Papyrus Apparently Refers to Christ's Wife

Free discussion of anything human or divine ~ Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality

Moderator: Fist and Faith

User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Papyrus Apparently Refers to Christ's Wife

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

The news story is found here in the New York Times.
A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife ...’ ”

The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at an international meeting of Coptic scholars by Karen L. King, a historian who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity.

The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions.

Even with many questions unsettled, the discovery could reignite the debate over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple. These debates date to the early centuries of Christianity, scholars say. But they are relevant today, when global Christianity is roiling over the place of women in ministry and the boundaries of marriage.

The discussion is particularly animated in the Roman Catholic Church, where despite calls for change, the Vatican has reiterated the teaching that the priesthood cannot be opened to women and married men because of the model set by Jesus.

Dr. King gave an interview and showed the papyrus fragment, encased in glass, to reporters from The New York Times, The Boston Globe and Harvard Magazine in her garret office in the tower at Harvard Divinity School last Thursday . She left the next day for Rome to deliver her paper on the find on Tuesday at the International Congress of Coptic Studies.

She repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said.

But the discovery is exciting, Dr. King said, because it is the first known statement from antiquity that refers to Jesus speaking of a wife. It provides further evidence that there was an active discussion among early Christians about whether Jesus was celibate or married, and which path his followers should choose.

“This fragment suggests that some early Christians had a tradition that Jesus was married,” Dr. King said. “There was, we already know, a controversy in the second century over whether Jesus was married, caught up with a debate about whether Christians should marry and have sex.”


Fascinating. I suppose we will have to wait until more experts are able to examine the document and arrive at their conclusions.

I don't think the debate will be about what the text says; the general consensus should arrive at that conclusion fairly quickly because there won't be much confusion about the linguistics. No, the debate will be whether he actually said "wife" as in "spouse" and what this may or may not mean. There will also be question as to whether he was speaking literally or figuratively--some will claim that "wife" should be translated as "bride", which could mean "Bride" as in "the Church". *shrug*

In the end, it doesn't really matter if Christ was married or not or if he and, as most sources conclude, Mary Magdalene had children. The message is still the same.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Iolanthe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3359
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Location: Lincolnshire, England
Contact:

Post by Iolanthe »

Gosh! Fourth century? What was this fragment a part of? Who wrote it and why? Rhetorical, Hashi, not expecting you to answer, but the answers, if found, could throw light on the context of these few words.

Must tell my husband. He is Roman Catholic and was rather taken aback when I mentioned to him that Jesus had siblings - they have been written out of his bible.
I am playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order!

"I must state plainly, Linden, that you have become wondrous in my sight."
User avatar
Obi-Wan Nihilo
Pathetic
Posts: 6503
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Obi-Wan Nihilo »

James the Apostle was the brother of Jesus.
Image

The catholic church is the largest pro-pedophillia group in the world, and every member of it is guilty of supporting the rape of children, the ensuing protection of the rapists, and the continuing suffering of the victims.
User avatar
Iolanthe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3359
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Location: Lincolnshire, England
Contact:

Post by Iolanthe »

Yes, and somewhere Jesus' " brothers" are mentioned, so there must have been more than one. I think it was when He went back to Nazareth and there is something about him not being honoured in his own "country". But the bible my husband has mentions not a one of them!
I am playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order!

"I must state plainly, Linden, that you have become wondrous in my sight."
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Iolanthe wrote:Gosh! Fourth century? What was this fragment a part of? Who wrote it and why? Rhetorical, Hashi, not expecting you to answer, but the answers, if found, could throw light on the context of these few words.

Must tell my husband. He is Roman Catholic and was rather taken aback when I mentioned to him that Jesus had siblings - they have been written out of his bible.
I don't know--there are many books in the Apochrypha and I simply don't know if any of them reference Christ being married. One of these days I simply have to read them in their entirety. It could be anything, though, from a copy of a copy of some book to a personal letter to someone trying to retcon history to push an agenda. Wasn't the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century? If so then it might have been someone tyring to bolster their case. *shrug* Too many details are left out. Still...I enjoy this sort of thing.

DonEx is correct--we know for a fact that James was Christ's brother and I think there was at least one other brother as well as a sister, but I'll have to double-check on that.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Holsety
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3490
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Principality of Sealand
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by Holsety »

I don't think the debate will be about what the text says; the general consensus should arrive at that conclusion fairly quickly because there won't be much confusion about the linguistics. No, the debate will be whether he actually said "wife" as in "spouse" and what this may or may not mean. There will also be question as to whether he was speaking literally or figuratively--some will claim that "wife" should be translated as "bride", which could mean "Bride" as in "the Church". *shrug*
I also got kicked into thinking about the Sabbath bride, but I don't know if that concept or language was existent or prolific in judaism back in those days.

Well, it's interesting no matter how I figure it.
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

Dr King should be decapitated and lit on fire.
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

Post by Avatar »

What bible is that Iolanthe? It's in all the versions I have, as far as I remember. And yes...more than one brother.

