The contested papyrus “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife”(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The contested papyrus “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/485573/?single_page=true
18 comments
Worth noting that, after reading the article, the researcher now thinks the papyrus is probably a fake: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/karen-ki...
More info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife
It certainly sounds like it's a fake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife
It certainly sounds like it's a fake.
> On August 26, 2012—more than three weeks before King announced her discovery to the world, when only her inner circle knew of the papyrus and her name for it—Walter Fritz registered the domain name www.gospelofjesuswife.com.
This. He should've registered www.howtoforge.com too, just in case :-)
This. He should've registered www.howtoforge.com too, just in case :-)
If you think about it logically for the era, it's incredibly unlikely that Jesus was actually unmarried. The typical age for marriage all the way up until the 20th century was somewhere between puberty and 20. Jesus didn't start his ministry until he was 30. It's really very possible that he was married, maybe even a widower. The fact that no gospel mentions it, could be the exact same reason women get ignored throughout the rest of history.
The age of marriage was typically younger in the past, but the exact details depend place and time and the situation of the person.
In Europe in the Middle Ages, for example, nobility typically married very young for modern standards, but that wasn't always the case among the peasants.
A father didn't want to marry his daughter off to someone who didn't have anything, which was usually the case for poor peasant men. The man would have no means to support his wife and provide for the family. So typically the young men would wait until they had some land and a house before marrying, allowing them to support a wife and children.
This typically would happen when they were 25-30 years old. Their wives, on the other hand, would typically be in the 15-20 age range.
If the man's family was fairly wealthy and the prospective bride's family was fairly certain their daughter would be able to be supported by the man in the future, then the man would be able to get married before the age of 20.
History is pretty interesting.
In Europe in the Middle Ages, for example, nobility typically married very young for modern standards, but that wasn't always the case among the peasants.
A father didn't want to marry his daughter off to someone who didn't have anything, which was usually the case for poor peasant men. The man would have no means to support his wife and provide for the family. So typically the young men would wait until they had some land and a house before marrying, allowing them to support a wife and children.
This typically would happen when they were 25-30 years old. Their wives, on the other hand, would typically be in the 15-20 age range.
If the man's family was fairly wealthy and the prospective bride's family was fairly certain their daughter would be able to be supported by the man in the future, then the man would be able to get married before the age of 20.
History is pretty interesting.
I agree that Jesus was probably married...
.. But your statement about the age at marriage is wrong, at least for Western Europe since about 1400, which has had late marriage and uniquely high proportions never married. If you haven't fact checked your demography assumptions, you are probably wrong.
The story that Jesus was unmarried was probably promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church, with it's uniquely weird attachment to celibacy. Which, of course, has affected Western European demography in many complicated ways.
.. But your statement about the age at marriage is wrong, at least for Western Europe since about 1400, which has had late marriage and uniquely high proportions never married. If you haven't fact checked your demography assumptions, you are probably wrong.
The story that Jesus was unmarried was probably promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church, with it's uniquely weird attachment to celibacy. Which, of course, has affected Western European demography in many complicated ways.
> The story that Jesus was unmarried was probably promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church, with it's uniquely weird attachment to celibacy.
The discipline of clerical celibacy in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church (at least one non-Latin Rite Church in union with Rome existed at the time, and there are more now) was a explicitly a adopted in response to repeated scandal, not theological necessity (which is why it is a discipline of the Latin Rite and not a universal law of the Church.)
The widespread Christian acceptance of the belief that Jesus was never married long predates this.
The discipline of clerical celibacy in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church (at least one non-Latin Rite Church in union with Rome existed at the time, and there are more now) was a explicitly a adopted in response to repeated scandal, not theological necessity (which is why it is a discipline of the Latin Rite and not a universal law of the Church.)
The widespread Christian acceptance of the belief that Jesus was never married long predates this.
> The discipline of clerical celibacy in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church (at least one non-Latin Rite Church in union with Rome existed at the time, and there are more now) was a explicitly a adopted in response to repeated scandal, not theological necessity (which is why it is a discipline of the Latin Rite and not a universal law of the Church.)
Oh, well there we go. As a protestant (second time noting that in this thread) I've always wondered about why the Pope at least had to be celibate when Peter himself was married.
This explanation makes much more sense -- it wasn't a doctrinal requirement, but a sort of external job requirement.
Oh, well there we go. As a protestant (second time noting that in this thread) I've always wondered about why the Pope at least had to be celibate when Peter himself was married.
This explanation makes much more sense -- it wasn't a doctrinal requirement, but a sort of external job requirement.
Matthew 19:12 is not a particularly disputed verse when comparing ancient manuscripts and fragments.
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."
