Evidence That Jesus Was Married to Mary Magdalene? (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

My problem with Witherington is he is more of an apologist whereas Ehrman is a historian.

As if one can't be both???

 

[Charlie Frown]

Do you think the Apostles threw him a rager of a bachelor party? Or do you think they just tried to talk him out of marrying the biggest strumpet in the land?

The Real Last Supper.

 

[Claydon]

My problem with Witherington is he is more of an apologist whereas Ehrman is a historian.

I'm not entirely sure of your point here... those categories are not mutually exclusive. Admittedly, I don't know much about Witherington, but a brief reading of his Wikipedia entry (which I linked to) and his list of works (which I did not) seemed to indicate he seems to know what he is taking about when it comes to NT studies.But if Witherington is not a scholar in a relevant field of study, I'll withdraw the post.

I'd say he is a scholar, but he is always going to look for the narrative that he believes is true since he, as by definition of an apologist, is a defender of the faith.Ehrman does not have as much bias in certain areas.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I'd say he is a scholar, but he is always going to look for the narrative that he believes is true since he, as by definition of an apologist, is a defender of the faith.Ehrman does not have as much bias in certain areas.

This is not a distinction that makes much sense. There is a binary position here. Either the Gospels are contradictory or they can be reconciled. I don't see how anyone's faith or lack of faith is, absent more, going to be proof of bias. Believers will be accused of bias one way and non-believers the other.

 

[Quint]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

your answer lies here:Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal

 

[mr roboto]

My problem with Witherington is he is more of an apologist whereas Ehrman is a historian.

I'm not entirely sure of your point here... those categories are not mutually exclusive. Admittedly, I don't know much about Witherington, but a brief reading of his Wikipedia entry (which I linked to) and his list of works (which I did not) seemed to indicate he seems to know what he is taking about when it comes to NT studies.But if Witherington is not a scholar in a relevant field of study, I'll withdraw the post.

I'd say he is a scholar, but he is always going to look for the narrative that he believes is true since he, as by definition of an apologist, is a defender of the faith.Ehrman does not have as much bias in certain areas.

Ehrnan came from an evangelical position and switched his views. He is certainly interested in proving what he thinks is true.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My problem with Witherington is he is more of an apologist whereas Ehrman is a historian.

I'm not entirely sure of your point here... those categories are not mutually exclusive. Admittedly, I don't know much about Witherington, but a brief reading of his Wikipedia entry (which I linked to) and his list of works (which I did not) seemed to indicate he seems to know what he is taking about when it comes to NT studies.But if Witherington is not a scholar in a relevant field of study, I'll withdraw the post.

I'd say he is a scholar, but he is always going to look for the narrative that he believes is true since he, as by definition of an apologist, is a defender of the faith.Ehrman does not have as much bias in certain areas.

It seems as if basically everyone who writes for the public on this issue has a position.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Unfortunately your average churchgoer has no idea about any of this, and they believe the bible to be the literal inerrant word of god. And that's why we have crazy Christian fundamentalists.

I'd be interested to find out if the average churchgoer truly believes the Bible is inerrant, as you claim. I have a feeling that you're not correct about this, but I have no information one way or another.

As a person living in the south that used to be a fundamentalist evangelical until I was 15 or 16....I can assure you many believe it.

I have no doubt that religious Baptists and other fundamentalist-type churchgoers believe it- but when you use the term "average churchgoer," you're referring to a lot more than these people. You're talking about Catholics, Methodists, Epsicopaleans, Lutherans, etc. etc. Do all of these denominations hold that the Bible is inerrant? I doubt it.

I probably should phrase it differently...as in average protestant churchgoer, especially in the south.The majority of churches around here don't even have pastors that went to seminary school.

That's fine. But I want to emphasize the point that there is no necessary connection between the belief in inerrancy and ignorance. Most of those who attend a Jesuit seminary, for example, are going to believe in the inerrancy of the New Testament. Almost all of those who attend an Orthodox Yeshiva are going to believe in the inerrancy of the Torah. And these are fine institutions of learning, where the Bible is studied to the nth degree. I know it's pretty common to regard anyone who believes the Bible to be absolutely true as a dumb, uninformed idiot, but this is not always the case.

Have you ever spoken to a Jesuit about the New Testament? Some may have held that belief going in, but very few hold it coming out, and none of the many Jesuits I have known hold that view. Shoot, a lot of the Jesuits I know are practically Buddhists.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Parts are similar because the authors of Matthew and Luke used the book of Mark for certain stories.

How do you know this?

Because most all bible scholars regard it as the earliest gospel.

But that doesn't mean the other guys copied it. In fact, what you're writing now contradicts your earlier argument. If the later Gospel writers were all about copying the first Gospel, why would they only copy part of it? Why not copy the whole thing? Why would there be contradictions?

There aren't really contradictions between Mark and Luke or between Mark and Matthew. There are elaborations in the new material. 3/4 of what's in Mark is in all three synoptic Gospels. Another 18% of Mark appears only in Matthew. And another 1% appears only in Luke. Which means that only 3% of Mark appears elsewhere. As between Matthew and Luke there is an additional 25% or so of shared content that is not derived from Mark (which is why scholars hypothesize about "the Q Gospel" and the "two source hypothesis"), as Matthew takes a bit more of Mark, Matthew has a little less unique content than Luke. As might be expected, it is between this "unique" content that Matthew and Luke contradict each other.

Do you have a link on this? I'd like to read more about it.

I got my details from Wikipedia. Nothing special. I read a few books about it when my wife had a fascination with the Gnostic Gospels about 15 years ago, figuring I should know a little about the actual Gospels. I don't think I'm saying anything that isn't pretty much agreed upon.

You are not. That is common knowledge: The Synoptics are built primarily from Mark and Q, and John is very different and the last gospel written. Tim, if you are interested, Bishop Spong is pretty good and accessible reading on the subject:This is his newest.

This one might be interesting to you because he essentially argues that the New Testament is being read completely incorrectly now and should be read as Jewish midrash.

 

[Short Corner]

You realize almost all of the apostles were killed because of their faith in Jesus, right? What did they have to gain by "selling" Christianity?

You realize all of the people who drank the kool-aid died because of their faith in Jim Jones, right?

Oh, and you realize all of the suicide bombers die because of their faith in Allah, right?

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

A place in heaven? Just like muslims will get their virgins or the Peoples Temple would get whatever they were promised.

So you've never actually read the gospels? Where in the Bible does it say you get a place in heaven by selling Christianity?

You know what I'm getting at. They believed in their leader so they wanted to spread the message. No different from the followers of any other cult.

I understand your argument, but it doesn't explain why they would be "selling" a message. That was what I was asking about originally. Selling implies a payment of some sort. They weren't expecting anything as a result of sharing their message, other than what Jesus promised, which was persecution.

Because they had great faith in their leader. We see it all through out history. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on it. If people truly believe in something, they will die for it. That doesn't make it true though. I can't tell you the motives of people who lived 2000 years ago. I don't know what life was like then and neither do you or anyone else.

True, there is no shortage of people who will die for what they believe in. These were all first hand observers to the miracles and Resurrection. It is one thing to die a martyr's death for belief ingrained in faith. It is another thing all together to do the same thing for a known lie.This does not prove that they were not lying but I think it is disingenuous to compare the two groups.

 

[mad sweeney]

This was covered 30 years ago, in a very detailed and well researched non-fiction book by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail

This book was the basis of much of the mythology contained in The DaVinci Code and the villain in that novel, Leigh Teabing, was an anagram of the authors Leigh and Baigent in an homage to their work.

