Evidence that Jesus had Wife Emerge

[Unification]

"The truth may be finally emerging about the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife," a controversial papyrus suggesting that some people believed Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene

New research on the papyrus' ink points to the possibility that it is authentic, researchers say, while newly obtained documents may shed light on the origins of the business-card-sized fragment.

​

Translation:

1) ... not [to] me, my mother gave to me li[fe] ...

2) The disciples said to Jesus, "...

3) ... deny. Mary is worthy of it ... (or, alternatively, Mary is not worth of it ...)

4) ..." Jesus said to them, "My wife ...

5) ... she will be able to be my disciple ...

6) Let wicked people swell up ...

7) As for me, I dwell with her in order to ...

8) ... an image ...​

Analysis of the papyrus, detailed last year in the Harvard Theological Review journal, suggested the papyrus dates back around 1,200 years - somewhere between the sixth and ninth centuries - while the ink is of a type that could have been created at that time.

These findings have led [Harvard University professor, Karen] King to support the text's authenticity."
source​

Other than out and out pooh-poohing, anyone have a reasonable comment?

They are always mistold literally, historically, and fundamentally.

Magdala means high tower, a wife is the subconscious mind, to its husband-conscious mind. The two becoming one. Into one higher mind. Divine marriage, the two minds becoming one mind.

Mary is a reformed temple(subconscious mind) prostitute.

Jesus(conscious mind's) wife is the subconscious mind(Mary).

Mother and Father are the two spheres of the brain that give birth to knowledge, wisdom, thoughts, etc. That are fruitful and multiply within the brain and mind.

Male female principles. The conscious mind(male-husband) dwells with the subconscious mind(female-wife)

The bride of Christ, a reformed woman(subconscious mind) into purity and cleanliness. No more temple(mind) prostitution(lies).

 

[outhouse]

They are always mistold literally, historically, and fundamentally.

Magdala means high tower, a wife is the subconscious mind, to its husband-conscious mind. The two becoming one. Into one higher mind. Divine marriage, the two minds becoming one mind.

Mary is a reformed temple(subconscious mind) prostitute.

Jesus(conscious mind's) wife is the subconscious mind(Mary).

Mother and Father are the two spheres of the brain that give birth to knowledge, wisdom, thoughts, etc. That are fruitful and multiply within the brain and mind.

Male female principles. The conscious mind(male-husband) dwells with the subconscious mind(female-wife)

The bride of Christ, a reformed woman(subconscious mind) into purity and cleanliness. No more temple(mind) prostitution(lies).

100% word salad with no historical relevancy.


Looks like fantasy and imagination more then anything else.

 

[Skwim]

More and more people are waking up and starting to think for themselves. You'd be surprised how many people agree with me (if you actually sit and listen to me "preach"). There is a reason why (just as an example) Catholic attendance to mass has gone from 55% in 1965 (US numbers) to 24% in 2014. Granted, this decline is world wide and in every denomination. Churches are having to close their doors left and right because they can't afford to keep them open.

Yeah, Catholicism is in free-fall, and appears to be headed for an early demise. My advice to Catholics is to start looking for another denomination or religion to hook up with.

"There are 3 million fewer people calling themselves Catholic today than in 2007, the last time Pew conducted their extensive poll. As a result, the share of the U.S. population that identifies as Catholic dropped from approximately 24 percent to 21 percent.

But now it appears that the Catholic Church is in a demographic free-fall, as it sheds adherents faster than any faith other than the mainline Protestant denominations, which have been in decline for decades. Nearly one-third of all American adults were raised Catholic, but a stunning 41 percent—four in ten of those who marched to the alter in their little white First Communion dresses and suits—no longer identify with Catholicism.
source​

 

[Unification]

100% word salad with no historical relevancy.


Looks like fantasy and imagination more then anything else.

As a historical and literal hunter of myths, 2000 years ago, you would definitely know what fantasy and imagination are, imagining the myths in mind historically and literally.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"The truth may be finally emerging about the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife," a controversial papyrus suggesting that some people believed Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene...​

Other than out and out pooh-poohing, anyone have a reasonable comment?

King reported her findings in 2012, as she states in the "official", published study:
King, K. L. (2014). “Jesus said to them,‘My wife...'”: A New Coptic Papyrus Fragment. Harvard Theological Review, 107(02), 131-159.

