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 agree, Mary was a chaste wife who had other children.
BS. It is you who cannot support your man-made beliefs with Scripture. You make up things that are not in Scripture.
Answer the question - "Show me in Scripture where anyone other than Jesus is referred to as the Child of Mary."
Crickets, lies or obfuscation is your only response.
He is a groom for one bride, the Church.
All 500 boys? You did not. I checked all your posts. Repost them or tell me the post#.
They had to be her boys, literally, because the only way they were blood related to Christ would be through Mary.
BS. Only Christ is called a child of Mary in Scripture. You are just making things up to support your man-made beliefs. Scripture says Christ had 500 brothers, and Abraham and Lot were brothers. Brother CANNOT mean 'son of the same mother' in all cases if you believe Scripture.
There is nothing 'extra' spiritual given in the text to fill the claim these boys were only brothers in spirit.
There is NOTHING in Scripture to say these any of these boys were a child of Mary. You are just making that up to support your man-made belief.
That is a tradition of men made up to claim Mary is a deity.
I know nobody who claims this belief, except people like you.
Jesus was not, never was, married. There is absolutely NOTHING, anywhere, that says He was. That is MAN making up thing to try to put himself on the same level as God. If Jesus had married, then He was like us, the same. But, He wasn’t. Believe any garbage you might, you are WRONG.
This is where your man-made belief confuses you. You start with that premise, and you BELIEVE and accept as fact the brothers of Christ mentioned in Scripture were blood related. You want to believe this, because it supports your man-made religion. But there is no Scripture to support your made-up belief. Brother does not mean son of the same mother in Scripture. Christ had at least 500 'brothers' and Abraham and Lot were brothers, according to Scripture.
You are simply wrong, and cannot support your beliefs from Scripture.
I just posted it...You have chosen to reject scripture in favor of your religious customs...Your problem, not mine...
There is no evidence in Scripture that Mary had other children. It is only by assumption that one can make that claim because no one other than Jesus is named as a child of Mary. Also, no one in Scripture is named as a child of Joseph much less as one of both.
I do understand why some hold the position that Mary and Joseph had children but that is not solidly supported in Scripture.
In considering both positions, I believe the early church writers and subsequent theologians who taught that Mary remained a virgin and had no other children.
With no Scripture to support the opposite belief, there is no question in my mind that the latter position is incorrect and was mainly developed out of anti Catholicism rather than real exegesis.
Guys, calm down. You’re trying too hard to justify your own position. It was known to the early Church that Joseph was a widower with grown children when Mary was given to him. Not every mention of “brother” in Scripture refers to natural brothers... but it is easily possible that some do.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that Jesus had siblings AND that Mary had no other children. Does this really have to cause to much trouble between us?
You know, of course, the conundrum this causes the RCC. Now they have to acknowledge James, the BROTHER OF GOD!
You are delusional. Scripture clearly says Jesus is the child of Mary. You can show NO Scripture whatsoever that shows Mary had another child. Yes, you can show Jesus had 500 Brothers. Yes, you can show Abraham and Lot were brothers. But you cannot show in Scripture that anyone other than Jesus was a child of Mary. Brother of Jesus, yes. Child of Mary, NO!
You are delusional
You are blind to the words of Scripture.
You look at Scripture through the lens of your man-made beliefs.
That's crazy...There is tons of scripture to support the idea of Mary having a brood of kids which has been posted countless times...There is zero support for Mary being sinless and celibate...
Nothing but a fable put out by your religion...Every mention of brother and sister in the NT is a reference to a blood brother or an ecclesiastical brother/sister...It has no reference to cousin or kin...
Therefore, it is entirely possible that Jesus had siblings AND that Mary had no other children. Does this really have to cause to much trouble between us?
Not possible at all...
Really, then show us where Mary was sinless...Show us where Mary was a perpetual virgin...
Great. You can't answer a question so you change the topic. Typical of someone who knows they are wrong.
You are delusional
You are blind to the words of Scripture.
You look at Scripture through the lens of your man-made beliefs.
FYI
If I am wrong, prove it. Post the Scripture that calls anyone other than Jesus the child of Mary. Two of the “brothers” mentioned in Matthew 13, James and Joses or Joseph, are elsewhere named as the sons of Mary, the wife of Cleopas who is Mary’s sister or sister in law or possible even a cousin. That would indicate then that the other two mentioned in Matthew 13, Simon and Jude, are also the sons of Mary of Cleopas.
In the story of Easter morning, when the women go to the tomb to anoint Jesus, Mary is called the mother of James. This obviously could not be Jesus’ mother who is always identified with her Son. Further proof that the James mentioned in Matthew is not Mary’s son.
Therefore, in Matthew, the most direct mention of Jesus’ “siblings”, those mentioned are not Mary’s children, but those of the other Mary. The same could then be said about the sisters mentioned there.
In light of this cross reference, it is completely logical to see that Scripture does call people who were not Jesus’ actual siblings, his brothers.
It is easy to take one or two verses and try to make the case that Joseph and Mary had children, but as I said, Scripture does not clearly identify any others as Mary’s children.
The fact that there are so many similar or same names for different people throughout the NT is confusing. That is why cross referencing varying verses is important. Even with that there are disagreements about some of those named in the NT and their relationships to each other.
Anyone to unequivocally declares that Scripture says that Jesus had brothers and sisters who were children of Mary and Joseph is reading into Scripture what they want to see and not what is actually written.
I answered your question...Twice...You told me I was blind to the scripture...I said show the scripture...You failed...
are you certain you want to claim the whole psalm is about Jesus ?
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.