This is an absolutely fantastic book, one of the best I've ever read. Anyone interested in this subject should pick it up immediately. It's a bit of a tough read because of the massive volume of names and dates that are used, but if you can sort through that mess, it's a rewarding experience. Due to the nature of the research there is some serious supposition involved, but it changed my view on a number of things.

The Hiram Key is another good one. Not sure if I ever finished HB, HG but I may look at it again. I had started reading a bunch of these, most of which appear in the one page of Da Vinci Code where he (Tom Hanks and his bad hair) list a number of books on the subject. My boss gave them to me to read and it was pure coincidence that DVC came out soon after. I had Templar overload that year. But Hiram Key is told by two high level Scottish Masons so I put it through a lot of perspective filters as it's very Mason oriented. Good book though that goes from Solomon's architect, Hiram Abif, all the way through the present with the trail of the Masons and how Jesus/Mary M were involved.

 

[mad sweeney]

So we have a scrap of parchment with no context, from a private source that refuses to divulge the location it was found, written in a language that none of the rest of the New Testament was written in, that mentions two of the most common names during that time period with no additional identifiers attached to those names.Am I missing anything else?

Sounds like it has as much going for it as the bible in terms of evidence?

Either you're trolling, or you're mis-informed. If you're trolling, you're not doing s very good job. If you're mis-informed, I can recommend some reading that you may find interesting.

I'll take some of that reading please.

I already linked to the incredibly lengthy Wikipedia entry on the histrocity of Jesus. It notes over and over again that no serious historian believes that Jesus didn't exist. Whether you want to ascribe deity to him or not is another story. But the existence of the Jesus spoken of in the Bible is not really up for debate.

I'm not debating it, I really just want the reading you were advertised. I already posted earlier that Jesus most probably existed, I'm not challenging that at all. I thought you had some other books in mind to read up on.

 

[Jayrok]

This one might be interesting to you because he essentially argues that the New Testament is being read completely incorrectly now and should be read as Jewish midrash.

I'm not a huge fan of Bishop Spong, but I agree that it is very likely that NT authors derived the gospel narratives using Jewish midrash. At least the synoptic gospels anyway. I believe that Mark was the first gospel and the author had no intention of writing a biography of Jesus. His goal was to write a story (a more hellenized story) using themes in the OT. Jesus is the personification of Israel. John the Baptist is the messenger in the wilderness sent by God to prepare the way for the Lord (Mal. 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3). Jesus is baptized and immediately sent into the desert to be tempted for 40 days. The Israelites were saved from Egypt and walked through the Red Sea (baptized) and out into the desert for 40 years. The story then goes on and on where all events have similarities with OT stories culminating in Jesus (Israel) becoming the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Beautifully written by an educated scribe. Retelling of beloved Hebrew Scriptures using midrash in a modern age (hellenized Palestine).

 

[Psychopav]

This one might be interesting to you because he essentially argues that the New Testament is being read completely incorrectly now and should be read as Jewish midrash.

I'm not a huge fan of Bishop Spong, but I agree that it is very likely that NT authors derived the gospel narratives using Jewish midrash. At least the synoptic gospels anyway. I believe that Mark was the first gospel and the author had no intention of writing a biography of Jesus. His goal was to write a story (a more hellenized story) using themes in the OT. Jesus is the personification of Israel. John the Baptist is the messenger in the wilderness sent by God to prepare the way for the Lord (Mal. 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3). Jesus is baptized and immediately sent into the desert to be tempted for 40 days. The Israelites were saved from Egypt and walked through the Red Sea (baptized) and out into the desert for 40 years. The story then goes on and on where all events have similarities with OT stories culminating in Jesus (Israel) becoming the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Beautifully written by an educated scribe. Retelling of beloved Hebrew Scriptures using midrash in a modern age (hellenized Palestine).

I assume there must be other examples of first century contemporary midrash in the form of narratives applying personification and symbolism for you to reach this conclusion. I'd be very interested in seeing some or reading about them. Any suggestions?

 

[cstu]

This one might be interesting to you because he essentially argues that the New Testament is being read completely incorrectly now and should be read as Jewish midrash.

I'm not a huge fan of Bishop Spong, but I agree that it is very likely that NT authors derived the gospel narratives using Jewish midrash. At least the synoptic gospels anyway. I believe that Mark was the first gospel and the author had no intention of writing a biography of Jesus. His goal was to write a story (a more hellenized story) using themes in the OT. Jesus is the personification of Israel. John the Baptist is the messenger in the wilderness sent by God to prepare the way for the Lord (Mal. 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3). Jesus is baptized and immediately sent into the desert to be tempted for 40 days. The Israelites were saved from Egypt and walked through the Red Sea (baptized) and out into the desert for 40 years. The story then goes on and on where all events have similarities with OT stories culminating in Jesus (Israel) becoming the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Beautifully written by an educated scribe. Retelling of beloved Hebrew Scriptures using midrash in a modern age (hellenized Palestine).

Once you begin admitting that parts of the Bible are made up, where does it end?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

True, there is no shortage of people who will die for what they believe in. These were all first hand observers to the miracles and Resurrection. It is one thing to die a martyr's death for belief ingrained in faith. It is another thing all together to do the same thing for a known lie.This does not prove that they were not lying but I think it is disingenuous to compare the two groups.

It doesn't prove anything which was my point. Many people have claimed to have seen some wild and crazy stuff. Them truly believing it doesn't make it true. I don't think they were lying but I also don't believe they saw what they think they saw.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This one might be interesting to you because he essentially argues that the New Testament is being read completely incorrectly now and should be read as Jewish midrash.

I'm not a huge fan of Bishop Spong, but I agree that it is very likely that NT authors derived the gospel narratives using Jewish midrash. At least the synoptic gospels anyway. I believe that Mark was the first gospel and the author had no intention of writing a biography of Jesus. His goal was to write a story (a more hellenized story) using themes in the OT. Jesus is the personification of Israel. John the Baptist is the messenger in the wilderness sent by God to prepare the way for the Lord (Mal. 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3). Jesus is baptized and immediately sent into the desert to be tempted for 40 days. The Israelites were saved from Egypt and walked through the Red Sea (baptized) and out into the desert for 40 years. The story then goes on and on where all events have similarities with OT stories culminating in Jesus (Israel) becoming the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Beautifully written by an educated scribe. Retelling of beloved Hebrew Scriptures using midrash in a modern age (hellenized Palestine).

It seems highly unlikely that the authors of the NT "knew" that the Jesus story was fictional while at the same time early Christians are already "confused" into thinking that it was real. Paul clearly through that that Jesus, the resurrection, and and the splintering off from Judaism were real, not midrash, and he was writing and preaching before the synoptic authors.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Once you begin admitting that parts of the Bible are made up, where does it end?

We don't really consider that a disqualifying problem with other ancient texts. Herodotus' histories have some crazy, fanciful ****. It's not as if "history" really existed as a discipline back then. So actual events, oral traditions, allegories, etc. were often blended into one document. So I imagine you do with the Bible what you'd do with any other source. Can we confirm the existence of Herod? Caiphus? Pilate? (my understanding is that this was once an open question that has since been definitively answered affirmatively). It seems clear that at least some elements in the Bible can be confirmed. Other events are more or less plausible. And some we find implausible or impossible. Because it's old and largely not about a king or government official, lots of stuff is hard to confirm.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It seems highly unlikely that the authors of the NT "knew" that the Jesus story was fictional while at the same time early Christians are already "confused" into thinking that it was real. Paul clearly through that that Jesus, the resurrection, and and the splintering off from Judaism were real, not midrash, and he was writing and preaching before the synoptic authors.