This teaching of Jesus forms the basis of what later Christian writers would expound upon as the "evangelical counsel of chastity", and it is unlikely the master would have counseled the disciple to the embrace of something he himself did not embrace. Would it have been counter-cultural to the Jewish audience hearing Jesus preach those words? Most definitely.
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."
This teaching of Jesus forms the basis of what later Christian writers would expound upon as the "evangelical counsel of chastity", and it is unlikely the master would have counseled the disciple to the embrace of something he himself did not embrace. Would it have been counter-cultural to the Jewish audience hearing Jesus preach those words? Most definitely.
Good thing Jesus wasn't in Western Europe ;)
Good point though, upvote nonetheless.
Good point though, upvote nonetheless.
> The fact that no gospel mentions it, could be the exact same reason women get ignored throughout the rest of history.
It would be weird to leave out Jesus's wife when it mentions his mother and sisters, as well as female disciples/deacons/apostles. Also the NT mentions that Peter and the other Apostles had wives.
It would be weird to leave out Jesus's wife when it mentions his mother and sisters, as well as female disciples/deacons/apostles. Also the NT mentions that Peter and the other Apostles had wives.
> Also the NT mentions that Peter and the other Apostles had wives.
Indeed, three of the four gospels record Jesus healing Peter's wife (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healing_the_mother_of_Peter%27...)
As a protestant, I've always found the papal requirement of celibacy funny, in light of the claim that the papacy is a sort of Apostolic-authority lineage from Peter, who was, well, married.
Indeed, three of the four gospels record Jesus healing Peter's wife (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healing_the_mother_of_Peter%27...)
As a protestant, I've always found the papal requirement of celibacy funny, in light of the claim that the papacy is a sort of Apostolic-authority lineage from Peter, who was, well, married.
Some of the early Church Fathers (e.g. Jerome) maintained that the married Apostles, including Peter, gave up marital relations with their wives after being called by Christ, i.e. they practiced perpetual (or "perfect") sexual continence from that time forward. Celibacy developed later, as a safeguard for those called to exercise the same "apostolic continence".
> If you think about it logically for the era, it's incredibly unlikely that Jesus was actually unmarried
Only on the assumption that "being married" is uncorrelated with "starting some weird travelling hippie Jewish tradesman cult", which I assume it isn't. Having a wife and family obligations tends to hamper the travelling-and-preaching lifestyle somewhat.
Also, people who spend their 30s claiming to be the Messiah and getting crucified for it probably spent their 20s being a bit weird as well, even if nobody bothered to write about it.
Only on the assumption that "being married" is uncorrelated with "starting some weird travelling hippie Jewish tradesman cult", which I assume it isn't. Having a wife and family obligations tends to hamper the travelling-and-preaching lifestyle somewhat.
Also, people who spend their 30s claiming to be the Messiah and getting crucified for it probably spent their 20s being a bit weird as well, even if nobody bothered to write about it.
Yup. John the baptist was also unmarried.
If you're thinking that your calling may invite persecution, or are inclined to do stuff like wander the desert and eating locusts, it's not so strange that you would choose not to get married. Never mind that getting married may not be so easy in this case!
If you're thinking that your calling may invite persecution, or are inclined to do stuff like wander the desert and eating locusts, it's not so strange that you would choose not to get married. Never mind that getting married may not be so easy in this case!
3 women agreed to marry Trump. I assume there's someone out there for every last weirdo...
He's rich, a good Hebrew prophet is poor as dirt :)
> The fact that no gospel mentions it, could be the exact same reason women get ignored throughout the rest of history.
the catholic/orthodox churches have an incredible amount of attention to women in liturgy, through the veneration of Mary. It is very "pagan" that way.
This is in stark contrast with reformed christian churches, hebraism and islam, for example.
The relegation of women to secondary religious roles doesn't seem especially related to that (which is why it happened in pre-columbian america and in asia too, I guess)
the catholic/orthodox churches have an incredible amount of attention to women in liturgy, through the veneration of Mary. It is very "pagan" that way.
This is in stark contrast with reformed christian churches, hebraism and islam, for example.
The relegation of women to secondary religious roles doesn't seem especially related to that (which is why it happened in pre-columbian america and in asia too, I guess)
The repeated mentions of Da Vinci Code notwithstanding, the book this most reminded me of was a trashy novel from an earlier generation: https://www.amazon.com/Word-Novel-Irving-Wallace/dp/06712115...
If you are interested in this kind of thing, you will like this book: http://www.asecretoftheuniverse.com/
It goes into the existence of Jesus but through the story of a pilot with an interest in philosophy. The author released the entire audio book as a podcast but is was only available for a limited time. I listened to it as it came out. Very nice, the book, although it is fiction contains real existing characters and a lot of foot notes to build arguments. I will not spoil the end, but the theory it builds is quite interesting.
