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

[timschochet]

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

That's right, yes.

 

[matuski]

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

As opposed to 100-300 years after the fact?

 

[matuski]

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."

Religious mental gymnastics know no bounds.

 

[mr roboto]

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

As opposed to 100-300 years after the fact?

Wat? I'm not making a point, just asking a question.

 

[matuski]

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

As opposed to 100-300 years after the fact?

Wat? I'm not making a point, just asking a question.

I was.

 

[mr roboto]

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

As opposed to 100-300 years after the fact?

Wat? I'm not making a point, just asking a question.

I was.

Yes, you are quite transparent like that.

 

[proninja]

Karen King, from Harvard Divinity School who announced the discovery of this. She is not noted for her conservative theological views.

"... this fragment does not provide evidence that Jesus was married. The comparatively late date of this Coptic papyrus (a seventh to eighth century c.e. fragment of a gospel perhaps composed in Greek as early as the second half of the second century) argues against its value as evidence for the life of the historical Jesus..."

Here is a good paper from a very well respected NT scholar

 

[proninja]

Also, from Harvard's Q&A about this -

The text of the fragment is written in Coptic, the form in which the Egyptian language was written beginning in the early centuries c.e. when Egypt was increasingly becoming a vital center of early Christian activity. Coptic uses letters from the Greek alphabet as well as some letters from an older Egyptian script called Demotic. We know that a substantial part of the earliest surviving writings in Coptic were translated from Greek, so this fragment may also have originally been written in Greek, and was only later translated into Coptic for use among Coptic-speaking Christians.

The greek word for wife is the same as the greek word for woman. If this was translated from greek, it's really a coin flip as to what it means. Determining the difference between the two can be difficult even with context surrounding a text, rather than simply a business card sized fragment lacking any context whatsoever. In the NASB it is translated many times in forms of both "woman" and "wife." With context these translations can be very reliable. Lacking context, however, it seems like people are going to use this however it fits their preconceptions.

To me, this doesn't really prove anything. Super interesting little piece of fabric though.

 

[McGarnicle]

Pretty simple explanation here. Mary Magdalene was Mexican, and Jesus married her so she would become a US citizen. He helped people like that all the time. He was Jesus for crissakes.

 

[Jayrok]

Finding a papyrus with alleged quotes from Jesus from the 2nd or 5th or 6th century is not proof that Jesus existed, much less that he was married to anyone.

 

[ScottNorwood]

Take it to the Lies about Jesus thread

 

[Otis]

Finding a papyrus with alleged quotes from Jesus from the 2nd or 5th or 6th century is not proof that Jesus existed, much less that he was married to anyone.

"A thread at a popular fantasy football website was found, and proves to a certainty that Jesus was the son of God, based on text allegedly written by LarryBoy34"

 

[joffer]

Also, from Harvard's Q&A about this -

The text of the fragment is written in Coptic, the form in which the Egyptian language was written beginning in the early centuries c.e. when Egypt was increasingly becoming a vital center of early Christian activity. Coptic uses letters from the Greek alphabet as well as some letters from an older Egyptian script called Demotic. We know that a substantial part of the earliest surviving writings in Coptic were translated from Greek, so this fragment may also have originally been written in Greek, and was only later translated into Coptic for use among Coptic-speaking Christians.

The greek word for wife is the same as the greek word for woman. If this was translated from greek, it's really a coin flip as to what it means. Determining the difference between the two can be difficult even with context surrounding a text, rather than simply a business card sized fragment lacking any context whatsoever. In the NASB it is translated many times in forms of both "woman" and "wife." With context these translations can be very reliable. Lacking context, however, it seems like people are going to use this however it fits their preconceptions.

To me, this doesn't really prove anything. Super interesting little piece of fabric though.

That's interesting. I understand the Hebrew words for "young woman" and "virgin" often get mixed up too.

 

[shader]

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

As opposed to 100-300 years after the fact?

 

[dgreen]

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."

Religious mental gymnastics know no bounds.

 

[saintsfan]

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

As opposed to 100-300 years after the fact?

What is 100-300 years after the fact??

Most evidence I have seen says that most of the New Testament was complete by 100 AD. Mark, Luke, Matthew, Acts, and Paul's letters were all written before the destroying of the Temple in 70 AD, many scholars think. John and Revelation were written from 80-100 AD.

I would say that books written within 30-50 years of Jesus' life are more valid than something written in 500 AD.