If it starts as an oral tradition (and probably some other earlier written sources we don't have), why wouldn't different audiences interpret the story different ways? I'm not sure we can assume that someone living two thousand years ago would assume that any story repeated and passed around was solely an impartial representation of facts. That doesn't appear to be how history worked back then.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It seems highly unlikely that the authors of the NT "knew" that the Jesus story was fictional while at the same time early Christians are already "confused" into thinking that it was real. Paul clearly through that that Jesus, the resurrection, and and the splintering off from Judaism were real, not midrash, and he was writing and preaching before the synoptic authors.

If it starts as an oral tradition (and probably some other earlier written sources we don't have), why wouldn't different audiences interpret the story different ways? I'm not sure we can assume that someone living two thousand years ago would assume that any story repeated and passed around was solely an impartial representation of facts. That doesn't appear to be how history worked back then.

I just have a hard time imagining Paul and other early Christian leaders confusing fiction for history when we're talking about a time period just a few decades removed from Jesus' life and death, when the apostles who knew Jesus were still alive and travelling around preaching what they saw as a very real gospel. It would be as if people today believed that Holden Caufield was a real person.

 

[Jayrok]

This one might be interesting to you because he essentially argues that the New Testament is being read completely incorrectly now and should be read as Jewish midrash.

I'm not a huge fan of Bishop Spong, but I agree that it is very likely that NT authors derived the gospel narratives using Jewish midrash. At least the synoptic gospels anyway. I believe that Mark was the first gospel and the author had no intention of writing a biography of Jesus. His goal was to write a story (a more hellenized story) using themes in the OT. Jesus is the personification of Israel. John the Baptist is the messenger in the wilderness sent by God to prepare the way for the Lord (Mal. 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3). Jesus is baptized and immediately sent into the desert to be tempted for 40 days. The Israelites were saved from Egypt and walked through the Red Sea (baptized) and out into the desert for 40 years. The story then goes on and on where all events have similarities with OT stories culminating in Jesus (Israel) becoming the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Beautifully written by an educated scribe. Retelling of beloved Hebrew Scriptures using midrash in a modern age (hellenized Palestine).

It seems highly unlikely that the authors of the NT "knew" that the Jesus story was fictional while at the same time early Christians are already "confused" into thinking that it was real. Paul clearly through that that Jesus, the resurrection, and and the splintering off from Judaism were real, not midrash, and he was writing and preaching before the synoptic authors.

I don't intend to imply that Jesus didn't exist and the stories were made up from scratch. But I think there is a difference between the historical Jesus and the Jesus depicted in the NT. The stories could be based on some historical events, but I believe the style of writing at the time allowed for the author to borrow some theological details that could align with sacred Scriptures. Midrash would allow this. There probably was a Jewish preacher who sought to reform Judaism from the strict, literal adherence to the Law as taught by the pharisees. Bart Ehrman is one scholar who thinks Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher and the basis of the gospel narratives, but not God in the flesh. Yes, Paul thought Jesus' resurrection and his subsequent gospel were real. He also used Hebrew Scriptures to make teaching points. He called Jesus the rock that accompanied the Israelites and Moses through the desert and gave them spiritual drink. He also associated himself and Barnabas with being the light to the gentiles (Isaiah 49:6). Unfortunately, Paul didn't provide any biographical details about Jesus and his ministry. This, I believe, was the reason the gospel of Mark was written.

Written to give a face and story to Paul's Jesus who died and was resurrected. Maybe no one had information about Jesus growing up, but maybe it didn't matter to Mark. What mattered was the message that Jesus was the promised messiah who fulfilled Jewish prophecy. His story begins with the man who was sent to make way for the coming of the Lord, JTB. Other events could be derived from Elijah and Elisha, even Moses and Joshua. Not fiction from whole cloth, but intermingled fiction with historical events to get a message across (i.e. the withered fig tree, donkeys and foals, feeding 4000/5000 with a little fish and bread, etc.). That's my opinion anyway. Had Paul written a description of Jesus' life perhaps the gospels might not have been written.

 

[Jayrok]

This one might be interesting to you because he essentially argues that the New Testament is being read completely incorrectly now and should be read as Jewish midrash.

I'm not a huge fan of Bishop Spong, but I agree that it is very likely that NT authors derived the gospel narratives using Jewish midrash. At least the synoptic gospels anyway. I believe that Mark was the first gospel and the author had no intention of writing a biography of Jesus. His goal was to write a story (a more hellenized story) using themes in the OT. Jesus is the personification of Israel. John the Baptist is the messenger in the wilderness sent by God to prepare the way for the Lord (Mal. 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3). Jesus is baptized and immediately sent into the desert to be tempted for 40 days. The Israelites were saved from Egypt and walked through the Red Sea (baptized) and out into the desert for 40 years. The story then goes on and on where all events have similarities with OT stories culminating in Jesus (Israel) becoming the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Beautifully written by an educated scribe. Retelling of beloved Hebrew Scriptures using midrash in a modern age (hellenized Palestine).

Once you begin admitting that parts of the Bible are made up, where does it end?

I guess that is up to the reader.

 

[timschochet]

I don't pretend to know nearly as much about this stuff as you guys do, but it seems to me that the writing style doesn't speak necessarily to the accuracy of what is being written. What I mean is, suppose it's true that the way the Gospels were written is heavily influenced by a combination of Jewish (Midrash) and Hellenic sources- that has nothing to do with the content. There's no reason why a Christian couldn't believe that the essential story of Jesus Christ is true, while also acknowledging and appreciating the poetic writing style of the Gospels.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It seems highly unlikely that the authors of the NT "knew" that the Jesus story was fictional while at the same time early Christians are already "confused" into thinking that it was real. Paul clearly through that that Jesus, the resurrection, and and the splintering off from Judaism were real, not midrash, and he was writing and preaching before the synoptic authors.

If it starts as an oral tradition (and probably some other earlier written sources we don't have), why wouldn't different audiences interpret the story different ways? I'm not sure we can assume that someone living two thousand years ago would assume that any story repeated and passed around was solely an impartial representation of facts. That doesn't appear to be how history worked back then.

I just have a hard time imagining Paul and other early Christian leaders confusing fiction for history when we're talking about a time period just a few decades removed from Jesus' life and death, when the apostles who knew Jesus were still alive and travelling around preaching what they saw as a very real gospel. It would be as if people today believed that Holden Caufield was a real person.

Parson Weems was spreading apocryphal stories about George Washington in the guise of biography one year after his death.

 

[Jayrok]

This one might be interesting to you because he essentially argues that the New Testament is being read completely incorrectly now and should be read as Jewish midrash.

I'm not a huge fan of Bishop Spong, but I agree that it is very likely that NT authors derived the gospel narratives using Jewish midrash. At least the synoptic gospels anyway. I believe that Mark was the first gospel and the author had no intention of writing a biography of Jesus. His goal was to write a story (a more hellenized story) using themes in the OT. Jesus is the personification of Israel. John the Baptist is the messenger in the wilderness sent by God to prepare the way for the Lord (Mal. 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3). Jesus is baptized and immediately sent into the desert to be tempted for 40 days. The Israelites were saved from Egypt and walked through the Red Sea (baptized) and out into the desert for 40 years. The story then goes on and on where all events have similarities with OT stories culminating in Jesus (Israel) becoming the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Beautifully written by an educated scribe. Retelling of beloved Hebrew Scriptures using midrash in a modern age (hellenized Palestine).

