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.
And those pagan worship centers had the signs changed out front after 312 when Constantine did a corporate take over of the B’nai Noach movement and turned them into churches.
this is fascinating to me, would you mind sharing with us how Constantine was able to do this? were there any “real” Christians alive when Constantine accomplished this great feat? if yes, did they have names and did they oppose this “corporate takeover”
i am always willing to learn and what you describe is not found in any history books, so i am anxious to learn more.
Luke a medical doctor wrote Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
Luke as a medical doctor would know the difference in ‘first’ born and ‘only’ born. Get prepared to find out Mary was a loving wife to Joseph and had other live birth children. Why is there a made up exemption for Mary to practice birth control????????
Yes, the claims are absurd, but for most people it’s enough to muddy the waters, and just in time for Easter family get-together. Thanks MSM.
Common misconception. There was One Church in many places. There was The Church in Ephesus, The Church in Corinth, The Church in Rome, et al.
I do not agree
That's your right. Consider, though, the question of authority. The Epistles were written to the Churches to build up their faith and correct what was flagging. By what authority would these be written to multiple churches if they were not from the authority of One common Church? One common Faith?
For example... would a Baptist authority be respected in a Catholic Church or vice versa? No. There was One Faith, One Body, One Church united under One Christ Who is building up His Bride. Feel free to disagree but your disagreement isn't ultimately with me.
You mean to say that there is a seamless flow from Jew to Christian in how we understand His Commandments? Fascinating. It’s almost like you’re affirming that from age to age God doesn’t change... though our understanding of Him may grow.
Or... perhaps Luke, as a medical doctor, was obliquely affirming her virginity. There were no other births before this one. It doesn't have to be a statement of all that occurred thereafter.
“I do not agree”
Care to share how the Corinthian Church differed in doctrine from the Roman or Jerusalem Church?
Of course God doesn’t change. Never has, never will. It’s us who change in our understanding of Him.
Not to mention the Roman Centurian.
No air either. Sure hope he doesn't get any sinus congestion.
... and people say Catholics are legalistic... sheesh!
I'm in awe every time I witness a miracle... we actually agree! May God bless you.
There ya go!
He was trying to set a better example of how Jews should treat non-Jews.
Bummer. Agreement didn't last long.
Have you read the story in context? Jesus wasn't being nice, He was telling the Samaritan that the day was coming when it wouldn't only be Jews worshiping God in the Temple but all people worshiping in all places (in Spirit and Truth).
He was telling the Samaritan of the prophecy given by Isaiah 56:7.
4 For this is what the Lord says:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.
6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord
to minister to him,
to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.”
8 The Sovereign Lord declares—
he who gathers the exiles of Israel:
“I will gather still others to them
besides those already gathered.”
He’s talking about the B’nai Noach.
With all due respect, you simply do not know what you are talking about.
'First-born' is a term in Jewish tradition. The first-born is the first male born. The first-born has status of principal heir and successor of his father as head of the family. It does not refer to the order of birth of children, only male children. If I was Jewish, the fifth child, with four older sisters, I would still be the first-born.
Really? Because it sure sounds like a future gathering. As I understand B'nai Noach, you essentially believe in the family of man (all who are descended from Noah after the flood). Yet, we have that brotherhood simply by birth. What is missing is the Spirit of God. The real fulfillment of the prophecy you cited is Christ bringing home the Family of God in the New Covenant.
There are only two kinds of people in the world - Jews (leaders) and non-Jews(followers). The Jews are in charge of leading the world back to the Eyn Sof.
The B’nai Noach movement was re-started by Vendyl Jones in the mid-1960s. It has been growing ever since. Jews, also, started coming back to Torah and the synagogue in the early ‘60s per the Prophets of yore. It happened in America and Russia at the same time plus other places around the world. The one rabbi I have heard talk about this who actually witnessed this at the synagogue he was a rabbi of on the East Coast was flabbergasted along with his fellow rabbis since it had never occurred before. Jews had been fleeing Judaism for 3,000 years and then this happens!
You have to remember that the people you call Christians in the very early days were not Christians at all - they were B’nai Noach. (Boy, am I going to ruffle some feathers now!)
The B’nai Noach movement began about 100 years before the Renegade Rabbi (I say ‘renegade’ in a positive sense in this context) showed up. By the time of his death and the Jewish holiday of Shavuot afterward (aka Pentecost) the whole B’nai Noach movement just exploded.
Ancient Rome tried to stop it as much as they could but at some point they realized no matter how much they tried it just made the movement grow larger. So Constantine got smart in 312 and said, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em, with the result being the co-opting of the B’nai Noach movement and incorporating them into the pagan temples by changing the sign out front to say church, changing the rest day to the first day of the week (aka Sunday), deifying the Renegad Rabbi so the pagans could still hold on to the belief that the gods were superhumans (part gods and part man) thus replacing the Eyn Sof with a physical imitation (even rabbis can’t be a god(s) or the Eyn Sof, and creating a New Testament that could be the replacement for the Torah.
It brought the world a little closer to Torah and the Eyn Sof by bringing the number of gods worshiped from 30,000 at the time down to one and spreading the culture and mindset of Torah to them with the rest being history.
OTOH, it stopped the B’nai Noach movement in its tracks until the mid-1960s.
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.