New script refers to 'wife' of Jesus

[Deleted]

www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10835094

A Harvard University professor has unveiled a fourth century fragment of papyrus that she says is the only existing ancient text that quotes Jesus explicitly referring to having a wife.

Karen King, an expert in the history of Christianity, says the text contains a dialogue in which Jesus refers to "my wife," whom he identified as Mary. King says the fragment of Coptic script is a copy of a gospel, probably written in Greek in the second century.

King unveiled the fragment of the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" in Rome overnight NZ time. She says it doesn't prove Jesus was married but speaks to issues of family and marriage that faced Christians.

King says on a Harvard website that the dialogue includes the disciples discussing whether Mary is worthy and Jesus saying "she can be my disciple."

[cattledogkisses]

Sept 18, 2012 22:09:51 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

which you know he said, all "She can be MY disciple." bow chicka bow bow.

OMG, get out of my head! First thing I thought, hahahaha!

[mominatrix]

Mary Magdalene?

...via mobile.

[basilosaurus]

I don't believe it! There's no way he could have had a wife!



Because he didn't exist
cue goldie coming in to lecture me on historicity.

[mominatrix]

Sept 18, 2012 22:22:57 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

I don't believe it! There's no way he could have had a wife!



Because he didn't exist

Really?
Even as a fairly non-religious person, I'm pretty ok with the fact of Jesus as a historical figure.

...via mobile.

[Deleted]

BB: you said "Of course I agree he didn't exist" and then later say he could have existed, lol. Which one is it?

My view, from a historical stand point, is we just don't know if he existed (as a man, this isn't a religious thing) or not.

[marie427]

Sept 18, 2012 23:54:07 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Sept 18, 2012 22:22:57 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

I don't believe it! There's no way he could have had a wife!



Because he didn't exist

Really?
Even as a fairly non-religious person, I'm pretty ok with the fact of Jesus as a historical figure.

...via mobile.

Ditto. This is an interesting discovery though. I'd like to read more about the text itself and the language used, since I don't know much beyond basic info about Coptic.

[Deleted]

I believe that Jesus probably existed as a historical figure. I do not believe he was born from a virgin or rose from the grave. I definitely think its possible he had a wife.

[Deleted]

From what I have read about it, the main reason for doubt about jesus's existence is the lack of evidence. There were a large number of historians at the time it is claimed he existed. According to the bible, all sorts of important events happened because of him. Any yet, barely a mention. Sky turning black, the jews having a messiah / leader? There are pretty big things for the Roman historians to ignore. I cant remember the details, but I think there are 5 written accounts of Jesus from the historians of that time. Four of them refer to "The Christ" which is a title, but they dont imply that "The Christ" was actually there at that time. The other historian has been proven to be a fake numerous times, but is usually held up as evidence for Jesus's existence.
IMO it it a pointless question anyway. If you believe in Jesus, you will believe he existed and walked on water etc. If you dont, you might think some bloke existed at the time called Jesus, but he was no important than any of the other blokes in the area and didnt walk on water. So it makes no difference either way.
Personally, I think he didn't exist. There's a surprise! lol.

[ringstrue]

I really hate that Christian institutions concentrate on celibacy so much, especially still today, when it's been so well document that it was part of specific movements whose context isn't applicable now.

Sex in any context was never brought up in our church and I don't think I could stay on as a member of a church that felt it should be discussed in terms of virginity and "holiness" or "purity".

[karinothing]

I have never understood why people fight against the idea of him being married. I don't understand how that would change anything?

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2012 8:03:49 GMT -5 karinothing said:

I have never understood why people fight against the idea of him being married. I don't understand how that would change anything?

Because it would make him "normal" and a messiah cant be normal. No one wants to think of their god enthralled by a lover, and they certainly dont want to think of him doing the dirty lol. Also, men like telling women what to do - see all the religions for details - and marriage would elevate the woman to a position of equal.

[ringstrue]

Jesus didn't start the celibacy wave, but knowing he was married could calm certain people down if they were previously thinking that celibacy was the "only" way to practice their religion to the extent they wanted.

[doctorwho]

Sept 19, 2012 8:09:39 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Sept 19, 2012 8:03:49 GMT -5 karinothing said:

I have never understood why people fight against the idea of him being married. I don't understand how that would change anything?

Because it would make him "normal" and a messiah cant be normal. No one wants to think of their god enthralled by a lover, and they certainly dont want to think of him doing the dirty lol. Also, men like telling women what to do - see all the religions for details - and marriage would elevate the woman to a position of equal.

The Romans & Greeks thought about gods gettin' down all.the.time.
Personally, I think its more likely that Jesus existed. A single rabble-rousing rabbi is a more likely explanation than a conglomerate of philosophers inventing a fictitious narrative a century later. I don't think theres a chance in hell that Mary & Joseph didn't marry off their firstborn son, though. Well before his ministry. That whole bit is silly.

What would be unsurprising is if it was just politically & socially expedient to leave women out, or perhsps just unnecessary to include them, as a way of barring already existing womens religious institutiins from converting wholesale & amassing power.

[doctorwho]

Also, I'm extremely skeptical of this scrap, & we have no idea what the end of that sentence was. I don't know anything about Coptic - are we even sure 'My wife' is the subject? Could he be saying he's married to his ministry & the church? Maybe he's saying 'my wife made you guys some sandwiches'...interesting, but hardly a basis for women in the priesthood.