IIRC, at the time it would have been almost unheard of for a Jewish man of that age to be unmarried.

I think that there is probably a good chance that he was.

--A
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10623
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time
Been thanked: 3 times

Post by Vraith »

It might turn out to be something interesting to watch...could end up being just a nit that only a few theologians dispute about for the next few centuries. OTOH, much of the place of women in church is evolved from/based in [not always too logically, IMHO] "Christ wasn't married." Though those strictures have been loosening overall for a long time, on their own...this might be the "last straw," and relatively unimportant at the same time.

A few fundamentalist types, though, depend a lot on Christ's virginity/celibacy...and they're not real open to change. Christianity could end up being even MORE splintered. Though I wonder how much that matters, if at all.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Dr King should be decapitated and lit on fire.
Well...that escalated quickly. What brought that on, HLT?

The splinters already exist in Christianity, Vraith, you simply need to know where to look and what question to ask. I have heard people have arguments over these three schools of thought: pre-Millenial (the Rapture will occur before the Tribulation), a-Millenial (the Rapture happens at some point during the Tribulation), and post-Millenial (the Rapture happens after the Tribulation). Also, some churches absolutely forbid women to be teachers or leaders at all...except in the nursery...while others allow women to be fully ordained ministers.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
Cybrweez
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4804
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:26 pm
Location: Jamesburg, NJ

Post by Cybrweez »

A lot here.

For the scroll, if the only thing mentioned (potentially anyway) about Christ and a wife is 4th century, its nothing. YOu need more than that for evidence. But, it stirs controversy, so of course is big news.

I'll be devil's advocate, and mention some people think mention of Christ's brothers isn't really brother, but cousins, though I've read arguments back and forth and that seems to be weak argument. Seems the argument hinges on wanting Mary to be always a virgin, so you can't have brothers/sisters for Jesus.

But as for celibacy, I've never heard Jesus being unmarried had anything to do w/that. I actually don't know what the real reasoning is, kinda always thought it was b/c Paul was never married (of course, Peter was, and isn't he the pope's first forebear? Not sure there).

And for women's role, again, don't think Jesus' marriage situation ever had a hand in that. I've never heard anyone mention it in either defending women pastors or opposing the idea. Usually Paul's letters are used.

hashi, I think HLT is just refering to typical Muslim reaction. I don't think you have these types of situations in Muslim world tho, b/c the guy who founded it, was the one everyone looked to for answers, wrote the book, and there isn't much doubt about what he wrote.
--Andy

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
User avatar
Iolanthe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3359
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Location: Lincolnshire, England
Contact:

Post by Iolanthe »

Avatar wrote:What bible is that Iolanthe? It's in all the versions I have, as far as I remember. And yes...more than one brother.

--A
No idea Av. When I get time, tomorrow, I will get his and my bibles down and compare. I'm just going on what he says at the moment.
Cybrweez wrote: I'll be devil's advocate, and mention some people think mention of Christ's brothers isn't really brother, but cousins, though I've read arguments back and forth and that seems to be weak argument. Seems the argument hinges on wanting Mary to be always a virgin, so you can't have brothers/sisters for Jesus.

But as for celibacy, I've never heard Jesus being unmarried had anything to do w/that. I actually don't know what the real reasoning is, kinda always thought it was b/c Paul was never married (of course, Peter was, and isn't he the pope's first forebear? Not sure there).
Quite right. When I did my A level Religious Knowledge exam there was a question about the Virgin Mary. There was an alternative question on the paper for Roman Catholics to answer! The virginity of Mary is not to be questioned, hence the absence of siblings.

Also St Paul. He thought the world was going to end soon, and advised celibacy, and marriage only if the temptation to have sex was too great. He also said that women should cover their heads in church, and other things that are still clung to in some quarters. I've also had arguments with my husband about Peter being the first "Pope". They were a rum lot, the first popes.

Hashi - I read the Apocrypha once but cannot remember it at all. I must read it again. Wasn't it the Synod at Nicaea that brought about the split in the church between the Greek and Roman churches over the Trinity?. AD 325 according to Wikipedia.
I am playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order!

"I must state plainly, Linden, that you have become wondrous in my sight."
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Iolanthe wrote:Hashi - I read the Apocrypha once but cannot remember it at all. I must read it again. Wasn't it the Synod at Nicaea that brought about the split in the church between the Greek and Roman churches over the Trinity?. AD 325 according to Wikipedia.
I believe so but it has been a while since I last refreshed my knowledge of those events. I would have to look into it again.

Mary's nature vis-a-vis virgin or not virgin is, or should be, irrelevant to Christians even though I realize that her status for Catholics is to be absolutely immaculate. I am not certain why that is a requirement but then my Catholic theology isn't that highly developed (at least, not on that topic). Frazier and Campbell conclude that Mary is the Catholic interpretation of the World Mother, from whom all life ultimately arises, but that is a little odd since World Mothers are almost never virgins, at least I cannot think of any examples of this.