I assume there must be other examples of first century contemporary midrash in the form of narratives applying personification and symbolism for you to reach this conclusion. I'd be very interested in seeing some or reading about them. Any suggestions?

A pastor friend of mine once mentioned that his seminary professor taught him that theological language is the language of metaphor. The OT Scriptures contain stories with vivid imagery such as the visions of Ezekiel, and stories of wisdom like Job, ecclesiastes and proverbs. The book of Jonah is certainly a candidate for midrash. Jesus could be Jonah retold to a new generation. He was sent to proclaim the kingdom of heaven to the Jews... they didn't listen. Jonah sent to Ninevah to tell them God will destroy the city in 40 days. Jonah gets thrown into the sea and is swallowed by a great fish where he stays for three days. Jesus is thrown to the Romans to be crucified and buried for 3 days. Jonah resurrected from the fish after 3 days. Jesus resurrected after 3 days. Resurrected Jesus stays on earth for 40 days before his ascension. Jonah goes to Ninevah and tells them God will destroy them in 40 days. The symbolism in the book of Daniel. Maybe Timschochet can tell you more about Jewish Midrash or provide more specific examples of the past. I might add the many stories in Greek mythology with the vast amounts of symbolism and metaphor. Stories of Diogenes of Sinope. I imagine some ancients thought Hercules was historical. Jesus spoke metaphorically, in parables. It's possible his followers also used this type of communication when telling tales or writing stories about him.

 

[Jayrok]

I don't pretend to know nearly as much about this stuff as you guys do, but it seems to me that the writing style doesn't speak necessarily to the accuracy of what is being written. What I mean is, suppose it's true that the way the Gospels were written is heavily influenced by a combination of Jewish (Midrash) and Hellenic sources- that has nothing to do with the content. There's no reason why a Christian couldn't believe that the essential story of Jesus Christ is true, while also acknowledging and appreciating the poetic writing style of the Gospels.

I don't disagree.

 

[Psychopav]

This one might be interesting to you because he essentially argues that the New Testament is being read completely incorrectly now and should be read as Jewish midrash.

I'm not a huge fan of Bishop Spong, but I agree that it is very likely that NT authors derived the gospel narratives using Jewish midrash. At least the synoptic gospels anyway. I believe that Mark was the first gospel and the author had no intention of writing a biography of Jesus. His goal was to write a story (a more hellenized story) using themes in the OT. Jesus is the personification of Israel. John the Baptist is the messenger in the wilderness sent by God to prepare the way for the Lord (Mal. 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3). Jesus is baptized and immediately sent into the desert to be tempted for 40 days. The Israelites were saved from Egypt and walked through the Red Sea (baptized) and out into the desert for 40 years. The story then goes on and on where all events have similarities with OT stories culminating in Jesus (Israel) becoming the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Beautifully written by an educated scribe. Retelling of beloved Hebrew Scriptures using midrash in a modern age (hellenized Palestine).

I assume there must be other examples of first century contemporary midrash in the form of narratives applying personification and symbolism for you to reach this conclusion. I'd be very interested in seeing some or reading about them. Any suggestions?

A pastor friend of mine once mentioned that his seminary professor taught him that theological language is the language of metaphor. The OT Scriptures contain stories with vivid imagery such as the visions of Ezekiel, and stories of wisdom like Job, ecclesiastes and proverbs. The book of Jonah is certainly a candidate for midrash. Jesus could be Jonah retold to a new generation. He was sent to proclaim the kingdom of heaven to the Jews... they didn't listen. Jonah sent to Ninevah to tell them God will destroy the city in 40 days. Jonah gets thrown into the sea and is swallowed by a great fish where he stays for three days. Jesus is thrown to the Romans to be crucified and buried for 3 days. Jonah resurrected from the fish after 3 days. Jesus resurrected after 3 days. Resurrected Jesus stays on earth for 40 days before his ascension. Jonah goes to Ninevah and tells them God will destroy them in 40 days. The symbolism in the book of Daniel. Maybe Timschochet can tell you more about Jewish Midrash or provide more specific examples of the past. I might add the many stories in Greek mythology with the vast amounts of symbolism and metaphor. Stories of Diogenes of Sinope. I imagine some ancients thought Hercules was historical. Jesus spoke metaphorically, in parables. It's possible his followers also used this type of communication when telling tales or writing stories about him.

I'd still love to get some specific examples. I have never heard this before and I don't think the examples you give here come close to the kind of allegory you implied. Is there a record of a Jewish contemporary of Jesus and the apostles interpreting Jonah as a metaphor or something along those lines?Maybe I misunderstood your post? To me, it sounded like you were saying that this Midrash concept could be used to explain the supernatural or a-historical aspects of scripture writing - that it was metaphor vs. history. Just because Jonah is fantastic, or Job or Ezekial contains vivid imagery, I don't understand how that would necessarily mean that they are not true. Seems like one would have to start with a skeptical point of view to take that position.

Understand I'm not saying that it's necessarily an invalid view, just questioning where the idea is coming from that in the first century (and apparently much earlier) somehow that type of skeptical view existed. I was taught that Hebrew scripture in particular was remarkably historically-focused (vs. say the Greek myths).

 

[Jayrok]

I'd still love to get some specific examples. I have never heard this before and I don't think the examples you give here come close to the kind of allegory you implied. Is there a record of a Jewish contemporary of Jesus and the apostles interpreting Jonah as a metaphor or something along those lines?Maybe I misunderstood your post? To me, it sounded like you were saying that this Midrash concept could be used to explain the supernatural or a-historical aspects of scripture writing - that it was metaphor vs. history. Just because Jonah is fantastic, or Job or Ezekial contains vivid imagery, I don't understand how that would necessarily mean that they are not true. Seems like one would have to start with a skeptical point of view to take that position.Understand I'm not saying that it's necessarily an invalid view, just questioning where the idea is coming from that in the first century (and apparently much earlier) somehow that type of skeptical view existed. I was taught that Hebrew scripture in particular was remarkably historically-focused (vs. say the Greek myths).

I'm saying that there could have been a Jewish preacher, perhaps a member of the Essenes who were sometimes opposed to the Pharisees and Sadducees, who taught communal unity and that material possessions and money were not important. His message was the imminent coming of the kingdom of God and called for the children of Israel to repent and turn to God. Multiple decades after the events of his life, stories were written about him that shed light on his life and ministry. There could have been eyewitness testimony to construct such a biography. It's also possible that midrash could have been injected into his life to show readers how he came directly from the OT Scriptures. These stories showed how Jesus fulfilled the Law. Did they have to be 100% factually correct? Of course not. The Jewish preacher on which the stories are based is symbolically interwoven into the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul sees Jesus as the Wisdom of Proverbs. The Jewish preacher is baptized and sent to the desert to be tempted (like Israel sent to the desert for 40 years). Israel returns into the land and triumpantly conquers and casts out the Caananites, where Jesus triumphantly returns and casts out demons to begin his ministry. The story of Jesus being tempted and casting out demons doesn't necessarily have to be true, does it? Even if it isn't true, the symbolism is powerful, which could be the point of the story in any case. The message and impact of the story is what counts. Midrash is about telling old stories in a new interpretation for a new generation. The gospel writer's goal, perhaps, is to show how Jesus lived all along in the Hebrew Scriptures and that those old stories culminated in his life and death. Whether he actually killed a fig tree is trivial compared to the message that scene illuminated. That is, Israel was not producing any good fruit. Let me say that there is no definitive answer to all this. If you choose to view the gospels as literal history, I respect that decision and point of view. I am not saying the stories were fabricated out of thin air. I'm saying it's possible that the stories were based on a man's life and developed from there using literary tools and devices. By the time the last gospel was written, this Jewish preacher was actually God in the flesh. Again, this is my current opinion. As I've said before, I'm open to new revelations. There was a time I leaned toward Jesus being entirely myth. I no longer see it that way.