[karinothing]

I thought most Gods throughout history were all about "the sex." I am Catholic and have no problem thinking of Jesus having sex. I mean he was God in man form. Thus he assumingly did man things.

[Deleted]

up next. God had a wife (old testament)

[pixy0stix]

I do think that Jesus existed, historically. It's just that his significance at the time was so small that he was barely a blip on the radar of most people. His only impact would have been on his disciples, his family, and the people he preached to... which in the grand scheme of things weren't very many people at all.

[pixy0stix]

Sept 19, 2012 8:46:52 GMT -5 karinothing said:

I thought most Gods throughout history were all about "the sex.

Sex is important in a lot of religions. Hence why the Christians, when ratifying the Bible, were so anxious to get rid of it to distinguish themselves from all the other religions out there.

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 8:03:49 GMT -5 karinothing said:

I have never understood why people fight against the idea of him being married. I don't understand how that would change anything?

Catholicism would become...



(You've seen Dogma, right? Tell me you've seen Dogma! Because there's some funny brilliant stuff right there! Everybody should see Dogma. www.imdb.com/title/tt0120655/ )

[secretlyevil]

Sept 18, 2012 22:24:07 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

Sept 18, 2012 22:17:07 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Mary Magdalene?

...via mobile.

That was the assumption I made.

My assumption as well and then I thought about the Magdalene Triology. I'm not a conspiracy theorist per se but there is a whole of stuff in those books that just seem overtly logical, which religion is not, historically.

Dan Brown might have a field day with this.

[mominatrix]

See, I'm around a lot of people who read/belive/put out/ talk about stuff like is in this article:

www.llewellyn.com/journal/article/659

so, this is the sort of thing that just lends credence to what I've been hearing for years.

[teflep]

Sept 19, 2012 9:23:37 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

Sept 18, 2012 22:24:07 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

That was the assumption I made.

My assumption as well and then I thought about the Magdalene Triology. I'm not a conspiracy theorist per se but there is a whole of stuff in those books that just seem overtly logical, which religion is not, historically.

Dan Brown might have a field day with this.

He already wrote about this in Davincincode. He's probably all "told you so" dancing

[Deleted]

I find this fascinating - the fact that there is a scrap of paper from the 4th century that I imagine must have been relatively recently found and translated and that indicates Jesus had a wife. Just super cool. I always thought he had a wife just because it makes sense for that time but having something more than just "it makes sense" to support that is cool too lol.

[ringstrue]

But did she or did she not "Know how to love him. What to do, how to move him"? That's the real question.

;D ;D ;D ;D

[msmerymac]

Sept 19, 2012 8:09:39 GMT -5 @reeve said:

Sept 19, 2012 8:03:49 GMT -5 karinothing said:

I have never understood why people fight against the idea of him being married. I don't understand how that would change anything?

Because it would make him "normal" and a messiah cant be normal. No one wants to think of their god enthralled by a lover, and they certainly dont want to think of him doing the dirty lol. Also, men like telling women what to do - see all the religions for details - and marriage would elevate the woman to a position of equal.

I disagree. The stance of the Catholic Church is that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. He was God incarnate. As a physical human being. Not a demi-god, like Hercules. I think having a wife 1) makes sense for a person of his station in the time in which he lived (a skilled Jewish craftsman) and 2) would emphasize the human side of Jesus. (Hey, he was like you! Except born of a virgin and God was his literal father!)

Also, since when has Christianity said marriage was ever equal?

I do agree that the celibacy thing is weird and unnatural. And wasn't even an issue until several centuries after the Church was created. And not even really enforced for... well, ever. Maybe more in the 20th/21st century than before, but priests having "housekeepers" and bishops giving their sons positions in the church were open secrets.

[doctordonna]

Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln just went "Fuck yes!" and did a fist pump.

[2vermont]

Sept 18, 2012 22:03:04 GMT -5 @maggie78 said:

www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10835094

She says it doesn't prove Jesus was married but speaks to issues of family and marriage that faced Christians.

If wife means wife, then why doesn't it prove Jesus was married/had a wife?

There's more to this.

[basilosaurus]

Sorry, mominatrix, I hadn't come back to this thread to see your question.

Bunny basically covered it. No contemporaneous historian, despite historians of that time being generally very good. It was an era with many messianic cults. I find the theory that there were many jesuses that combined in a game of telephone to be pretty compelling. Plus, he wasn't the first religious figure born of a virgin or to beat death. Those aspects had long been aspects of mythology. See: Osiris.

Just look at the the 4 gospels and how they differ on the discovery of the empty tomb. Mary was alone, she wasn't alone. The rock was rolled away, no it wasn't. That's the kind of thing you expect with urban legends based on a similar kernel.

But, my comment was mostly TIC b/c I've mentioned it before, and had a mini discussion about it.

[Michelle]

It is curious that no one has brought up the whole original-sin-being-washed-away-because-of-his-death thing.

If Jesus had a wife, then he had carnal impulses. If he had carnal impulses he couldn't be "pure" or without sin. Him being without sin upon birth is what allows his death to wash away the sins the rest of us are born with because of Adam and Eve.

So the whole salvation through baptism thing would be thrown out. That would rock the foundation of the Christian faith pretty substantially.