Anyway...only Christ's status should matter for Christians. His life consists of "no sin" and since marriage is not a sin--theology states that it is a union ordained by God and thus not sinful--then it is perfectly allowable for him to have been married and even have children. This does not violate Protestant Christian theology in any way.

Paul was originally a Sanhedrin, the highest order of Judaic priests. I could be wrong here, so any Jewish people please correct me, but I think rabbis are supposed to marry, which would mean that Paul himself was married because of the Mosaic requirement. I suspect--and this is entirely my opinion--that when he converted to Christianity his wife was so upset by this that although they were still legally and spiritually married they lived completely separate lives, with Saul/Paul on the road and his wife at home. He never mentions being married in his letters and the only women he names are married to other people so he could have been celibate or his wife could have died, we have no way of knowing. Ultimately that, too, doesn't matter--all that matters is the theology he imparted.

I tend not to believe the whole "Peter was the first Pope" because there was not a Christian bishop in Rome until sometime in the late 100s or early-to-mid 200s; I have to double-check my source at home. The office of Bishop of Rome eventually rose in importance to become Pope, the "pontifex maximus" or "highest bridge" between Man and God. Christ states only that Peter is the Rock upon whom the Church will be built. Not him personally, of course, but his faith.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Menolly
A Lowly Harper
Posts: 24184
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:29 am
Location: Harper Hall, Fort Hold, Northern Continent, Pern...
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 15 times
Contact:

Post by Menolly »

Avatar wrote:IIRC, at the time it would have been almost unheard of for a Jewish man of that age to be unmarried.

I think that there is probably a good chance that he was.
^this^

Even nowadays, among the Torah observant, the shidduch is often the rule.
Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

I knew someone would clarify that for us. Thank you, Menolly.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9839
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Post by SoulBiter »

this tiny scrap of papyrus that is only partially legible..... how do they know that this is even talking about the same Jesus. It was a common name in those days.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Sometimes people who should know better do awful things to antiquities--this piece could have been cut from a longer, more complete scroll.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
DoctorGamgee
Bloodguard
Posts: 750
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:54 pm
Location: Laredo, TX

Post by DoctorGamgee »

Iolanthe,

Check Matthew 13:55 and 12:46. I'll bet you will find his mother/bretheren mentioned there. Your husband may not have remembered those facts.

Unless he is parsing "brothers" and 'half-brothers' as they had different fathers (God-v-Joseph).

Doc
Proud father of G-minor and the Bean
User avatar
Holsety
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3490
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Principality of Sealand
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by Holsety »

hashi, I think HLT is just refering to typical Muslim reaction. I don't think you have these types of situations in Muslim world tho, b/c the guy who founded it, was the one everyone looked to for answers, wrote the book, and there isn't much doubt about what he wrote.
The Sunni/Shi'a schism seems to be originally based on a power struggle regarding Mohammed's intentions. Additionally, hadith aren't recorded in the Quran but are important to muslims.
(OK sorry it's not on topic)
this tiny scrap of papyrus that is only partially legible..... how do they know that this is even talking about the same Jesus. It was a common name in those days.
But do we know a lot of people who referred to recruiting disciples?
:P

Though, it's not like we know the speaker is still Jesus, maybe someone else was talking their disciples. I can't read the language on the picture of the papyrus, so...
User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Orlion »

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Iolanthe wrote:Hashi - I read the Apocrypha once but cannot remember it at all. I must read it again. Wasn't it the Synod at Nicaea that brought about the split in the church between the Greek and Roman churches over the Trinity?. AD 325 according to Wikipedia.
I believe so but it has been a while since I last refreshed my knowledge of those events. I would have to look into it again.

Mary's nature vis-a-vis virgin or not virgin is, or should be, irrelevant to Christians even though I realize that her status for Catholics is to be absolutely immaculate. I am not certain why that is a requirement but then my Catholic theology isn't that highly developed (at least, not on that topic). Frazier and Campbell conclude that Mary is the Catholic interpretation of the World Mother, from whom all life ultimately arises, but that is a little odd since World Mothers are almost never virgins, at least I cannot think of any examples of this.

In Catholism (and presumably other theologies), sex in of itself is not only a sin, it is THE sin (original, as it were). Ok, that's simplifying it. Birth from sexual union carries original sin. In other words, if Christ's birth was the result of any sort of sexual union, he would have been born with original sin and would thus not be sinless. Christ is sinless/perfect/God, ergo the birth was immaculate. Extending this metaphor, the vessel for the birth of God would have to be holy. Ergo, Mary never had sex so was incapable of passing original sin on like some sort of gene, and being the holy, spiritual vessel that she was would never take part in such a fallen activity. It also helped that her mother, St. Anne, did a bunch of stuff too to make sure she could be a holy vessel for God... I just forget what...
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
Post Reply

Return to “The Close”