 

[Jayrok]

I'd still love to get some specific examples. I have never heard this before and I don't think the examples you give here come close to the kind of allegory you implied. Is there a record of a Jewish contemporary of Jesus and the apostles interpreting Jonah as a metaphor or something along those lines?Maybe I misunderstood your post? To me, it sounded like you were saying that this Midrash concept could be used to explain the supernatural or a-historical aspects of scripture writing - that it was metaphor vs. history. Just because Jonah is fantastic, or Job or Ezekial contains vivid imagery, I don't understand how that would necessarily mean that they are not true. Seems like one would have to start with a skeptical point of view to take that position.Understand I'm not saying that it's necessarily an invalid view, just questioning where the idea is coming from that in the first century (and apparently much earlier) somehow that type of skeptical view existed. I was taught that Hebrew scripture in particular was remarkably historically-focused (vs. say the Greek myths).

Oh, and I will try to find some specific examples of contemporary midrash per your request.

 

[Psychopav]

I'd still love to get some specific examples. I have never heard this before and I don't think the examples you give here come close to the kind of allegory you implied. Is there a record of a Jewish contemporary of Jesus and the apostles interpreting Jonah as a metaphor or something along those lines?Maybe I misunderstood your post? To me, it sounded like you were saying that this Midrash concept could be used to explain the supernatural or a-historical aspects of scripture writing - that it was metaphor vs. history. Just because Jonah is fantastic, or Job or Ezekial contains vivid imagery, I don't understand how that would necessarily mean that they are not true. Seems like one would have to start with a skeptical point of view to take that position.Understand I'm not saying that it's necessarily an invalid view, just questioning where the idea is coming from that in the first century (and apparently much earlier) somehow that type of skeptical view existed. I was taught that Hebrew scripture in particular was remarkably historically-focused (vs. say the Greek myths).

Oh, and I will try to find some specific examples of contemporary midrash per your request.

Thank you sir.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's fake.

 

[mad sweeney]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

 

[The Commish]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

Can you help me understand what theological impact Jesus having/not having a wife would have?

 

[beer 302]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

Yes, was hoping an atheist was in charge of verification of the document

 

[Frostillicus]

This was covered 30 years ago, in a very detailed and well researched non-fiction book by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail

This book was the basis of much of the mythology contained in The DaVinci Code and the villain in that novel, Leigh Teabing, was an anagram of the authors Leigh and Baigent in an homage to their work.

This is an absolutely fantastic book, one of the best I've ever read. Anyone interested in this subject should pick it up immediately. It's a bit of a tough read because of the massive volume of names and dates that are used, but if you can sort through that mess, it's a rewarding experience. Due to the nature of the research there is some serious supposition involved, but it changed my view on a number of things.

Yep, interesting stuff.

 

[mad sweeney]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

Can you help me understand what theological impact Jesus having/not having a wife would have?

How would the fact that the whore in the story of Jesus turned out to actually be his wife impact the validity of the Bible story as pushed by the RCC for the last millenia or so? Seriously? First, it was a tongue in cheek post, but I do realize with my history of religion bashing (yes jonnay, ALL religion, not just yours. The one at the center of your persecution complex.) that it might be hard to discern that. Second, maybe to about 0.0000001% of the billions of semi- rational (sorry, I can't accept anyone who believes this in the first place as fully rational*) RCs the adjustment necessary to accept the Church having been completely and utterly wrong about one of the major beneficiaries of Jesus' love wouldn't be hard to intellectually rationalize based on actual historical evidence. The rest would either have to have conflicts of faith or will have to buy into whatever epically sized mound of holy bull#### the Vatican would be shoveling overtime to keep their institution-long narrative somewhat intact.

But other than that, sure some fact that completely destroys one of the central characters of Jesus' resurrection probably won't have any effect.

*-there is also pretty much no such thing as a fully rational person, so don't get wadded up thinking I'm casting down the religious to a level far below atheists, pretty much everyone is irrational on some level.

 

[mad sweeney]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

Yes, was hoping an atheist was in charge of verification of the document

There should be several atheists in charge, along with several high ranking people from within the Church, in and out of the RCC, who have the appropriate education and field experience to be able to make the determination of it's authenticity. Certainly the most biased and largest institution affected by it should not be the sole authority in charge of determining it's authenticity.

 

[The Commish]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

Can you help me understand what theological impact Jesus having/not having a wife would have?

How would the fact that the whore in the story of Jesus turned out to actually be his wife impact the validity of the Bible story as pushed by the RCC for the last millenia or so? Seriously? First, it was a tongue in cheek post, but I do realize with my history of religion bashing (yes jonnay, ALL religion, not just yours. The one at the center of your persecution complex.) that it might be hard to discern that. Second, maybe to about 0.0000001% of the billions of semi- rational (sorry, I can't accept anyone who believes this in the first place as fully rational*) RCs the adjustment necessary to accept the Church having been completely and utterly wrong about one of the major beneficiaries of Jesus' love wouldn't be hard to intellectually rationalize based on actual historical evidence. The rest would either have to have conflicts of faith or will have to buy into whatever epically sized mound of holy bull#### the Vatican would be shoveling overtime to keep their institution-long narrative somewhat intact.

But other than that, sure some fact that completely destroys one of the central characters of Jesus' resurrection probably won't have any effect.

*-there is also pretty much no such thing as a fully rational person, so don't get wadded up thinking I'm casting down the religious to a level far below atheists, pretty much everyone is irrational on some level.

Nice little rant about the RC church here but you didn't answer my question. You only left me with more questions if I'm being honest. Who's "jonnay"? I'm not really after how this impacts the RC church specifically. I'm interested in what you think Jesus having a wife impacts from a theological perspective. What is "lost" in the story if it's found out that Jesus had a wife?

 

[mad sweeney]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

Can you help me understand what theological impact Jesus having/not having a wife would have?

How would the fact that the whore in the story of Jesus turned out to actually be his wife impact the validity of the Bible story as pushed by the RCC for the last millenia or so? Seriously? First, it was a tongue in cheek post, but I do realize with my history of religion bashing (yes jonnay, ALL religion, not just yours. The one at the center of your persecution complex.) that it might be hard to discern that. Second, maybe to about 0.0000001% of the billions of semi- rational (sorry, I can't accept anyone who believes this in the first place as fully rational*) RCs the adjustment necessary to accept the Church having been completely and utterly wrong about one of the major beneficiaries of Jesus' love wouldn't be hard to intellectually rationalize based on actual historical evidence. The rest would either have to have conflicts of faith or will have to buy into whatever epically sized mound of holy bull#### the Vatican would be shoveling overtime to keep their institution-long narrative somewhat intact.