It goes into the existence of Jesus but through the story of a pilot with an interest in philosophy. The author released the entire audio book as a podcast but is was only available for a limited time. I listened to it as it came out. Very nice, the book, although it is fiction contains real existing characters and a lot of foot notes to build arguments. I will not spoil the end, but the theory it builds is quite interesting.
> Jesus’s bachelorhood helps form the basis for priestly celibacy, and his all-male cast of apostles has long been cited to justify limits on women’s religious leadership
is the second part (male apostles -> no female priests) an actual tenet of christian churches?
AFAIR in the roman catholic tradition the reason for male-only priesthood had to do with some "fatherly" attributes that a priest must have, which is also why gay priests are not allowed. And I know that some protestant churches allow women priests so I am curious about _who_ cites the male apostles thingy.
is the second part (male apostles -> no female priests) an actual tenet of christian churches?
AFAIR in the roman catholic tradition the reason for male-only priesthood had to do with some "fatherly" attributes that a priest must have, which is also why gay priests are not allowed. And I know that some protestant churches allow women priests so I am curious about _who_ cites the male apostles thingy.
Why not "follow the money" ?
Celibate priests have no heirs, so the legacy goes to the Catholic Church. Imagine more than a millenium of accumulated wealth. This also nicely aligns with the tradition that important/rich families were encouraged to let 1 member of the family take up a position in the Church.
Celibate priests have no heirs, so the legacy goes to the Catholic Church. Imagine more than a millenium of accumulated wealth. This also nicely aligns with the tradition that important/rich families were encouraged to let 1 member of the family take up a position in the Church.
Quick and authoritative summary of the Catholic position:
Ordinatio sacerdotalis, 22 May 1994, Pope John Paull II
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/...
Ordinatio sacerdotalis, 22 May 1994, Pope John Paull II
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/...
thanks!
Reminded me quite a bit of the stories in Orson Welles' "F is for Fake" (1973)
[deleted]
King has been particularly interested in noncanonical, or Gnostic, texts that assign Mary Magdalene a prominent role as Jesus’s confidante and disciple.
Blargh. Not every apocryphal text is Gnostic. Gnosticism was just one of many "flavors" that developed in Christianity's infancy.
Blargh. Not every apocryphal text is Gnostic. Gnosticism was just one of many "flavors" that developed in Christianity's infancy.
But aren't the Magdalene texts themselves strongly affiliated with Gnosticism? The Gnostics were interesting because they were subject to overt purges.
I think that was just sloppy reporting, not King's quote.
It looks like sloppy editing. The following have four slightly different meanings:
> interested in noncanonical Gnostic texts
> interested in noncanonical, Gnostic texts
> interested in noncanonical or Gnostic texts
> interested in noncanonical, or Gnostic, texts
> interested in noncanonical Gnostic texts
> interested in noncanonical, Gnostic texts
> interested in noncanonical or Gnostic texts
> interested in noncanonical, or Gnostic, texts
What's the difference between the first two?
The first strongly implies that there are canonical Gnostic texts and that the interest is in only the non-canonical variety.
The second indicates texts that are both non-canonical and Gnostic. Doesn't rule out all misinterpretations but at least doesn't imply them. Probably the best version of this that can be accomplished with small changes.
Third states that the interest is in texts that are either non-canonical or gnostic without a requirement that they be both of those things (a little similar to the first but without drawing as much attention to the implication of canonical gnostic texts)
The fourth defines Gnostic texts as synonymous with non-canonical texts.
The second indicates texts that are both non-canonical and Gnostic. Doesn't rule out all misinterpretations but at least doesn't imply them. Probably the best version of this that can be accomplished with small changes.
Third states that the interest is in texts that are either non-canonical or gnostic without a requirement that they be both of those things (a little similar to the first but without drawing as much attention to the implication of canonical gnostic texts)
The fourth defines Gnostic texts as synonymous with non-canonical texts.
It's pretty pedantic, and this is not true in all dialects and forms of English[0] - as evidenced by the fact that you have at least three other comments replying with different, conflicting answers to this question!
In any case, the comma basically indicates that the two words serve the 'same function', and that either one could be removed (along with the comma) while leaving the parsed structure of the sentence intact. That doesn't exactly mean that the meaning would be intact (you're removing a word, after all), but the way that you'd parse the rest of the sentence must remain identical.
At a practical level, this means that 'noncanonical Gnostic texts' translates to 'Gnostic texts which are also noncanonical'. 'noncanonical, Gnostic texts' means more or less the same thing, but also implies that there is a connection between the fact that they are noncanonical and the fact that they are Gnostic. This may be because the two are outright synonyms, or simply because they are often connected.
