

Off topic rant: why do all modern documentaries have to be based on someone on a "mission" to discover something, or racing against a deadline, or facing a challenge? What happened to the old style of documentary where they just presented a well put together explanation of a topic?

>78 John5918:

Amen.

#77: I got there first, in #4. :)

#78: It's the sense of drama. I'm sure they've found strongly that this sells. I watch a bunch of documentaries on airplane crashes, and they all work to keep up the tension and drama, even if the conclusion is often known.

>80 prosfilaes: I watched one recently on the de Havilland Comet crashes in the 1950s and they kept up that sense that they were discovering and revealing something new, even though it has all been common knowledge in Britain for well over 50 years.

As you say, I suppose it sells. I hate it. Oh for the old BBC documentaries and David Attenborough...

78

Recent case in point - there was a 2012 ?Horizon? documentary on how fasting could slow down the ageing process, and included scientific studies on mice, etc. It featured a massive University study being done in California (of course!)

I'd often thought about a documentary I saw around 20 years ago, on EXACTLY the same topic, even down to the studies on mice, and California-based research. I'd wondered whatever happened to that fascinating research and why wasn't it being promoted generally, obsessed as we all are about ageing?

The recent documentary, needless to say, never once referenced the original documentary. I guess that would have been a TV faux pas of the highest order. Sigh.

#82: That's interesting, because results from a very large study was just published that said that in fact fasting did not improve the lifespan when compared with a reasonable diet. They point to the original study looking at just "age related" deaths (most of the effect goes away if that is undone) and letting the mice eat as much as they want.

> 73 If we presume that there must be some ulterior motive

A supply of tinfoil is available over here, if you're in need.

I feel bad for Karen King, a sincere and accomplished scholar who appears to have been hoodwinked here. She was already pretty much at the top of her field, and stood little to gain by lending her support to public consideration of this object. Increasingly it looks as though she'll come away with egg on her face.

83

Part of the recent documentary showed that some fasting initiatives only had a temporary effect. The one that had a lasting effect was where the subjects' "fast day" involved eating just one light meal, (1000 calories, mostly a mix of corn, salads, fruit, nuts), but on the alternating days they could eat their usual diet.

I seem to remember that the basis of it was the suppression of the growth hormone - in middle age onwards, if it can be suppressed e.g. by fasting, the body's immune system turns to cell repair rather than cell growth. That might not lead to a longer lifespan, but apparently does lead to much lower incidence of cancer, diabetes, and the like, improves the BMI, generally improves fitness and health, and slows down the ageing process.

>78 John5918:: I actually wrote about this about a year ago, in response to a NOVA episode on medieval cathedrals ("The Secretes of Medieval Cathedrals..."). The first 3/4 of the program were top-rate with NOVA's usually high standards -- both highly informative and yet accessible at the same time. But in the last act, some overzealous editor decided they needed to spice things up with "mathematical codes hidden in sacred geometry", etc. etc -- nevermind that the sacred geometry of gothic cathedrals is neither hidden nor conspiratorial, but openly transparent.

The problem for me is that such gobbledy-gook gets in the way of actual learning and understanding. Instead of bridging the gap between the medieval and modern and making it accessible, this hocus-pocus of secret codes and hidden agendas obfuscates and draws a veil of mystery between us.

>77 timspalding:: See, all of those textual editing / manuscript / paleography skills we learn in grad school do have real world applications. (I like to say that, if I could decipher Roman Cursive, I can read any student's handwriting.)

I'd often thought about a documentary I saw around 20 years ago, on EXACTLY the same topic, even down to the studies on mice, and California-based research. I'd wondered whatever happened to that fascinating research and why wasn't it being promoted generally, obsessed as we all are about ageing?

Actually, although this idea is now common currency, a highly-anticipated major study recently came out and, alas, it looks like it's not the case.

See http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/2012/08/29/big-hint-that-eating...