 

[saintsfan]

What's funny about this is that there is far less evidence that this scrap of paper is historically accurate than the events in the New Testament, yet people will gravitate to anything that they think "proves" their point of view.

From my viewpoint, my belief in Jesus as the Son of God is faith. It can't be proven or disproven. I am completely comfortable with my beliefs and you can mock them as much as you want, but that's what I believe. We'll find out when our time is up who is right and who is wrong.

 

[jon_mx]

I assume this thread is nothing but stinky bait. Carry on.

 

[NCCommish]

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

As opposed to 100-300 years after the fact?

What is 100-300 years after the fact??

Most evidence I have seen says that most of the New Testament was complete by 100 AD. Mark, Luke, Matthew, Acts, and Paul's letters were all written before the destroying of the Temple in 70 AD, many scholars think. John and Revelation were written from 80-100 AD.

I would say that books written within 30-50 years of Jesus' life are more valid than something written in 500 AD.

They can't even agree on who wrote the gospels.

 

[urbanhack]

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

As opposed to 100-300 years after the fact?

What is 100-300 years after the fact??

Most evidence I have seen says that most of the New Testament was complete by 100 AD. Mark, Luke, Matthew, Acts, and Paul's letters were all written before the destroying of the Temple in 70 AD, many scholars think. John and Revelation were written from 80-100 AD.

I would say that books written within 30-50 years of Jesus' life are more valid than something written in 500 AD.

They can't even agree on who wrote the gospels.

coin flip?

 

[saintsfan]

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

As opposed to 100-300 years after the fact?

What is 100-300 years after the fact??

Most evidence I have seen says that most of the New Testament was complete by 100 AD. Mark, Luke, Matthew, Acts, and Paul's letters were all written before the destroying of the Temple in 70 AD, many scholars think. John and Revelation were written from 80-100 AD.

I would say that books written within 30-50 years of Jesus' life are more valid than something written in 500 AD.

They can't even agree on who wrote the gospels.

Every piece of scholarship I have read says that it is commonly thought that most of the New Testament was written by 100 AD. Who wrote them?? Well, obviously, that is more difficult to answer, however, papyrus was found in Egypt with portions of John's gospel on it dated to 135 AD. In order for it to circulate to get to Egypt, it would have had to have been written before then. Probably decades before and it is pretty well established that John was the last gospel written.

 

[Guest]

Tis the season.

 

[saintsfan]

IMO, the key are Paul's letters. We know when Paul died. He quoted Luke in Corinthians. How could he have done that if the gospel didn't already exist?

Also, no mention of the fall of the Temple. You would think that would have been written somewhere if it occurred hundreds of years later.

 

[Guest]

Do you think Jesus pretended he was sleeping so that his wife would get up to put the dinosaur out?

 

[Parrothead]

so if they find the body, will they cancel easter?

 

[cstu]

IMO, the key are Paul's letters. We know when Paul died. He quoted Luke in Corinthians. How could he have done that if the gospel didn't already exist?

Also, no mention of the fall of the Temple. You would think that would have been written somewhere if it occurred hundreds of years later.

Which quote is this?

Here's what Paul had to say about how he came up with his Jesus story:

Galatians 1:11,12 — “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”

He also had this to stay about the leaders of the church who supposedly knew Jesus:

Galations 2.6 - And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

IMO, the key are Paul's letters.

Some of the letters traditionally attributed to Paul were probably written by other folks, but the authentic Pauline letters are indisputably early and show the development of Christian theology with a few decades of Jesus's death. That's why the arguments about when the gospels were written misses the point.

With regards to this particular fragment in question, this is the sort of thing that gets people hot and bothered for no particularly good reason. It would be pretty cool if Jesus had been married, but he wasn't. There's no reason why anybody would have "covered up" Jesus having a wife, so the fact that none of the early sources mention one is extremely compelling evidence that none existed.

 

[saintsfan]

IMO, the key are Paul's letters. We know when Paul died. He quoted Luke in Corinthians. How could he have done that if the gospel didn't already exist?

Also, no mention of the fall of the Temple. You would think that would have been written somewhere if it occurred hundreds of years later.

Which quote is this?

Here's what Paul had to say about how he came up with his Jesus story:

Galatians 1:11,12 — “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”

He also had this to stay about the leaders of the church who supposedly knew Jesus:

Galations 2.6 - And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.)