King has argued that the text is not a forgery but is a copy of a text originally written in the 2nd century (not only after the canonical gospels were all written, but after the date given for one and perhaps two extant manuscripts- one of Mark, and the other of John). She claimed "The most historically reliable early Christian literature is silent about Jesus’s marital status, and the GJW fragment does not change that situation. It is not evidence that Jesus was married, but it does appear to support the favorable position on marriage and reproduction taken by the canonical 1 Timothy" (emphasis added).
King, K. L. (2014). “Jesus said to them,‘My wife...'”: A New Coptic Papyrus Fragment. Harvard Theological Review, 107(02), 131-159.
Several other scholars have disagreed:
Bernhard, A. (2015). The Gospel of Jesus' Wife: Textual Evidence of Modern Forgery. New Testament Studies, 61(03), 335-355.

or, from the same journal Dr. Karen King published her study in, "The following analysis submits that it is out of the question that the so-called Gospel of Jesus’s Wife, also known as the Wife of Jesus Fragment, is an authentic source. The author of this analysis has not the slightest doubt that the document is a forgery, and not a very good one at that."
Depuydt, L. (2014). The Alleged Gospel of Jesus's Wife: Assessment and Evaluation of Authenticity. Harvard Theological Review, 107(02), 172-189.

The relevant point is that the debate doesn't concern whether or not Jesus was married, as King specifically states that, even granting her position correct, it says nothing about the historical Jesus but rather reflects a later tradition ~100 years later and isn't evidence that he was or wasn't. The concern is whether the fragment is a forgery.

 

[outhouse]

I'm talking about the link on which your quote is based: [6] <------

The source skwim is actually a friend of mine. So you remain factually unsubstantiated.

Its why you keep making these weak statements, you cannot show what is actually biased because you don't really understand what going on here.

 

[outhouse]

The relevant point is that the debate doesn't concern whether or not Jesus was married, as King specifically states that, even granting her position correct, it says nothing about the historical Jesus but rather reflects a later tradition ~100 years later and isn't evidence that he was or wasn't. The concern is whether the fragment is a forgery.

And Op has been told this ad nauseam.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Addendum: For less technical sources, see the Harvard University site "The Gospel of Jesus's Wife", which includes e.g., a Q&A page:
"1. Does the Gospel of Jesus's Wife prove that Jesus was married?
No, this fragment does not provide evidence that Jesus was married. The comparatively late date of this Coptic papyrus (a seventh to eighth century c.e. fragment of a gospel perhaps composed in Greek as early as the second half of the second century) argues against its value as evidence for the life of the historical Jesus. Nor is there any reliable historical evidence to support the claim that he was not married, even though Christian tradition has long held that position. The oldest and most reliable evidence is entirely silent about Jesus’s marital status. The first claims that Jesus was not married are attested only in the late second century c.e., so if the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife was also composed in the second century c.e., it does provide evidence, however, that the whole question about Jesus’s marital status arose as part of the debates about sexuality and marriage that took place among early Christians at that time. From the very beginning, Christians disagreed about whether it was better to marry or to be celibate, but it was over a century after Jesus’ death before they began using Jesus’s marital status to support their different positions. Christian tradition preserved only those voices that claimed Jesus never married, but now another newly discovered writing, The Gospel of Philip, shows that some Christians claimed Jesus was married, probably already in the late second century." (source)
Also, I should have included links to the original draft paper King presented and at the least Watson's early critique, which are here & here.

 

[psychoslice]

Jesus would have had the same urges that we all have, its just that so many make an idol out of him, and idol that doesn't feel the pleasures of life, did he masturbate, did he touch his penis when taking a leak, of course he did, get over it.

 

[outhouse]

How can we know that what Mark said 80's later is accurate representation of any historical accuracy?

We know its not historically accurate, its why it takes anthropology to be able to place these text in context to study them.

40 years later not 80

He compiled written traditions (which we don't have) and oral traditions (which we also don't have).

And if you knew the topic you would know we don't even have the original copies of Mark either. We only have a fraction of the text created and nothing AT ALL from that time period. Most is a few hundred years after and then we only have fragments at best.

So, I guess I just fell to see how any given gospel can be claimed to be more factually accurate than any other, given that the smallest gap between Jesus and anyone who wrote about him was 80 years apart.

Not 80 years a part, I have no clue where you dug this up.

Paul wrote in the mid 50's and marks was 20 years later, not 80. With a decade or two later Matthew and Luke show up.

Mark tends to be held in higher regards because it is early. But no one is blindly attributing historicity to this willy nilly. Many things are not historical and the picture it gives up of Historical jesus is very very limited at best

 

[Skwim]

The source skwim is actually a friend of mine.

Then he shouldn't mind explaining where you went wrong. This "friend" of yours. And believe me, being a friend of yours hardly lends you any more credibility than if he was an enemy of yours.

 

[dust1n]

We know its not historically accurate, its why it takes anthropology to be able to place these text in context to study them.