But other than that, sure some fact that completely destroys one of the central characters of Jesus' resurrection probably won't have any effect.

*-there is also pretty much no such thing as a fully rational person, so don't get wadded up thinking I'm casting down the religious to a level far below atheists, pretty much everyone is irrational on some level.

Nice little rant about the RC church here but you didn't answer my question. You only left me with more questions if I'm being honest. Who's "jonnay"? I'm not really after how this impacts the RC church specifically. I'm interested in what you think Jesus having a wife impacts from a theological perspective. What is "lost" in the story if it's found out that Jesus had a wife?

Jonnay is mx, who cries persecution whenever Christianity is impeached. You'd be in the small percentage of people so I understand why you don't get my point. You'd be able to think it through. As for the RCC, they're the ones who propagate the whore aspect of Magdalene as well as control/influence the vast majority of Christians in the world. If one of their central characters of the Bible is found to be the exact opposite of what has been portrayed for eons, then any of their other tenets could be questioned. They're supposed to be the inerrant hands of God on Earth, the Church that Peter built. Being wrong on something Biblical is a huge issue as to their credibility.

 

[cstu]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

Can you help me understand what theological impact Jesus having/not having a wife would have?

How would the fact that the whore in the story of Jesus turned out to actually be his wife impact the validity of the Bible story as pushed by the RCC for the last millenia or so? Seriously? First, it was a tongue in cheek post, but I do realize with my history of religion bashing (yes jonnay, ALL religion, not just yours. The one at the center of your persecution complex.) that it might be hard to discern that. Second, maybe to about 0.0000001% of the billions of semi- rational (sorry, I can't accept anyone who believes this in the first place as fully rational*) RCs the adjustment necessary to accept the Church having been completely and utterly wrong about one of the major beneficiaries of Jesus' love wouldn't be hard to intellectually rationalize based on actual historical evidence. The rest would either have to have conflicts of faith or will have to buy into whatever epically sized mound of holy bull#### the Vatican would be shoveling overtime to keep their institution-long narrative somewhat intact.

But other than that, sure some fact that completely destroys one of the central characters of Jesus' resurrection probably won't have any effect.

*-there is also pretty much no such thing as a fully rational person, so don't get wadded up thinking I'm casting down the religious to a level far below atheists, pretty much everyone is irrational on some level.

If Jesus was married then it stands to reason that he may have had children, which may mean we have the children of demi-gods running around today.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

If Jesus was married then it stands to reason that he may have had children, which may mean we have the children of demi-gods running around today.

And we thought Colin Hanks was kind of a letdown.

 

[The Commish]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

Can you help me understand what theological impact Jesus having/not having a wife would have?

How would the fact that the whore in the story of Jesus turned out to actually be his wife impact the validity of the Bible story as pushed by the RCC for the last millenia or so? Seriously? First, it was a tongue in cheek post, but I do realize with my history of religion bashing (yes jonnay, ALL religion, not just yours. The one at the center of your persecution complex.) that it might be hard to discern that. Second, maybe to about 0.0000001% of the billions of semi- rational (sorry, I can't accept anyone who believes this in the first place as fully rational*) RCs the adjustment necessary to accept the Church having been completely and utterly wrong about one of the major beneficiaries of Jesus' love wouldn't be hard to intellectually rationalize based on actual historical evidence. The rest would either have to have conflicts of faith or will have to buy into whatever epically sized mound of holy bull#### the Vatican would be shoveling overtime to keep their institution-long narrative somewhat intact.

But other than that, sure some fact that completely destroys one of the central characters of Jesus' resurrection probably won't have any effect.

*-there is also pretty much no such thing as a fully rational person, so don't get wadded up thinking I'm casting down the religious to a level far below atheists, pretty much everyone is irrational on some level.

Nice little rant about the RC church here but you didn't answer my question. You only left me with more questions if I'm being honest. Who's "jonnay"? I'm not really after how this impacts the RC church specifically. I'm interested in what you think Jesus having a wife impacts from a theological perspective. What is "lost" in the story if it's found out that Jesus had a wife?

Jonnay is mx, who cries persecution whenever Christianity is impeached. You'd be in the small percentage of people so I understand why you don't get my point. You'd be able to think it through. As for the RCC, they're the ones who propagate the whore aspect of Magdalene as well as control/influence the vast majority of Christians in the world. If one of their central characters of the Bible is found to be the exact opposite of what has been portrayed for eons, then any of their other tenets could be questioned. They're supposed to be the inerrant hands of God on Earth, the Church that Peter built. Being wrong on something Biblical is a huge issue as to their credibility.

So this isn't about theology rather the dogma of the Catholic Church?

 

[mad sweeney]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

Can you help me understand what theological impact Jesus having/not having a wife would have?

How would the fact that the whore in the story of Jesus turned out to actually be his wife impact the validity of the Bible story as pushed by the RCC for the last millenia or so? Seriously? First, it was a tongue in cheek post, but I do realize with my history of religion bashing (yes jonnay, ALL religion, not just yours. The one at the center of your persecution complex.) that it might be hard to discern that. Second, maybe to about 0.0000001% of the billions of semi- rational (sorry, I can't accept anyone who believes this in the first place as fully rational*) RCs the adjustment necessary to accept the Church having been completely and utterly wrong about one of the major beneficiaries of Jesus' love wouldn't be hard to intellectually rationalize based on actual historical evidence. The rest would either have to have conflicts of faith or will have to buy into whatever epically sized mound of holy bull#### the Vatican would be shoveling overtime to keep their institution-long narrative somewhat intact.

But other than that, sure some fact that completely destroys one of the central characters of Jesus' resurrection probably won't have any effect.

*-there is also pretty much no such thing as a fully rational person, so don't get wadded up thinking I'm casting down the religious to a level far below atheists, pretty much everyone is irrational on some level.

Nice little rant about the RC church here but you didn't answer my question. You only left me with more questions if I'm being honest. Who's "jonnay"? I'm not really after how this impacts the RC church specifically. I'm interested in what you think Jesus having a wife impacts from a theological perspective. What is "lost" in the story if it's found out that Jesus had a wife?

Jonnay is mx, who cries persecution whenever Christianity is impeached. You'd be in the small percentage of people so I understand why you don't get my point. You'd be able to think it through. As for the RCC, they're the ones who propagate the whore aspect of Magdalene as well as control/influence the vast majority of Christians in the world. If one of their central characters of the Bible is found to be the exact opposite of what has been portrayed for eons, then any of their other tenets could be questioned. They're supposed to be the inerrant hands of God on Earth, the Church that Peter built. Being wrong on something Biblical is a huge issue as to their credibility.

So this isn't about theology rather the dogma of the Catholic Church?

Mostly. But it would affect any faith that relies on the Bible to be either factual or inerrant. You don't think that Mary being his wife instead of the whore that she's always been portrayed as might be proof that the Bible is not factual? That if this character is misrepresented, that others may be?

 

[The Commish]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

Can you help me understand what theological impact Jesus having/not having a wife would have?

How would the fact that the whore in the story of Jesus turned out to actually be his wife impact the validity of the Bible story as pushed by the RCC for the last millenia or so? Seriously? First, it was a tongue in cheek post, but I do realize with my history of religion bashing (yes jonnay, ALL religion, not just yours. The one at the center of your persecution complex.) that it might be hard to discern that. Second, maybe to about 0.0000001% of the billions of semi- rational (sorry, I can't accept anyone who believes this in the first place as fully rational*) RCs the adjustment necessary to accept the Church having been completely and utterly wrong about one of the major beneficiaries of Jesus' love wouldn't be hard to intellectually rationalize based on actual historical evidence. The rest would either have to have conflicts of faith or will have to buy into whatever epically sized mound of holy bull#### the Vatican would be shoveling overtime to keep their institution-long narrative somewhat intact.