I don't know. I read it in some book that I checked out out of the library several years ago. I can't find reference to it on the web. It's possible I misunderstood.

However, that's certainly not the only evidence. Clement of Rome in 95AD was already quoting scripture in his letters and such. Other Christian figures in the early Church also quoted scripture. There is far more evidence that they existed 1st century AD than there is that they didn't.

Now, that doesn't mean scripture is true. IMO, that's a matter of faith. However, the early dating of scripture at least means that Jesus was probably in living memory for whomever did write them.

 

[butcher boy]

Why would it be considered a bad thing if it turns out Jesus was married? Is it because the church expects him to be celibate? Is it because Mary Magdalene was supposedly a prostitute?

 

[timschochet]

If Jesus were married, it wouldn't have consequences for Protestant Christianity, but it would have MAJOR consequences for Catholic and Orthodox Christianity (which represents the majority of Christians around the world.) Is this correct?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If Jesus were married, it wouldn't have consequences for Protestant Christianity, but it would have MAJOR consequences for Catholic and Orthodox Christianity (which represents the majority of Christians around the world.) Is this correct?

It would presumably undercut the case for celibate clergy. Otherwise I can't think of anything that would change theologically. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is already pretty big on marriage. If Jesus had been married, it would probably just add an exclamation point to that.

 

[Parrothead]

who would pay to put wedding rings on all those jesus statues?

 

[timschochet]

If Jesus were married, it wouldn't have consequences for Protestant Christianity, but it would have MAJOR consequences for Catholic and Orthodox Christianity (which represents the majority of Christians around the world.) Is this correct?

It would presumably undercut the case for celibate clergy. Otherwise I can't think of anything that would change theologically. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is already pretty big on marriage. If Jesus had been married, it would probably just add an exclamation point to that.

I was thinking it would change the whole nun thing. Aren't nuns supposed to be married to Jesus?

 

[Parrothead]

If Jesus were married, it wouldn't have consequences for Protestant Christianity, but it would have MAJOR consequences for Catholic and Orthodox Christianity (which represents the majority of Christians around the world.) Is this correct?

It would presumably undercut the case for celibate clergy. Otherwise I can't think of anything that would change theologically. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is already pretty big on marriage. If Jesus had been married, it would probably just add an exclamation point to that.

I was thinking it would change the whole nun thing. Aren't nuns supposed to be married to Jesus?

In my experience, nuns aren't very attractive.. no wonder he married a whore

 

[mr roboto]

It would certainly call into question Biblical accuracy. Theologically though, I don't think much would change (maybe the Church as the Bride of Christ would take an interesting turn).

 

[The Commish]

It would certainly call into question Biblical accuracy. Theologically though, I don't think much would change (maybe the Church as the Bride of Christ would take an interesting turn).

Not following

 

[Otis]

What's funny about this is that there is far less evidence that this scrap of paper is historically accurate than the events in the New Testament, yet people will gravitate to anything that they think "proves" their point of view.

From my viewpoint, my belief in Jesus as the Son of God is faith. It can't be proven or disproven. I am completely comfortable with my beliefs and you can mock them as much as you want, but that's what I believe. We'll find out when our time is up who is right and who is wrong.

Isn't this totally arbitrary? And because your parents told you to believe it? Why not have faith in any other religion? None is any more "provable" than another. Why not buddhism? Why is Jesus the right answer in your mind? (Other than for the fact that you were born in and raised in Western culture and likely raised by a Christian family)?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

IMO, the key are Paul's letters.

Some of the letters traditionally attributed to Paul were probably written by other folks, but the authentic Pauline letters are indisputably early and show the development of Christian theology with a few decades of Jesus's death. That's why the arguments about when the gospels were written misses the point.

With regards to this particular fragment in question, this is the sort of thing that gets people hot and bothered for no particularly good reason. It would be pretty cool if Jesus had been married, but he wasn't. There's no reason why anybody would have "covered up" Jesus having a wife, so the fact that none of the early sources mention one is extremely compelling evidence that none existed.

Unless that wife had a following, a congregation of her own that was teaching stuff that didn't fit the orthodoxy. Kind of like Thomas and Judas who were "thrown under the bus" by the chosen versions of the story. The gospels might not be "covering up" stuff but they certainly have agendas (which of course is why they are called gospels and not biographies or journalism),

ETA: I think it is pretty clear that at least a few of the disciples had jealousy issues over who was the most favored, who had the inside scope. Yet in the end they entirely missed the point and it was the women followers of Jesus and financial supporters of Paul that give us the church we have today,

 

[mr roboto]

It would certainly call into question Biblical accuracy. Theologically though, I don't think much would change (maybe the Church as the Bride of Christ would take an interesting turn).