I like to say that, if I could decipher Roman Cursive, I can read any student's handwriting

That was one reason I never warmed to the actual work of papyrology—it's handwriting deciphering. I can't do that well in ENGLISH!

See, all of those textual editing / manuscript / paleography skills we learn in grad school do have real world applications.

I definitely think so. I'd go further—the text- and source-critical skills at the heart of history, especially pre-modern history, used to be fringe skills for the regular citizen. We practice—or fail to practice—those skills every day now. Someone on Twitter says a celebrity died? Who said that? Where? Who stands to gain? What's the evidence? Modern media is a free-for all of fact, opinion, bias and error not seen since media got successively ironed out and homogenized, starting in the early modern period.

88

See my post at 85 - the documentary I saw did not suggest any increase in lifespan , and nor did the California researchers. That seems to have become a popular misconception: i.e., "slowing the ageing process means a longer lifespan". No, it seems that greater health in old age, and a greater chance of avoiding the worst killer diseases, is the outcome, even if the lifespan remains the same.

Apologies. I didn't mean to offend. The lifespan part had good evidence for it, though. That evidence is now weaker.

Have we ever determined who was Jesus' mother-in-law?

The current edition of Private Eye has:

"The world's top female academic, Harvard Professor Deirdre Spart,
sets out the definitive proof that the 4th Century papyrus fragment
portraying Jesus as married must have been authentic

Ten Tell-Tale Signs That Jesus Was Married

1. Hopeless at shopping (too few loaves and fishes)
2. Amateur carpenter (DIY)
3. Never seen smiling
4. Carried weight of world on shoulders
5. Knocked tables over, causing mess for others to clear up
6. Spent last night out with mates
7. Told same old parables again and again
8. Thought he was God's gift
That's enough of this

PLUS
Cut-Out-'N'-Send Free Complaint Form:

Dear Sir,
You are pathetic hypocrites. You wouldn't run this piece
about Mohammed, would you?

Signed …....................

No. Ed."

>92 jbbarret: Private Eye is one of the few things I really miss from UK. It's always high on my list of things for visitors to bring when they come out from UK.

I still want to know who his mother-in-law was. A new title is in the offing "The Mother-In-Law Who Henpecked G_d".

Yup, pretty certain it's a forgery—it picks up an error from an online Coptic interlinear of the Gospel of Thomas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/16/gospel-jesus-wife-mod...
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/17/did-jesus-have-wife-scholar-calls-parc...

Questions persist after testing of 'Jesus Wife' papyrus (NCR)

A good brief summary of the problem, from someone with no theological dog in the fight.
http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=685

And… forger done in by another forgery, copied slavishly from published image.

NYT: Fresh Doubts Raised About Papyrus Scrap Known as ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’
Laurie Goodstein
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/us/fresh-doubts-raised-about-papyrus-scrap-kno...

WSJ: How the 'Jesus' Wife' Hoax Fell Apart
The media loved the 2012 tale from Harvard Divinity School.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304178104579535540828090438

See Goodacre's blog post:
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/illustrating-forgery-of-jesus-wifes.html

And the money image, showing the exact copying of every other line.

What is the theological impact of Jesus' possible sex life or marriage? What teachings depend on his virginity?

Or for that matter Mary's virginity? Or taking another step back, the immaculate nature of Mary's birth?

The things is, nobody serious actually thought that it meant Jesus had a wife. The evidence there is simply crushing. That some late Coptic document says he did doesn't mean much. There are dozens of weird late gnostic texts out there, and nobody thinks they're a source for the historical Jesus. The question was really "Was there an in some segment of the early church that Jesus had a wife?"

Unfortunately, that's a very boring question--and a question that requires people to have some sense of the textual world of Late Antiquity. "Papyrus says Jesus had a wife!" is the opposite. So that's what won in the media portrayal.

I understand. Even if it were not a late forgery, it would likely have been a forgery. Even establishing an early date of the papyrus, would not substantiate Jesus' had a wife.