But other than that, sure some fact that completely destroys one of the central characters of Jesus' resurrection probably won't have any effect.

*-there is also pretty much no such thing as a fully rational person, so don't get wadded up thinking I'm casting down the religious to a level far below atheists, pretty much everyone is irrational on some level.

Nice little rant about the RC church here but you didn't answer my question. You only left me with more questions if I'm being honest. Who's "jonnay"? I'm not really after how this impacts the RC church specifically. I'm interested in what you think Jesus having a wife impacts from a theological perspective. What is "lost" in the story if it's found out that Jesus had a wife?

Jonnay is mx, who cries persecution whenever Christianity is impeached. You'd be in the small percentage of people so I understand why you don't get my point. You'd be able to think it through. As for the RCC, they're the ones who propagate the whore aspect of Magdalene as well as control/influence the vast majority of Christians in the world. If one of their central characters of the Bible is found to be the exact opposite of what has been portrayed for eons, then any of their other tenets could be questioned. They're supposed to be the inerrant hands of God on Earth, the Church that Peter built. Being wrong on something Biblical is a huge issue as to their credibility.

So this isn't about theology rather the dogma of the Catholic Church?

Mostly. But it would affect any faith that relies on the Bible to be either factual or inerrant. You don't think that Mary being his wife instead of the whore that she's always been portrayed as might be proof that the Bible is not factual? That if this character is misrepresented, that others may be?

What do you mean by "factual". Folks always want to make the Bible more than it is. It's one piece of a process to commune with God. What I notice a lot (and especially around here) is that someone will notice that one story teller's recollection has Joseph wearing a blue robe while another story teller's recollection has him wearing a white one. They then take the position of "see, these people can't even agree on what color his robe was" shtick when in reality, the color of his robe is of no consequence.For most, the message the Bible brings to us is inerrant. That DOES NOT mean all the details are. There are probably thousands of details that have no impact on the overall message that are different, yet the passages all seem to bring the same message. Let's take Mary Magdalene as an example. Let's say she was married to Jesus. Does that mean she couldn't be a whore? The two are not mutually exclusive are they? How would that fact have an impact on the message that Jesus came to earth, lived a perfect (free of sin) life and died on the cross?

 

[mad sweeney]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

Can you help me understand what theological impact Jesus having/not having a wife would have?

How would the fact that the whore in the story of Jesus turned out to actually be his wife impact the validity of the Bible story as pushed by the RCC for the last millenia or so? Seriously? First, it was a tongue in cheek post, but I do realize with my history of religion bashing (yes jonnay, ALL religion, not just yours. The one at the center of your persecution complex.) that it might be hard to discern that. Second, maybe to about 0.0000001% of the billions of semi- rational (sorry, I can't accept anyone who believes this in the first place as fully rational*) RCs the adjustment necessary to accept the Church having been completely and utterly wrong about one of the major beneficiaries of Jesus' love wouldn't be hard to intellectually rationalize based on actual historical evidence. The rest would either have to have conflicts of faith or will have to buy into whatever epically sized mound of holy bull#### the Vatican would be shoveling overtime to keep their institution-long narrative somewhat intact.

But other than that, sure some fact that completely destroys one of the central characters of Jesus' resurrection probably won't have any effect.

*-there is also pretty much no such thing as a fully rational person, so don't get wadded up thinking I'm casting down the religious to a level far below atheists, pretty much everyone is irrational on some level.

Nice little rant about the RC church here but you didn't answer my question. You only left me with more questions if I'm being honest. Who's "jonnay"? I'm not really after how this impacts the RC church specifically. I'm interested in what you think Jesus having a wife impacts from a theological perspective. What is "lost" in the story if it's found out that Jesus had a wife?

Jonnay is mx, who cries persecution whenever Christianity is impeached. You'd be in the small percentage of people so I understand why you don't get my point. You'd be able to think it through. As for the RCC, they're the ones who propagate the whore aspect of Magdalene as well as control/influence the vast majority of Christians in the world. If one of their central characters of the Bible is found to be the exact opposite of what has been portrayed for eons, then any of their other tenets could be questioned. They're supposed to be the inerrant hands of God on Earth, the Church that Peter built. Being wrong on something Biblical is a huge issue as to their credibility.

So this isn't about theology rather the dogma of the Catholic Church?

Mostly. But it would affect any faith that relies on the Bible to be either factual or inerrant. You don't think that Mary being his wife instead of the whore that she's always been portrayed as might be proof that the Bible is not factual? That if this character is misrepresented, that others may be?

What do you mean by "factual". Folks always want to make the Bible more than it is. It's one piece of a process to commune with God. What I notice a lot (and especially around here) is that someone will notice that one story teller's recollection has Joseph wearing a blue robe while another story teller's recollection has him wearing a white one. They then take the position of "see, these people can't even agree on what color his robe was" shtick when in reality, the color of his robe is of no consequence.For most, the message the Bible brings to us is inerrant. That DOES NOT mean all the details are. There are probably thousands of details that have no impact on the overall message that are different, yet the passages all seem to bring the same message. Let's take Mary Magdalene as an example. Let's say she was married to Jesus. Does that mean she couldn't be a whore? The two are not mutually exclusive are they? How would that fact have an impact on the message that Jesus came to earth, lived a perfect (free of sin) life and died on the cross?

As I said, a small portion would be able to see this point your making. However, especially with the RCC, the idea that they could be so wrong about a major character in Jesus' death and resurrection could not be permitted. Yes, she could've been a whore before his wife which wouldn't change the lesson that involved her, but not knowing the fact that she was his wife is a pretty gigantic omission. In addition to having to admit being wrong about something for so long, it would feed into the many conspiracy theories about the Church's history of using the Bible as a world ruling tool (like maybe that IS her on Jesus' right hand in the Last Supper, maybe she was one of the apostles-another major omission, etc..). I'm not talking about little tiny factual inaccuracies. But MM actually being Jesus' wife isn't even in the same ballpark as little color differences in robes.

 

[The Commish]

It's fake.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the biggest organization with the most to lose if it were real has definitively said it's a fake. In other news, Dan Brown is said to be extremely busy, waiting for others to write books on the subject so that he can plug their names and research into a pre-conceived and pre-written story.

Can you help me understand what theological impact Jesus having/not having a wife would have?

How would the fact that the whore in the story of Jesus turned out to actually be his wife impact the validity of the Bible story as pushed by the RCC for the last millenia or so? Seriously? First, it was a tongue in cheek post, but I do realize with my history of religion bashing (yes jonnay, ALL religion, not just yours. The one at the center of your persecution complex.) that it might be hard to discern that. Second, maybe to about 0.0000001% of the billions of semi- rational (sorry, I can't accept anyone who believes this in the first place as fully rational*) RCs the adjustment necessary to accept the Church having been completely and utterly wrong about one of the major beneficiaries of Jesus' love wouldn't be hard to intellectually rationalize based on actual historical evidence. The rest would either have to have conflicts of faith or will have to buy into whatever epically sized mound of holy bull#### the Vatican would be shoveling overtime to keep their institution-long narrative somewhat intact.

