Posted on 04/11/2014 6:35:46 AM PDT by Renfield
In 2012, Harvard researcher Karen King revealed the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife."
A small piece of papyrus, the lightly worn document was written in Coptic Egyptian, with parts missing and ink faded, and didn't say much. But what it did say, wrote Ariel Sabar in Smithsonian Magazine two years ago was enough to “send jolts through the world of biblical scholarship—and beyond.”
The fragment’s 33 words, scattered across 14 incomplete lines, leave a good deal to interpretation. But in King’s analysis, and as she argues in a forthcoming article in the Harvard Theological Review, the “wife” Jesus refers to is probably Mary Magdalene, and Jesus appears to be defending her against someone, perhaps one of the male disciples.
“She will be able to be my disciple,” Jesus replies. Then, two lines later, he says: “I dwell with her.”
The papyrus was a stunner: the first and only known text from antiquity to depict a married Jesus.
The new document had a curious past. It was given to King by an anonymous source, and, as Sabar notes, some pieces of the papyrus' history seemed a little too convenient. It didn't take long for the suggestion that the new gospel was a forgery to arise. (Indeed, the possibility was a reservation of King's.)
According to new research, however, scientists are now largely certain that the document is a true piece of early text, and not a modern forgery. Spectroscopic analysis of the ink, says the New York Times, revealed the text was from thousands of years ago.....
(Excerpt) Read more at smithsonianmag.com ...
Both of you are making an argument that’s like saying, “The early Christians in Rome didn’t speak Latin; they spoke Greek.” While a Latin version of the gospel from the 2nd century found in Italy would be big news, it’s fundamentally wrong to suggest that “Christians in Rome” did not speak Latin. ESPECIALLY since the Muslims in 8th-century Egypt would be newcomers, it makes sense to translate something into the local langugae, especially something which is neither Sunnah nor Quran.
He died for me. That’s why I’m saved. The Gospels are mostly an account of how he died.
aka Joshua
The Goths didn't stop to learn Latin while they were pillaging, for example.
It was only later that they acculturated.
The Arabs did not acculturate to Coptic Egypt. They spent centuries imposing Arabic language and religion on the Copts, a process they never fully succeeded in completing.
Greek speakers had been living in Rome for centuries by the time Christianity spread to Rome from Greece and Judaea.
The Romans conquered the Greeks and imported them to Rome.
The Arabs conquered the Copts and sent in settlers from Arabia.
The situation is not to be equated to the situation of Greek-or-Latin speaking Christians in Rome, because the Muslims did not proselytize by translating their religious writings into native languages; rather, they required proselytes to read and recite in Arabic.
This is because of their theological tenet that Arabic is, literally, Allah's invention and his chosen language; that the Koran was literally dictated by him, ipsissisi verbi in words too ineffable to put in any other language.
After Uthman canonized the Koran in 600 whatever, he ordered all variant text to be burned. After that, those producing theological texts in any other version or language would be prosecuted. Even in the early 8th century only a single sura of the Koran had been translated into Persian; it was only in the 10th century that a complete Koran was translated into Persian.
What I'm saying is not only true of the Koran itself; but it reflects to a large extent on all Muslim religious writings. I don't think Christianity ever regarded Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or Latin as being the indispensable hieratic languages the way the Muslims regarded Arabic.
So, although I'm no more than guessing, as you are, nevertheless I would incline to the hypothesis that the source here is Coptic-Gnostic rather than Muslim.
SEVENTY-ONE chapters on Jesus' ministry and miracles
These EIGHTEEN chapters are on his passion, death, resurrection and ascension.
How can anyone forget how much we are loved by God?
I wouldn't have challenged your account except for a VAGUE disquiet in my mind. I go to daily Mass and hear the daily readings of the Gospel. Most are about His ministry and miracles. He lived 33 years but the last three were His years of preaching and then practicing what He preached. [They are in a three-year cycle, FYI.]
Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday and...EASTER are about His passion, death and resurrection, OUR salvation. Those are the EIGHTEEN other chapters in the New Testament.
==================================
MATTHEW
Chapters 1-25: Jesus' 3-year ministry
Chapters 26-28: Last Supper through the crucifixion, death, resurrection and commission of the Apostles
==================================
MARK
Chapters 1-13: Jesus' three year ministry
Chapters 14-16: Last Supper through the crucifixion, death and resurrection and commission of the Apostles and Ascension
==================================
LUKE
Chapters 1-21: Birth of Jesus, John the Baptist, Jesus' three year ministry
Chapters 22-24: Last Supper through the crucifixion, death and resurrection and commission of the Apostles
==================================
JOHN
Chapters 1-12: "In the beginning was the Word..." Jesus' three year ministry
Chapters 13-21: Last Supper through the crucifixion, death, resurrection and ending with Primacy of Peter.
Now Pope Francis, who took the name from St. Francis of Assisi, is the current successor of St. Peter and current Vicar of His Church on earth. He is Francis I because he is the very first pope to choose the name of Francis for his papacy.
==================================
My Bible (Confraternity version) was printed in 1958.
I think I'll sit and read it for a while. THANK YOU, Mercat, for tickling my intellect.
And YES, Jesus suffered and died for me and that is why I am saved.
Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ, King of endless glory!
Hola, Chuey.
There was a San Francisco Giant named Jesus Alou--CHUEY Alou. Folks got used to the name and there have been MANY Hispanic men named such. It's NOT popular with Anglo names but the Spanish-speaking people sure took to it.
The name "Jesus" generally means, appropriately, "DELIVERER."
I googled it.
Of course, Google doesn't know everything!
Does it??????? :o)
Just because a gospel was rejected by the politicians who were most succesful in ruling the church doesn’t mean they are any more true or false that the gospels that were chosen to be included. The words may be inspired from God, but the selection of which works to approve was done by men.
At the time Christianity was developing it was in direct competition with Mithraism. This was a very masculine cult, with blood initiations and favored by Roman soldiers. It certainly did not include marriage for its god. Perhaps marriage was underplayed to appeal to adherants of that group. I also think one reason it died was that there was no role for women in it at all.
Monk was Episcopal who told me Jesus lived for me. His message was more powerful than his blood—the death was only a confirmation of his message.
Nothing in heaven or earth is more powerful than the blood of Jesus, blood which is capable of washing away our sins and making us righteous before God.
It was primarily the sacrificial offering of His life to atone for our sins. Confirmation of His message ---yes, that too. I don't see these ends as being in competition. Peace to you.
Yes; mine at #73.
I meant, something “new.” Arthritic fingers on the keys.
My understanding is that being married would be normal for a Jewish male of Jesus’ age. Why is Jesus Christ marrying an issue?
At issue is someone claiming a document 700 years after Christ is authentic.
It isn’t.
FWIW, The Apostle Paul specifically says he did not marry.
Paul doesn’t say he never married. Also, I thought that the document itself is authentic by age, but uncertain as to content, right?
Yes, indeed. It was a common name and that makes sense since Jesus was born of a poor family.
When I went to Israel on a tour with Steve & Janet Ray (He's a convert from VERY strict Baptist background.) we learned that Joseph was probably NOT a carpenter because Joseph was a poor man and poor men did not have "professions."
Joseph, and later Jesus, PROBABLY worked in the limestone mines which still honeycomb the entire area. Those mines are still worked. That makes sense to me too.
It doesn't matter but it's nice to hear these things.
Somebody digs up scrap papyrus from 1500 years ago or thereabouts that has “Jesus” and “wife” on it, and they go, non-ironically, “Jesus had a wife? Sounds legit.”
We note that the Bible has four accounts of Jesus’ life, and 23 other letters and books, all attested to have existed back to the first century or very shortly thereafter, none, and I mean none, of which mention Jesus having a wife, and they go all Jeff Lebowski on us: “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.