But perhaps the motivation for the text might have been different.

I was asking another question though, really unrelated to this forgery.

What is invested in Jesus' virginity?
In the Virgin Birth?

What is at risk?

I ask that because for me, there is nothing at risk in either teaching. I might even think there is more humanity in Jesus should it be established that he had sex. Or that his mother had had sex.

(BTW, Goodacre and several other scholars are active and accessible on some internet discussion lists that we regular people can join).

>102 richardbsmith: I tend to agree with you. If it could be proved one way or the other that Jesus did/didn't have a wife and was/wasn't the product of a virgin birth, for me it would make no difference whatsoever to the reality of his incarnation, his teaching, his life, death and resurrection, his position as the Word, the Eternal Logos, part of the Trinity, etc.

I think the main thing that's at risk is simply that it would contradict two millennia of teaching, and in a way that somehow suggests Christians have been hiding a sexual secret. Thus in one swoop it proves the Christian story is deeply wrong, and that Christians are prudes. The doctrinal issues are secondary to crude accusation.

For the theology, Jesus' virginity is not a particularly interesting issue to me. Would he be more human if he had a wife? Yes, no, maybe and irrelevant. (For Jesus to have a child would indeed present some theological problems and marriage and children were obviously more tightly linked then.) I note particularly that the same cultural context will in one context claim that a wife and children would make Jesus more human, and in another context insist that who you have sex with and whether you choose to have a family or not are personal decisions that must be defended against oppressive normative social constructs. I think this is something of what Nathaniel was once saying--that the only socially-unacceptable sexual perversion today is celibacy.

For Mary, the early church clearly thought there was something at stake--that if Joseph had had sex with Mary, Jesus would not have been the son of God, but the son of Joseph. That Mary was "ever virgin" ( aeiparthenos) appears to develop from this, early, and there are some theological issues at stake, although not ones I'm particularly invested in.

the only socially-unacceptable sexual perversion today is celibacy.

You could always sell him as asexual. That's not a "perversion".

The problem with ideologically* based celibacy is the ideology, which to my knowledge, always involves describing sex as dirty, bad, and a sin, and chastity as pure, good and saintly.

If one doesn't think sex is dirty, bad and a "sin", then yes, ideological celibacy does appear less than sane.

*Covering both religious and non-religious interpretations.

Another question Tim.

Remember I am from a Protestant background, so that informs my questions and perspective. I am embarrassingly ignorant of more Catholic thought.

What does the NT say about Jesus' marital status?

Paul is pretty clear about himself and his perspective on marriage?

What about Jesus?

As far as acceptable or not acceptable sexual behavior, my thoughts are that there are very few sexual practices that have been newly introduced in the last 100 years.

>106 richardbsmith: "What does the NT say about Jesus' marital status?"

It doesn't.

Edited to add:
And when you reflect on role that women played in Jesus' ministry and life (and death and resurrection -- remember that it was only the women who stayed for the Crucifixion, and it was the women who first visited to the tomb and to whom the Risen Christ first appeared), and on the early issue over leadership (see for example the request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee in Matt. 20:20-24), it seems high likely that, if Jesus had taken a wife, it would have been mentioned.

In particular, note the first chapter of Acts, in which Mathias is chosen by lot to replace Judas among the Twelve. The 11 remaining disciples were gathered in the upper room, "All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers." (Acts 1:14). If Mary gets singled out as Jesus' mother, wouldn't the text have mentioned which of the women were his wife, if he had been married?

The New Testament says absolutely nothing about Jesus having a wife. He does not appear to be against marriage, but warns against strong family relationships that compromise your faith.

“Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

On the one hand this is in his style of exaggerating a point (Rich people cannot get into heaven, etc). On the other, the "family values" Christian have to cut this out of their Bibles to remain consistent with their family first values.

Some people will want to take this literally, but usually not the Bible literalists.

