Note: this topic was posted 4/14/2014. Thanks SeekAndFind.
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.
The Holy Spirit and Paul identified David as the source of Psalm 69 in Romans 11.
He however at that time may not have known he was or would be sinless...Jesus was certainly bothered by the intimidation from his siblings...Perhaps he had thoughts that he figured might be sinful... And for what reason would you deny vs. 8 belongs to Jesus???
Yes, I attribute the entire Psalm to David, except for the dual fulfillment by Jesus as described in NT scriptures. I believed Jesus was God in the flesh, filled with the Spirit of God always, and never would have thought he sinned. He was never separated from God the Father until his death. Do you believe Jesus was confused about his nature, and if so until what age ? And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
"and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children." Matthew 27:56
You should read the Bible sometimes. Scripture is really not clear if Mary or Salome (or both) was the wife of Zebedee. The construction of this passage could go either way.
Christ fulfilled the prophesies of the Old Testament. It is relevant. But we are talking (well, at least I am) abouts the facts the New Testament documents - what actually happened. You should take a course in logic and reason. It would help having a rational discussion, instead of you just making up stuff. Obfuscation, changing the topic and REFUSING TO ANSWER SIMPLE QUESTIONS!!
how would they have known???
That is because the Bible wasn't written in English, it was written in Greek and Hebrew both of which have names which translate to the English name, Mary.
Kin can mean brothers, sisters, cousins, friends, countrymen...And he does not place those kin in his own house...
Jesus is speaking of the house of David and not his earthly home.
I don't see where Alphaeus and Cleophas are the same person...I don't see any mention of the sons of Cleophas...
There are scholars who believe that they are the same man, I didn't invent that out of thin air. Also, Cleophas' wife is named as such and with her, their children.
.Those children's names match some of the names of the children attributed to Mary the mother of Jesus...One inclues a female name...
This is an example of wanting to see in Scripture what is not there. I have already shown where the children that you claim are attributed to Mary are the children of Mary of Clopas. There is no where that the Mother of Jesus is called or identified with other children.
There are at least six Marys in the NT, that is why after the annunciation and nativity narratives, Mary is always linked to Jesus as a means of distinguishing her.
If Mary was the wife of Zebedee, then James and Joses were not Zebedee's children...There's only one way that can be read...Mary is one person and the mother of Zebedee's children is another...
I'll leave the philosophy classes to you Catholics...Jesus warned against those but then when did it matter to Catholics what Jesus said...
That was a response of the flesh, not of the Spirit.
Catholics cared so much about what Jesus said that they not preserved the Scriptures, along with the Jews. They publicly read and confess what Jesus said in their services. Protesting Catholics does not make one a Christian.
Now everything you say makes sense - you believe using logic and reason is a sin.
Not a sin per se'...But it is useless when trying to understand the things of God...Or most things for that matter...
It's like having a book telling you every thing you need to know about a topic...So instead of reading the instructions, you close the book and engage your little brain...
Logic and reason are for people who don't 'know' something...It's nothing more than a guess and of course every one thinks their guess is better than the other guy's...And then brag about their brilliance...
If you've got the book, can your simple logic and learn some facts...
Right. Like when Christ repeatedly says, "This is my Body" you close your mind to the clear instructions in the book, because you "know" something that is not written. So you close the book, engage your little brain, change the word in the instructions from "is" to "represents", and obfuscate. Everything makes sense now that we know you think logic and reason is sinful.
It is a lot easier when you can simply make up anything you want to believe, "know" it with certainty, and don't have to use logic or reason to defend it.
Note: this topic was posted 4/14/2014. Thanks SeekAndFind.
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.