For example:
> heavy, red rocks
> heavy red rocks
It'd be weird to say 'heavy, red rocks', unless in context you had some reason to connect those two (such as those being identical sets, if all red rocks are heavy)[1]. Instead, you'd say that the red rocks are heavy - in other words, "the (heavy (red rocks))".
Also, note what I did with the opening paragraph of this response. 'different, conflicting answers' (because the answers are different, and they are conflicting, and the way I am using the word 'different' is connected to the fact that they are (partly) 'conflicting')[2].
[0] ie, this is strictly limited to the stylistic rules of journals of record, such as the New York Times, and not necessarily applicable to the way those same writers/editors would write an email. Curiously, I believe this is true both in American English and in formal British English.
[1] 'The machine picks up all the heavy, red rocks and leaves behind the light, blue rocks' vs. 'The machine picks up all the heavy red rocks and leaves behind all the light red rocks and the blue rocks (whether they are heavy or light)'.
[2] Though the response which directly contradicted mine has since been deleted, but, uh, ignore that fact.
In any case, the comma basically indicates that the two words serve the 'same function', and that either one could be removed (along with the comma) while leaving the parsed structure of the sentence intact. That doesn't exactly mean that the meaning would be intact (you're removing a word, after all), but the way that you'd parse the rest of the sentence must remain identical.
At a practical level, this means that 'noncanonical Gnostic texts' translates to 'Gnostic texts which are also noncanonical'. 'noncanonical, Gnostic texts' means more or less the same thing, but also implies that there is a connection between the fact that they are noncanonical and the fact that they are Gnostic. This may be because the two are outright synonyms, or simply because they are often connected.
For example:
> heavy, red rocks
> heavy red rocks
It'd be weird to say 'heavy, red rocks', unless in context you had some reason to connect those two (such as those being identical sets, if all red rocks are heavy)[1]. Instead, you'd say that the red rocks are heavy - in other words, "the (heavy (red rocks))".
Also, note what I did with the opening paragraph of this response. 'different, conflicting answers' (because the answers are different, and they are conflicting, and the way I am using the word 'different' is connected to the fact that they are (partly) 'conflicting')[2].
[0] ie, this is strictly limited to the stylistic rules of journals of record, such as the New York Times, and not necessarily applicable to the way those same writers/editors would write an email. Curiously, I believe this is true both in American English and in formal British English.
[1] 'The machine picks up all the heavy, red rocks and leaves behind the light, blue rocks' vs. 'The machine picks up all the heavy red rocks and leaves behind all the light red rocks and the blue rocks (whether they are heavy or light)'.
[2] Though the response which directly contradicted mine has since been deleted, but, uh, ignore that fact.
> interested in noncanonical Gnostic texts
> interested in noncanonical, Gnostic texts
Look at the comma as generating a list. So the second would be interested in noncanonical AND Gnostic Texts where as the first is just noncanoncial Gnostic Texts, or simply Gnostic Texts as all of them are noncanonical to any other sect.
Look at the comma as generating a list. So the second would be interested in noncanonical AND Gnostic Texts where as the first is just noncanoncial Gnostic Texts, or simply Gnostic Texts as all of them are noncanonical to any other sect.
Who cares about his wife if we still can't get what he looked like right. He wasn't European.. let's stop drawing him that way.
The failure of mostly renaissance-era artists to properly represent Jesus' ethnicity in no way reflects on the validity of this particular "contested" manuscript. It is kind of goofy and likely contributes to the conflation of American nationalism and Christianity, but this isn't really the thread for it.
Right, but the cover image of the manuscript uses of those style of images. Kind of goofy is a strange way to say racist.
White racists, the down vote button is right there for your clicking.
This comment breaks the HN guidelines by calling names and by baiting others into downvoting. Please (re)-read and follow them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Religion isn't a search for truth, it's a search for answers, even bad ones. If they wanted truth, there wouldn't be any religion.
Litigating the truth-or-falsehood-of-all-religion is a classic (the classic) religious flamewar topic, and as you know that is not allowed here.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918569 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918569 and marked it off-topic.
> Never before had an ancient manuscript alluded to Jesus’s being married.
yeah, because the church tried to suppress the gospels: thomas, mary, judas, and 30+ others; that contained contrarian views to their goals
one goal being the subordinate status of women
the gospel of mary sits blatantly in the face christian doctrine:
Chapter 9(o)
1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.
2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.
3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.
4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?
5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?
6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.
7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.
8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.
9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.
10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.
(o) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelmary.html
yeah, because the church tried to suppress the gospels: thomas, mary, judas, and 30+ others; that contained contrarian views to their goals
one goal being the subordinate status of women
the gospel of mary sits blatantly in the face christian doctrine:
Chapter 9(o)
1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.
2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.
3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.
4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?
5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?
6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.
7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.
8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.
9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.
10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.