40 years later not 80

The sources I'm looking at place the gospel of Mark being written 70 CE, that is the number I'm looking at keep referring to. So, 66 years supposedly.

And if you knew the topic you would know we don't even have the original copies of Mark either. We only have a fraction of the text created and nothing AT ALL from that time period. Most is a few hundred years after and then we only have fragments at best.

I'm aware no original gospel exists.

Not 80 years a part, I have no clue where you dug this up.

Paul wrote in the mid 50's and marks was 20 years later, not 80. With a decade or two later Matthew and Luke show up.

Mark tends to be held in higher regards because it is early. But no one is blindly attributing historicity to this willy nilly. Many things are not historical and the picture it gives up of Historical jesus is very very limited at best

Hmm, I'm not sure if you are actually contending with it. I guess I'm still just confused how to a written document supposedly told from one person to another who wrote it down, which was written down over and over, and the earliest document we have being even older than the supposed telling of the story, I just don't see much more value any given scripture than one written 700 years later.

 

[outhouse]

, I just don't see much more value any given scripture than one written 700 years later.

That's why you don't get to dictate history

First of all were talking about an illiterate society that could recite religious text verbatim just using oral traditions.

These books were written while people that were there, were still alive, and NO ONE refuted what was written. Or even complained about it, not even the enemies of he movement.


The closer you get to a source, the more accurate it can be. And no one is claiming Mark is accurate.


To throw this back at you, what do you think happened and when?


http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8265.html

This is the current state of historical Jesus study in context.


If you need help understanding it let me know, I can help.

 

[outhouse]

Then he shouldn't mind explaining where you went wrong

That is easy. Joining a thread where some have no clue of the current state of study is on various topics regarding the historicity of historical Jesus.

People who are known as anti theist with no real education on the topics, have no business trashing academia from ignorance.

Its why you keep making these weak statements, you cannot show what is actually biased because you don't really understand what going on here.

 

[Skwim]

Then he shouldn't mind explaining where you went wrong

That is easy. Joining a thread where some have no clue of the current state of study is on various topics regarding the historicity of historical Jesus.

People who are known as anti theist with no real education on the topics, have no business trashing academia from ignorance.

Its why you keep making these weak statements, you cannot show what is actually biased because you don't really understand what going on here.

With an irrelevant reply like this it's obvious I really hit the target, which pretty much ends the discussion. But go ahead and give us your last ad hom, at this point another doesn't matter. See you in another thread.

 

[outhouse]

you cannot show what is actually biased because you don't really understand what is going on here

 

[Unification]

you cannot show what is actually biased because you don't really understand what is going on here

Neither do you, a self-labeling strong atheist trying to understand myths and spiritual texts, historically yet are always the first to cast stones at others. What is the name of that religion? Being able to shun myths and fantasy, yet understand them historically and literally? To some degree, whether you're aware or not, you're a fundamentalist seeking a historical and academic Jesus just as many religious sects do.

 

[outhouse]

Neither do you, a self-labeling strong atheist trying to understand myths and spiritual texts, historically yet are always the first to cast stones at others. What is the name of that religion? Being able to shun myths and fantasy, yet understand them historically and literally? To some degree, whether you're aware or not, you're a fundamentalist seeking a historical and academic Jesus just as many religious sects do.

Word salad that amounts to unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Knowing what is or is not historical is academic, it is also on topic to this thread. This is NOT about theology or spirituality or your personal opinion.

 

[outhouse]

you're a fundamentalist

is this outright dishonesty?

Because your someone who calls education and knowledge and academia, fundamentalism. That means you self identify as fanaticism hating modern education you don't possess

 

[Unification]

is this outright dishonesty?

Because your someone who calls education and knowledge and academia, fundamentalism. That means you self identify as fanaticism hating modern education you don't possess

No. Religion has deceived many by making everything a historical and literal approach too. Taking myths historically. Blending right in, albeit more discreetly.

You just fantasized, bud. Mind illusion, creating something that was never there and attributing it to someone else. Never called education, academia, and knowledge fundamentalism.

Anyone can deem anything credible, academia, education, knowledge by being naive, believing bias of any eloquent and smart-sounding written words thousands of years ago by self proclaimed "scholars" or modern "scholars." The only evidence of knowledge you possess are that texts were written, scribed, translated, and exist. Self-choosing which small portions of myths are true doesn't make anything you want academics and knowledge. It makes trying to justify myths and internal texts, historically and outwardly. Very own clever theology. Chasing the scholarly imaginative mind in circles like a cat chasing its tail. It's not very wise chasing dead end pursuits, thousands of years ago, when one lives in modern times.