When The DaVinci Code was all the rage, there were marginal Christians and atheists who believed the fiction and thus wrapped the "conspiracy" up with a distrust of all that the Christian church represents and has taught. I was a librarian at the time, and heard lots of commentary from less-than-educated patrons.

Theologically, Jesus the Christ is called the Bridegroom of the Church.

Spong theorized that Jesus had a wife, because he took his mother Mary to the wedding at Cana. The only time Spong took his mother to a wedding was his own wedding, therefore Jesus must have taken Mary to HIS own wedding.

That is about the level of intellectual caliber this kind of discussion generates in publishing circles.

>106 richardbsmith:

You might be interested in this thread, Richard:

The genes of Jesus

>110 Arctic-Stranger:

Ow, Spong. I suppose he imagines weddings in those days were like weddings in his New York social circle--limited list, no families, but those invited are allowed one "guest." He might try looking at a contemporary wedding in the part of the world where Jesus actually came from.

You got a reference for that, btw. That's just great.

We Episcopalians allow all to enter the flock. Even Bishop Spong.

Born of a Woman p. 192

lolawalser,

I looked at the OP and the too funny image that Tim posted, "Your Dumb".

But to answer your post.

Obviously the Holy Spirit brought the original DNA without mutation. The original copy. He might have even brought both original DNA copies from Adam and from Eve.

If marriage was the usual state in Jesus's time, perhaps his not being married--if that is so--and it not being remarkable enough to explain away, means he may have been associated with a sect that didn't marry--or married late if required to carry on the line, i.e., Essenes? That might explain the scriptual gap during Jesus's early adulthood, the older(?) Joseph, the value the church assigns to chastity and celibacy?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5867-essenes

Or he was not Essene, but did not marry. This is a scholars jade trick. If Jesus did something, it had to relate to either Jewish practices, or was an insertion by the early church. It is highly probably that Jesus took the extraordinary step of remaining celibate because he was focused on his mission. It is possible he spent time with the Essenes, who were for the most part celibate, but to say he was associated with the Essenes because of this is reading too much into a situation. If he were, why was his major foes the Pharisees? The Essenes were vehemently anti-temple and except for the one instance with the money changers (although that was a major incident) Jesus does not spend much time on Temple corruption as the Essenes did.

Interesting article: Jesus' Marriage to Mary the Magdalene Is Fact, Not Fiction

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simcha-jacobovici/jesus-marriage-to-mary-th_b_6225...

Sigh. I'll dig up the best (of many many) debunkings of that.

Most significantly, the marriage of Joseph and Asenath isn't some new discovery. It's been known forever. There are dozens of books and thousands of articles about it. It's only obscure from a place of ignorance—which is, of course, why it works. There's no reason whatsoever to take it and randomly decide it's not about Joseph and Asenath, but about Mary and Jesus. It's still more crazy to imagine this puerile reading is evidence of anything. Argh.

Finally, people have got to stop believing shit about ancient history by people with no qualifications whatsoever in the topic. Nobody gives amateur cosmologists the time of day. An amateur virologist is a joke. Yet again and again, religion and ancient history are invaded by these jokes.

Isn't this the same Simcha Jacobovici who claimed to have found a casket of Jesus' bones a few years ago?

He also found Atlantis. So far, however, no intercontinental pyramidology or aliens. He's only 1/2 way to Erich von Däniken.

>119 timspalding: It's still more crazy to imagine this puerile reading is evidence of anything.

(Just pulling that lovely line out to admire it....)

This article has less "evidence" than the Da Vinci Code, which was wrong about everything historical, starting with the title.

>119 timspalding: Nobody gives amateur cosmologists the time of day.

Whenever it's in their religious interest to do so, they do. Anyone hanging on to a recent creation does. Heck, Worlds in Collision has 500 copies and positive reviews on LibraryThing.

From my far-from-learned perspective, there seems to be no more evidence for Jesus's remaining single. Less, I think.