(o) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelmary.html
> Never before had an ancient manuscript alluded to Jesus’s being married.
yeah, because the church tried to smother the gospels: thomas, mary, judas, and 30+ others; that contained contrarian views to their goals
That's not really relevant here. There are a tremendous number of records of beliefs/gospels which the modern church considers heretical, including ones which pertain to the status of women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla
The claim is not "this isn't church doctrine", it's "there's no other historical record of people telling this story". It would be surprising, though not strictly impossible, for this to have been a major gospel in ancient history without some record of it being found by now.
That's not really relevant here. There are a tremendous number of records of beliefs/gospels which the modern church considers heretical, including ones which pertain to the status of women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla
The claim is not "this isn't church doctrine", it's "there's no other historical record of people telling this story". It would be surprising, though not strictly impossible, for this to have been a major gospel in ancient history without some record of it being found by now.
Your post is super confusing and contradicts itself.
1) "There are a tremendous number of records of beliefs/gospels which the modern church considers heretical, including ones which pertain to the status of women"
2) "there's no other historical record of people telling this story"
So which one is it? Is there a "tremendous number" of them, or is there "no other historical record"?
You can't have both. Either there is, or there is not.
1) "There are a tremendous number of records of beliefs/gospels which the modern church considers heretical, including ones which pertain to the status of women"
2) "there's no other historical record of people telling this story"
So which one is it? Is there a "tremendous number" of them, or is there "no other historical record"?
You can't have both. Either there is, or there is not.
"This story" meant the story that Jesus was married. Other apocryphal gospels say things about women that sometimes contradict the orthodox opinion, but they do not say that Jesus was married.
To reiterate what I am saying: there are plenty of historical records of the church attacking heresies in the ancient world, supported by both the writings of the church fathers and the writings of the heretics themselves. What this article points out is that we do not have any other ancient writings that allude to anyone believing that Jesus was married. It is, as far as we can tell, not something that was ever in dispute.
To reiterate what I am saying: there are plenty of historical records of the church attacking heresies in the ancient world, supported by both the writings of the church fathers and the writings of the heretics themselves. What this article points out is that we do not have any other ancient writings that allude to anyone believing that Jesus was married. It is, as far as we can tell, not something that was ever in dispute.
> it's "there's no other historical record of people telling this story".
right, that is the suppression theory that i am saying i agree with
> The claim is not "this isn't church doctrine"
i am making this claim..
how could you keep women from having seats of power in your religion if the guy you claim the whole thing is based on believed 'the other sex' to be 'worthy' of both hearing the truth and speaking it?
right, that is the suppression theory that i am saying i agree with
> The claim is not "this isn't church doctrine"
i am making this claim..
how could you keep women from having seats of power in your religion if the guy you claim the whole thing is based on believed 'the other sex' to be 'worthy' of both hearing the truth and speaking it?
The point is that the church said many things were heretical and tried to suppress those beliefs. And we know about it, because we have records of:
1) the church saying "that guy over there is a heretic"
2) the writings of the heretic
So what you're saying is that in this one case, the Church was able to completely stamp out a widespread belief to the point that we have no reference to people believing it, even though it wasn't able to do so in other cases that it also deemed heretical? That seems implausible.
P.S. "> Never before had an ancient manuscript alluded to Jesus’s being married." That is what I referred to as "the claim".
1) the church saying "that guy over there is a heretic"
2) the writings of the heretic
So what you're saying is that in this one case, the Church was able to completely stamp out a widespread belief to the point that we have no reference to people believing it, even though it wasn't able to do so in other cases that it also deemed heretical? That seems implausible.
P.S. "> Never before had an ancient manuscript alluded to Jesus’s being married." That is what I referred to as "the claim".
Gospel of Philip (63:33-36) and Gospel of Mary (17:10-18:21) both, though not canonical, are ancient manuscripts that are supposed by some to suggest an intimate relationship.
This was a great piece of investigative reporting.
If you register an appropriate domain 3 weeks before the news go public, that is very suspicious indeed.
If you register an appropriate domain 3 weeks before the news go public, that is very suspicious indeed.
Yeah, never mind the theology, this story gives a scary view of how an experienced scammer/conman can work. The part at the end, where he implicitly admits that he's been found out, but tries to tempt the journalist with getting in on the scam -- wow.
It's fascinating, but dates from hundreds of years after Christ and falls nicely in the genre of Apocryphal Gospels, of which some indeed strike modern fancies as bizarre.
Also, as the article points out towards the end the whole story seems extremely fishy.
Where do you draw the line?
The canonical gospel fragments also date from hundreds of years after Christ, and some of the later fragments seem also increasingly bizarre.
The canonical gospel fragments also date from hundreds of years after Christ, and some of the later fragments seem also increasingly bizarre.
