Good question - let's ask an expert:
Posted on 04/14/2014 9:05:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The internet has been abuzz with intriguing headlines announcing that scholars have determined that the so-called “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” papyrus is “authentic” and that there is “no forgery evidence” in the manuscript.
What exactly does this mean? And should Christians be concerned that a new discovery might contradict the biblical account and undermine their faith?
Actually, the report from scholars working with the Harvard Divinity School found that the manuscript is much younger than previously thought – in other words, it is even further removed from the time of the New Testament than scholars originally believed – meaning that, at most, it is a very late myth without a stitch of historical support.
What the report did say was that there was no evidence that any part of this small manuscript had been forged, so what was written was “authentic” in terms of not being the work of a modern forger.
But the scholars did not determine that the apparent reference to Jesus having a wife was authentic. How could they?
As New Testament scholar Darrell Bock observed back in September, 2012 when the find was first announced, “In the New Testament, the church is presented as the bride of Christ. And then in Gnostic Christianity in particular, there’s a ritual - about which we don't know very much - that portrayed the church as the bride of Christ. So we could simply have a metaphorical reference to the church as the bride, or the wife, of Christ.”
And what if this text recorded Jesus as saying that one of his disciples would be his wife?
Bock explained that, “This would be the first text - out of hundreds of texts that we have about Jesus - that would indicate that he was married, if it’s even saying that. So to suggest that one text overturns multiple texts, and multiple centuries, of what has been said about Jesus and what’s been articulated about him, I think is not a very wise place to go, just simply from a historical point of view.”
Initially, when Harvard professor Karen King learned about this papyrus fragment written in the Coptic language, which was used by the ancient, heretical, Gnostic Christians, she thought it might have been a forgery, as did other scholars, especially from the Vatican. But upon further study, she concluded it was not, dating it to the fourth century A.D.
Yet how seriously should we take a fourth century report about Jesus, who was crucified around 30 A.D., especially when it contradicts every other piece of evidence we have about Jesus up to that time? As Prof. Bock said, this “is not a very wise place to go, just simply from a historical point of view.”
To give you a parallel example, how seriously would future historians take a report written 300 years after Pearl Harbor that contradicted every single report that preceded it, including all reports from all eye witnesses?
But the latest report – the one creating such a stir – claims that the tiny manuscript should not be dated to the fourth century. Instead, scholars have now dated it to approximately 741 A.D., meaning, more than 700 years after the time of Jesus. What kind of “evidence” is this?
It would be similar to historians 1,000 years from now finding a letter written in the year 2510 claiming that George Washington, who died in 1799, was actually an alien from Mars. How seriously would it be taken? (Come to think of it, the Ancient Aliens series has probably made a similar claim already!)
There remains no evidence of any kind that Jesus had a wife (note to the reader: Dan Brown’s fictional The Da Vinci Code is not evidence), and the only thing scholars did was determine that this small papyrus fragment was not a modern forgery, although it was hundreds of years younger than they originally thought.
Of course, it is still not totally clear that the manuscript even claims Jesus had a wife, but we know that within 150 years of the time of Jesus, there were fictional gospels circulating with all kinds of bogus claims. Should it surprise us, then, that many centuries later, another fictitious account with yet another new claim would be written down?
Unfortunately, many casual readers and skeptics now think that some “authentic” new evidence has been discovered supporting the idea that Jesus was married, and even Christians are asking if they should be concerned about this latest find.
Rest assured that nothing has been discovered that even remotely challenges the biblical account, and if this very late text does imply that Jesus had a wife, what we have is an authentic fabrication and nothing more.
I beg to differ.
Good question - let's ask an expert:
It’s a fascinating idea to ponder. My faith, one way or another, is unshakable. But my experience, wisdom and relationship with Christ has allowed me to evolve in my understanding of what sort of personality he had; knowing his character. So I keep an open mind.
I was raised Catholic and still practice today with my family. But the image I had of a child as this gentle, quiet, humble (almost feeble) man was wrong. And it has evolved since I was enlightened by a realistic understanding of HUMAN behavior. Human’s gravitate to strong leaders. A leader’s influence relies on two important things: 1) Their following and 2) Their mission. I now understand the more the human side of our Lord; Charismatic, passionate, action orientated, led by example, unafraid, outspoken, opinionated, but still gentle, understanding, compassionate. Jesus showed anger and defiance but remained steadfastly unwavering even as he was tortured and put to death.
If I ever did come to believe he may have been married (and/or the disciples), I’d only be more intrigued and enlightened by our Lord and Savior.
Jewish men under Torah are allowed to marry up to 18 Jewish women although polygamy was banned by a European rabbi about 1000 years ago.
What if the Christian’s deified rabbi was married to 18 women plus all of the women he might have had? Now multiply the temptation of a married man with 18 wives and compare that a single Jewish man?
That’s a ginormous ball and chain that would be very tempting to get away from compared to the temptation a single Jewish man would face.
What has being married got to do with temptations of the flesh, aside - possibly - from succumbing to them?
We were instructed by Paul to avoid foolish controversy and stupid speculations. This is one of them. End of discussion
Typo...
“...married to 18 women plus all of the women he might have had?”
Should be...
“... married to 18 women plus all of the children he might have had?”
Big deal. Dark Ages fanfic.
Many of these false Gospels seem to come from the same source and usually only one copy. Whereas there are numerous copies of the Four Gospels and they corroborate one another like in a courtroom.
In court you count on the first hand witnesses to avoid hearsay. Sound like this document is more hearsay.
But not his Mother?
Because, being God, He knew and understood the temptations of His own creation. He did not come to earth in the flesh to gain a better understanding of the world, but to save the world.
RE: But not his Mother?
You can choose to have a wife, you can’t decide whether or not you’ll have a mother.
Bible doesn't say that...In fact, God tell us that:
Heb_4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Jesus was sinless by choice, not by birth...
It don’t make me any difference if Jesus had a wife or not but the religious scholars has to keep the money flowing into their bank accounts just like every one else so there is no don`t doubt we will keep on hearing this drivel.
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same: that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
It is a devil teaching that promotes this notion that Christ would have been tempted by women, either in marriage to one or a sexual tryst in some oak or fig grove.
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
In the understanding of the ancient Israelites, there are three ways man is tempted... the Lust of the Flesh, the Lust of the Eyes and the Pride of Life. 1 John 2:16 references this. The Lust of Flesh is an obvious temptation to giving in to fleshly appetites... sex is one... food is an even greater imperative, when needed. The Lust of the Eyes is avarice in wanting all that you see. The Pride of Life is a desire to make yourself greater than God wills you to be... see the Tower of Babel and other usurpations.
In the Garden of Eden, this is where Adam and Eve failed. When they succumbed, the Bible records that the fruit was "good for food (flesh), pleasing to the eyes (eyes) and profitable to make one wise (pride)." This is code-speak for an Israelite to understand that they were tempted in every way.
Where Adam and Eve failed, Christ succeeded. Although bone-hungry after a 40 days fast in the desert, He didn't give in to the Devil's temptation to make rocks into bread. Although He came to call all peoples to Himself through His death and resurrection (a cup He didn't personally want, if you read His prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane), He spurned the Devil's offer to give them to Him in exchange for worship. Although He is God in the flesh and the Angels attend to Him, He declined to show His power and glory by throwing Himself from the parapet of the Temple to be rescued by Angels in the sight of all.
After Our Lord's temptations, the Bible records that He had been tested in all ways. He didn't need to be married to experience human temptation.
If you believe this might be true you do not really believe the Bible.
What you posted does not in any way contradict that understanding of the greater truth.
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.