Not following

Currently, in the Bible, Jesus is not married.

 

[The Commish]

It would certainly call into question Biblical accuracy. Theologically though, I don't think much would change (maybe the Church as the Bride of Christ would take an interesting turn).

Not following

Currently, in the Bible, Jesus is not married.

I'm not sure it says either way

 

[mr roboto]

It would certainly call into question Biblical accuracy. Theologically though, I don't think much would change (maybe the Church as the Bride of Christ would take an interesting turn).

Not following

Currently, in the Bible, Jesus is not married.

I'm not sure it says either way

It would be quite an omission.

 

[The Commish]

It would certainly call into question Biblical accuracy. Theologically though, I don't think much would change (maybe the Church as the Bride of Christ would take an interesting turn).

Not following

Currently, in the Bible, Jesus is not married.

I'm not sure it says either way

It would be quite an omission.

Perhaps. However, I don't see how his being married would have any bearing on the narrative that he was the Son of God sent to die for our sins. I'm not sure it matters all that much honestly.

 

[Sinn Fein]

 

[mr roboto]

It would certainly call into question Biblical accuracy. Theologically though, I don't think much would change (maybe the Church as the Bride of Christ would take an interesting turn).

Not following

Currently, in the Bible, Jesus is not married.

I'm not sure it says either way

It would be quite an omission.

Perhaps. However, I don't see how his being married would have any bearing on the narrative that he was the Son of God sent to die for our sins. I'm not sure it matters all that much honestly.

That's exactly what I said. What are we going on about?

 

[jon_mx]

Why would it be considered a bad thing if it turns out Jesus was married? Is it because the church expects him to be celibate? Is it because Mary Magdalene was supposedly a prostitute?

The only people who seem to be invested in this topic are atheist who must harbor some insecurity in their faith.

 

[timschochet]

Why would it be considered a bad thing if it turns out Jesus was married? Is it because the church expects him to be celibate? Is it because Mary Magdalene was supposedly a prostitute?

The only people who seem to be invested in this topic are atheist who must harbor some insecurity in their faith.

Judging by the number of posts from religious people in this thread, I don't think you're correct.

 

[joffer]

Why would it be considered a bad thing if it turns out Jesus was married? Is it because the church expects him to be celibate? Is it because Mary Magdalene was supposedly a prostitute?

The only people who seem to be invested in this topic are atheist who must harbor some insecurity in their faith.

you're unbelievable

 

[IvanKaramazov]

IMO, the key are Paul's letters.

Some of the letters traditionally attributed to Paul were probably written by other folks, but the authentic Pauline letters are indisputably early and show the development of Christian theology with a few decades of Jesus's death. That's why the arguments about when the gospels were written misses the point.

With regards to this particular fragment in question, this is the sort of thing that gets people hot and bothered for no particularly good reason. It would be pretty cool if Jesus had been married, but he wasn't. There's no reason why anybody would have "covered up" Jesus having a wife, so the fact that none of the early sources mention one is extremely compelling evidence that none existed.

Unless that wife had a following, a congregation of her own that was teaching stuff that didn't fit the orthodoxy. Kind of like Thomas and Judas who were "thrown under the bus" by the chosen versions of the story. The gospels might not be "covering up" stuff but they certainly have agendas (which of course is why they are called gospels and not biographies or journalism),

ETA: I think it is pretty clear that at least a few of the disciples had jealousy issues over who was the most favored, who had the inside scope. Yet in the end they entirely missed the point and it was the women followers of Jesus and financial supporters of Paul that give us the church we have today,

That's true. I suppose it could be some kind of conspiracy of which all the evidence has somehow been erased from history. Occam's razor suggests a much simpler explanation though. Most likely the reason why nobody mentions Jesus having a wife is because he didn't have one.

 

[Sinn Fein]

About the only way this gets remotely interesting is if Jesus and Mary had a kid(s).

 

[jon_mx]

Why would it be considered a bad thing if it turns out Jesus was married? Is it because the church expects him to be celibate? Is it because Mary Magdalene was supposedly a prostitute?

The only people who seem to be invested in this topic are atheist who must harbor some insecurity in their faith.

you're unbelievable

Thanks!