I think your data is out of date. I quick glance at Wikipedia says that there are at least two copies from the 2nd century, and 38 from the 3rd or earlier.
It also says, "The New Testament books appear to have been completed within the 1st century." This is on the basis of comparing manuscripts and tracking changes (textual criticism).
It also says, "The New Testament books appear to have been completed within the 1st century." This is on the basis of comparing manuscripts and tracking changes (textual criticism).
I was deliberately vague, because it has been a while since I read about this, and because nothing is entirely certain. The earliest fragments are tiny e.g. P52 and they don't have a precise date.
There is also heated debate about when the gospels were written, the order in which they were written in, and if they were added to at a later date.
There is also heated debate about when the gospels were written, the order in which they were written in, and if they were added to at a later date.
Generally speaking, the debate among scholars isn't "heated", and they're not very far apart in their conclusions.
For example, the Gospel of John is usually dated to within 90-110 AD for authorship. That's not a wide range. Luke is usually dated to 80-90 AD but a few scholars argue a date as late as 110 AD. That's about as extreme as the disagreement gets among serious scholars discussing canonical writings.
There also aren't substantial scholarly disagreements about the gospels being added to or modified -- there are passages that are widely agreed upon as additions, which will be marked in basically any Bible from the last 5 decades or so. It's a common lay theory that there were major rewrites in the 4th century (Constantine), but I'm not aware of any serious scholars of textual criticism who believe it, because the manuscript evidence we have is actually strong in establishing tight authorship dates and clear indications as to what has and hasn't been edited.
The actual disputes are over subtleties, like Matthew 5:22 talking about being angry with a brother [without cause]. The phrase in brackets is in most manuscripts but missing from many of the oldest well-preserved manuscripts, and there is disagreement over whether it was added as a helpful clarification or accidentally skipped because it starts with the same letter as the next word (in textual criticism, skipping a word in this way is called "homoioarcton". This is a well-established field with its own technical vocabulary.)
My comments in other subthreads detail why I don't treat the gospels of Judas or Mary as significant -- based on their later authorship dates, clear non-Jewishness in style and substance, and even their lack of names of people and places pointing toward them being written by non-eyewitnesses.
For example, the Gospel of John is usually dated to within 90-110 AD for authorship. That's not a wide range. Luke is usually dated to 80-90 AD but a few scholars argue a date as late as 110 AD. That's about as extreme as the disagreement gets among serious scholars discussing canonical writings.
There also aren't substantial scholarly disagreements about the gospels being added to or modified -- there are passages that are widely agreed upon as additions, which will be marked in basically any Bible from the last 5 decades or so. It's a common lay theory that there were major rewrites in the 4th century (Constantine), but I'm not aware of any serious scholars of textual criticism who believe it, because the manuscript evidence we have is actually strong in establishing tight authorship dates and clear indications as to what has and hasn't been edited.
The actual disputes are over subtleties, like Matthew 5:22 talking about being angry with a brother [without cause]. The phrase in brackets is in most manuscripts but missing from many of the oldest well-preserved manuscripts, and there is disagreement over whether it was added as a helpful clarification or accidentally skipped because it starts with the same letter as the next word (in textual criticism, skipping a word in this way is called "homoioarcton". This is a well-established field with its own technical vocabulary.)
My comments in other subthreads detail why I don't treat the gospels of Judas or Mary as significant -- based on their later authorship dates, clear non-Jewishness in style and substance, and even their lack of names of people and places pointing toward them being written by non-eyewitnesses.
I agree the debates largely aren't about the dating & inconsistencies in the various transcripts we have today (although that is debated.)
The debates are regarding the underlying source documents that were used to assemble the gospels. E.g. Was there a Q? What was in Q? When was Q written? Who wrote Q? Why do the gospel stories have apparent contradictions? Who wrote those stories? Why? When? Based on what? How did they decide what to include and what to exclude? Do we even know what the original disciples thought of these stories?
There is so much we don't know about that first 100 years. At some point certain collected writings were deemed more authoritative, and there was a systematic purging of any disagreeable texts.
If you accept that parts of the gospel were written later in the first century based on stories that had been communicated verbally over long periods of time between different cities, cultures and languages... then the difference between the canon and the apocrypha becomes a little more blurry.
E.g. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas also date from the second century, and clearly shows wild stories were circulating verbally then being written down and accepted as canon by certain remote churches.
To paraphrase Ehrman & Fredriksen, you can argue that the stories in the gospels evolved and were selected largely to make certain theological points, or to counter the prevalent arguments against the religious movement.
The debates are regarding the underlying source documents that were used to assemble the gospels. E.g. Was there a Q? What was in Q? When was Q written? Who wrote Q? Why do the gospel stories have apparent contradictions? Who wrote those stories? Why? When? Based on what? How did they decide what to include and what to exclude? Do we even know what the original disciples thought of these stories?