I'm surprised by vehemence of attacks on author. He must have done something in past that totally destroyed his credibility?

Amateur cosmologists and virologists may not contribute much, but amateur biologists, astronomists, and paleontologists do--even today. I suspect amateur historians belong in latter camp.

He must have done something in past that totally destroyed his credibility?

His resume.

As for amateur "historians," the fellow took a document well-known to students of ancient religion, decided it was obscure and forgotten because the general public aren't reading it, decided the characters in it were really code for other people, and then advanced this as "evidence" that Jesus was married.

One might as well fast on the Agamemnon, a "forgotten and obscure Greek tragedy," decide Agamemnon is Jesus and Clytemnestra was Pontius Pilate, and concluded that new evidence indicates Jesus poked out his eyes with a broach.

The second essay in Jeffrey Kripal's The Serpent's Gift "The Apocryphon of the Beloved" is a very wise and scholarly meditation on the consequences (not the factual validity) of arguments about Jesus' sexual identity, from the celibate Jesus of the dominant tradition to the gay Jesus, the married Jesus, the free-love Jesus, etc.

It seems to me that the assumption about Jesus' celibacy is a retrojection from Christian priestly celibacy, itself an artifact of medieval provenance. It is thus an etiological feature of the Jesus legend.

> 126 decided the characters in it were really code for other people

= pesher?

> 127 consequences (not the factual validity) of arguments about Jesus' sexual identity

Sounds interesting.

Richard Bauckham has published a series of rebuttals of Jacobovici's latest book. I found them a worthwhile read, insofar as Joseph and Asenath is itself an interesting text. (Bauckham inclines to the view it probably is a Christian allegory; though not of course anything to do with Mary Magdalene.)

I don't think Jacobovici's principal problem is his amateur status, but a consistent flair for sensationalism that seems to call into question his basic sincerity; this would be just as problematic whatever his academic qualifications or institutional affiliation. Besides, can we really count him an 'amateur' when he appears to make a living from these books and films...?

Bauckham inclines to the view it probably is a Christian allegory; though not of course anything to do with Mary Magdalene

Narnia is a Christian allegory. That doesn't mean Christ was in fact a lion.

Besides, can we really count him an 'amateur' when he appears to make a living from these books and films...?

I hate the term amateur. Anyone who loves something is an amateur. I'd go with trained or professional. Ancient languages, texts, history and literature are not the casual plaything of the interested layman. I mean, I'm ABD on a classics PhD, and I don't think people should put much stock in what I have to say about Syriac Christian texts. Fortunately, the bar for saying something interesting about an argument on LibraryThing is lower than the bar for being listened to when you announce to the world that you'd got proof Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

Most trained professional ancient historians rightly outrank most amateurs/lay-folk on credibility. There are rare exceptions (eg. I'd award the palm to Stephen Carlson, still an unqualified amateur when he wrote The Gospel Hoax, over against Morton Smith of whose expertise and credentials there has never been any question), and we lay-folk still need to make judgement calls. But I simply don't think qualifications are the key issue with Jacobovici's (lack of) credibility; his co-author Barrie Smith has prima facie good credentials (PhD in Ancient Near East, Religious Studies Professor and former Department Chair at a Canadian university, self-described academic historian specializing in the relevant centuries, presumably he may even know Syriac), yet his association with Jacobovici legitimately rings alarm bells even amongst half-informed amateurs with far inferior qualifications to his own.

That Joseph and Aseneth might really be a Christian allegory interested me because until quite recently received wisdom had instead taken it for a Jewish text (eg. Burchard's introduction in Charlesworth's OT Pseudepigraph, "New Testament parallels to Joseph and Aseneth are certainly not caused by literary influence on either side; these similarities are due to a common Jewish heritage") That Joseph might have been consciously intended as a type of Christ (and Aseneth of his gentile spouse the Church) could be one slender - though not fully novel - glint of truth amidst the dross.

Continued at https://www.librarything.com/topic/225313