But other than that, sure some fact that completely destroys one of the central characters of Jesus' resurrection probably won't have any effect.

*-there is also pretty much no such thing as a fully rational person, so don't get wadded up thinking I'm casting down the religious to a level far below atheists, pretty much everyone is irrational on some level.

Nice little rant about the RC church here but you didn't answer my question. You only left me with more questions if I'm being honest. Who's "jonnay"? I'm not really after how this impacts the RC church specifically. I'm interested in what you think Jesus having a wife impacts from a theological perspective. What is "lost" in the story if it's found out that Jesus had a wife?

Jonnay is mx, who cries persecution whenever Christianity is impeached. You'd be in the small percentage of people so I understand why you don't get my point. You'd be able to think it through. As for the RCC, they're the ones who propagate the whore aspect of Magdalene as well as control/influence the vast majority of Christians in the world. If one of their central characters of the Bible is found to be the exact opposite of what has been portrayed for eons, then any of their other tenets could be questioned. They're supposed to be the inerrant hands of God on Earth, the Church that Peter built. Being wrong on something Biblical is a huge issue as to their credibility.

So this isn't about theology rather the dogma of the Catholic Church?

Mostly. But it would affect any faith that relies on the Bible to be either factual or inerrant. You don't think that Mary being his wife instead of the whore that she's always been portrayed as might be proof that the Bible is not factual? That if this character is misrepresented, that others may be?

What do you mean by "factual". Folks always want to make the Bible more than it is. It's one piece of a process to commune with God. What I notice a lot (and especially around here) is that someone will notice that one story teller's recollection has Joseph wearing a blue robe while another story teller's recollection has him wearing a white one. They then take the position of "see, these people can't even agree on what color his robe was" shtick when in reality, the color of his robe is of no consequence.For most, the message the Bible brings to us is inerrant. That DOES NOT mean all the details are. There are probably thousands of details that have no impact on the overall message that are different, yet the passages all seem to bring the same message. Let's take Mary Magdalene as an example. Let's say she was married to Jesus. Does that mean she couldn't be a whore? The two are not mutually exclusive are they? How would that fact have an impact on the message that Jesus came to earth, lived a perfect (free of sin) life and died on the cross?

As I said, a small portion would be able to see this point your making. However, especially with the RCC, the idea that they could be so wrong about a major character in Jesus' death and resurrection could not be permitted. Yes, she could've been a whore before his wife which wouldn't change the lesson that involved her, but not knowing the fact that she was his wife is a pretty gigantic omission. In addition to having to admit being wrong about something for so long, it would feed into the many conspiracy theories about the Church's history of using the Bible as a world ruling tool (like maybe that IS her on Jesus' right hand in the Last Supper, maybe she was one of the apostles-another major omission, etc..). I'm not talking about little tiny factual inaccuracies. But MM actually being Jesus' wife isn't even in the same ballpark as little color differences in robes.

She could have been a whore while they were married and it wouldn't change the actual message. If you want to attack RC dogma, have at it, but make sure it's clear that's what you're attacking. Reality is, I'm not sure him being married to anyone, even MM, makes a difference in the message being sent to us. Some won't agree with me, so I ask them to show me their point of view before ripping me.ETA: And I believe "small portion" is a bit off, but I only know the people I know.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Here's the thing - having been raised Catholic; an uncle (RIP) that was a priest, a godfather that is a monsignor, and a dad who has a doctorate in canon law (deacon as well)...I think i can speak with confidence in saying that the Catholic church is far from literalist. If anything they view scripture as supplementary to magisterium and tradition. So for them I doubt that whether or not Jesus was married would have significant impact. They could just put an addendum on to the Catechism to discuss this new turn of events. However it might have an impact on how they view the celibacy of priesthood. I think they tie that to the fact that they viewed the Church as Jesus' bride therefor priests should not marry but instead place their whole fidelity into the hold church.

To be fair, I myself am no longer a Catholic, so my views could be way off.

 

[timschochet]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/10/study-jesus-wife-fragment-not-a-fake/



(CNN) – A team of scientists has concluded that a controversial scrap of papyrus that purportedly quotes Jesus referring to "my wife," is not a fake, according to the Harvard Theological Review.

"A wide range of scientific testing indicates that a papyrus fragment containing the words, 'Jesus said to them, my wife' is an ancient document, dating between the sixth to ninth centuries CE," Harvard Divinity School said in a statement.

Scientists tested the papyrus and the carbon ink, and analyzed the handwriting and grammar, according to Harvard.

Radiocarbon tests conducted at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology produced an origination date for the papyrus of 659-859 CE, according to Harvard. MIT also studied the chemical composition of the papyrus and patterns of oxidation.

Other scholars studied the carbon character of the ink and found that it matched samples of papyri from the first to eight century CE, according to Harvard.

"None of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery," the divinity school said.

At least one scholar sharply disagrees, however, calling the papyrus scrap "patently fake."

Unveiled by Karen King, a Harvard Divinity School historian, in 2012, the scrap has sparked a heated debate over Christian history, archaeological accuracy and the role of women in the church.

The fragment, which is about the size of a business card, contains just 33 words, including: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …" and "she will be able to be my disciple."

Though she dubbed the fragment, "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife," King said that the papyrus does not prove that Jesus was actually married – just that ancient Christians discussed the possibility.

"This gospel fragment provides a reason to reconsider what we thought we knew by asking what the role claims of Jesus's marital status played historically in early Christian controversies over marriage, celibacy, and family," King said.

Other Christians have suggested that Jesus may have been speaking metaphorically in the sentence fragments quoted in the papyrus. Some New Testament writers refer to the church as "the bride of Christ."

King and other scholars said they are equally intrigued by Jesus' mention of a female disciple.

"The main topic of the fragment is to affirm that women who are mothers and wives can be disciples of Jesus—a topic that was hotly debated in early Christianity as celibate virginity increasingly became highly valued," King said.

5 questions and answers about Jesus' 'wife'

The Harvard Theological Review also published on Thursday a sharp-worded rebuttal to King's hypothesis by Leo Depuydt, a professor of Egyptology at Brown University.

"I personally—and I am not sure whether I share this feeling with anyone—experience a certain incredulity pertaining to how something that is at first sight so patently fake could be so totally blown out of proportion," Depuydt writes.

Depuydt's criticism centers on the fact that the papyrus scrap contains a grammatical error in Coptic - one that mirrors a similar miscue in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas.

The chances that two ancient works would have the same mistake are minuscule, the scholar said, strongly suggesting that the author of the"Jesus' wife" scrap copied from the Gospel of Thomas.

“As a forgery, it is bad to the point of being farcical or fobbish," Depuydt told the Boston Globe. "I don’t buy the argument that this is sophisticated. I think it could be done in an afternoon by an undergraduate student.”

The Vatican's newspaper has also called the papyrus fragment a fake. “Substantial reasons would lead us to conclude that the papyrus is actually a clumsy counterfeit," L'Osservatore Romano, said in an editorial in 2012.

Vatican newspaper calls fragment referring to Jesus' wife 'a fake'

King and Harvard acknowledge that "nothing is known about the discovery of the fragment." King has said it was given to her by an unnamed donor.

"All the known data about its origin and circulation need to be publicly disclosed and thus made available for scholarly discussion, as is the norm in the handling of manuscripts. Is there some reason we cannot just be told?" Depuydt said.

 

[timschochet]

It's fake.

Apparently not.

 

[mr roboto]

6th-9th century? So 500+ years after the fact?