There is so much we don't know about that first 100 years. At some point certain collected writings were deemed more authoritative, and there was a systematic purging of any disagreeable texts.
If you accept that parts of the gospel were written later in the first century based on stories that had been communicated verbally over long periods of time between different cities, cultures and languages... then the difference between the canon and the apocrypha becomes a little more blurry.
E.g. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas also date from the second century, and clearly shows wild stories were circulating verbally then being written down and accepted as canon by certain remote churches.
To paraphrase Ehrman & Fredriksen, you can argue that the stories in the gospels evolved and were selected largely to make certain theological points, or to counter the prevalent arguments against the religious movement.
This belongs on HN why?
Anything intellectually interesting belongs on HN. Please see
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
At best, that standard is applied VERY selectively.
Yesterday, an article by an Ars Technica founder about a technology that few people on HN have any experience with described an "open-source, modular weapons platform"—the AR-15 rifle—in a way that techies can understand.[0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11912665
Guess what? It was [flagged]. This was my response to that article being flagged (on that thread):
> This article is absolutely appropriate for HN, had an active, engaged, and non-hostile comment section, and SHOULD NOT have been banned/flagged as inappropriate. We are all worse off because it was.
> I strongly suspect that those hitting the "flag" button did so on ideological grounds, in order to shut down discussion they did not approve of.
Yesterday, an article by an Ars Technica founder about a technology that few people on HN have any experience with described an "open-source, modular weapons platform"—the AR-15 rifle—in a way that techies can understand.[0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11912665
Guess what? It was [flagged]. This was my response to that article being flagged (on that thread):
> This article is absolutely appropriate for HN, had an active, engaged, and non-hostile comment section, and SHOULD NOT have been banned/flagged as inappropriate. We are all worse off because it was.
> I strongly suspect that those hitting the "flag" button did so on ideological grounds, in order to shut down discussion they did not approve of.
There's a long tradition on HN of users flagging stories on highly politicized topics, because such discussions typically become ideological and uncivil, two qualities that we seek to avoid in discussion here. That's what happened to that AR-15 story: [flagged] means users flagged it.
We've learned that such flags are an important community signal and it's a bad idea to override them unless there's a clear reason to. I didn't see a clear reason, because (a) the article was deliberately provocative, (b) its timing was particularly provocative, to the point of trolling, and (c) the discussion (though not as bad as it could have been) was close to flames, and likely would have become a full-out war if we had intervened to turn off the flags. Flags are a pressure valve for the functioning of the site.
On HN, a situation like that is complicated and involves multiple factors other than intellectual curiosity, which indeed are stronger than intellectual curiosity and tend to drown it out. In your description of the article above you highlight only the intellectual aspect (clear description of a little-understood technology) and omit the problematic ones, but the latter nearly always overpower the former. By contrast, stories about contested 8th century papyri are clearly on-topic and not particularly likely to violate the values of the site (marginal religious skirmishes aside).
If you were particularly interested in the AR-15 story, I can understand the frustration of seeing others flag it. Most HN users have the same frustration, but we all have it about different things. Other people complained yesterday that the AR-15 story was (in their opinion) being featured on HN while the latest post about Jacob Appelbaum was (in their opinion) being suppressed. In fact it was the same factor—user flags—working the same way in both cases, and the application of HN's standards wasn't selective. It just seemed like it was, because we notice it more in any case we dislike.
We've learned that such flags are an important community signal and it's a bad idea to override them unless there's a clear reason to. I didn't see a clear reason, because (a) the article was deliberately provocative, (b) its timing was particularly provocative, to the point of trolling, and (c) the discussion (though not as bad as it could have been) was close to flames, and likely would have become a full-out war if we had intervened to turn off the flags. Flags are a pressure valve for the functioning of the site.
On HN, a situation like that is complicated and involves multiple factors other than intellectual curiosity, which indeed are stronger than intellectual curiosity and tend to drown it out. In your description of the article above you highlight only the intellectual aspect (clear description of a little-understood technology) and omit the problematic ones, but the latter nearly always overpower the former. By contrast, stories about contested 8th century papyri are clearly on-topic and not particularly likely to violate the values of the site (marginal religious skirmishes aside).
If you were particularly interested in the AR-15 story, I can understand the frustration of seeing others flag it. Most HN users have the same frustration, but we all have it about different things. Other people complained yesterday that the AR-15 story was (in their opinion) being featured on HN while the latest post about Jacob Appelbaum was (in their opinion) being suppressed. In fact it was the same factor—user flags—working the same way in both cases, and the application of HN's standards wasn't selective. It just seemed like it was, because we notice it more in any case we dislike.
Probably some people find it intellectually interesting or a story unlikely to show up in major media. None of which means it's a going to appeal to everyone before gravity pulls it to oblivion.
Hey, if you don't love watching hardcore LARPers arguing over cannon vs fanfic, that's your biz, but the rest of us nerds live for this stuff.
@trbooks"This belongs on HN why?" Exactly!
It is a bit arduous to comprehend why HN is so eager to distribute such news which are a bit irritating for believer members like me. It is sad that it is always one sided.
It is a bit arduous to comprehend why HN is so eager to distribute such news which are a bit irritating for believer members like me. It is sad that it is always one sided.
If you actually read the article, instead of assuming you know what's in it, you'll probably find you agree with its conclusions. When you're afraid to read things you think will assault your beliefs, you miss out on a lot of truth.
Did you read the article, because the author is pretty much calling the whole thing a forgery.
I have no idea why it's here except for an interesting topic with research involved.
As to it being irritating to believers, I don't understand why. Jesus was a rabbi. In this story he married a believer. Rabbis traditionally married devout women. But what do I know? I'm just a believer that is also a de-aproned freemasons currently researching the rosicrucians.
As to it being irritating to believers, I don't understand why. Jesus was a rabbi. In this story he married a believer. Rabbis traditionally married devout women. But what do I know? I'm just a believer that is also a de-aproned freemasons currently researching the rosicrucians.
> "As to it being irritating to believers, I don't understand why."
Two key ideas:
1) Jesus is "married to" the church, as a whole, in traditional Christian doctrine. Being married to a woman would slightly complicate that theory.
2) Theories about Jesus marrying some particular woman are usually not only about that, but come with other baggage attached -- like accusations of suppression of knowledge, or suggested massive rewrites of Christian ideas. And they're typically based on a lot of speculation tied to things written centuries after the fact, not based on careful historical study.
Two key ideas:
1) Jesus is "married to" the church, as a whole, in traditional Christian doctrine. Being married to a woman would slightly complicate that theory.
2) Theories about Jesus marrying some particular woman are usually not only about that, but come with other baggage attached -- like accusations of suppression of knowledge, or suggested massive rewrites of Christian ideas. And they're typically based on a lot of speculation tied to things written centuries after the fact, not based on careful historical study.
The article said the papyrus is from the 8th century, which is rather recent compared to other apocryphal texts, I think. I thought the various Churches had consolidated around the canonical bible centuries before then?
If this isn't some kind of hoax (very big if), I'd be curious to know who was writing/copying what would have been considered very heretical at the time.
If this isn't some kind of hoax (very big if), I'd be curious to know who was writing/copying what would have been considered very heretical at the time.
> "I thought the various Churches had consolidated around the canonical bible centuries before then?"
The Bible canon was at least semi-established in around the 2nd century, and by the end of the 4th century the canon was very stable. There were still ongoing disagreements between branches of the church, but never over whether a "new" writing should be included, always over writings from the first or possibly early second centuries, or older Jewish writings. An 8th century writing would not have warranted much attention.
IMO the non-canonical "gospels" from after ~150 AD are uninteresting. The interesting stuff, outside of the canon, are the really old writings ( http://earlychristianwritings.com/ ) and the commentary/teachings of early church leaders (http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html ).
The Bible canon was at least semi-established in around the 2nd century, and by the end of the 4th century the canon was very stable. There were still ongoing disagreements between branches of the church, but never over whether a "new" writing should be included, always over writings from the first or possibly early second centuries, or older Jewish writings. An 8th century writing would not have warranted much attention.
IMO the non-canonical "gospels" from after ~150 AD are uninteresting. The interesting stuff, outside of the canon, are the really old writings ( http://earlychristianwritings.com/ ) and the commentary/teachings of early church leaders (http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html ).
A lack of printing presses surely means that while it might have been "written" in 800AD it may have been authored well before?
sure, it could have been. There are a lot of other markers scholars look for determine whether it actually was.
The wikipedia page for this particular manuscript gives a brief description of the reasons this is considered a forgery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife
The wikipedia page for this particular manuscript gives a brief description of the reasons this is considered a forgery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife
[deleted]
can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by 'uninteresting'?
is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian?
does your date refer to survived text or assumed date of original writing?
is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian?
does your date refer to survived text or assumed date of original writing?
> "exactly you mean by 'uninteresting'?"
Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion. It might be interesting in its own right, but not for studying that topic.
> "does you date refer to survived text or assumed date of original writing?"
The ~150 AD date that I use to separate interesting from uninteresting? Assumed date of original writing. Oldest surviving text can sometimes help establish that date, but only in a one-directional sense. There are lots of other markers of authenticity or inauthenticity that scholars look for; if you click through to the Early Christian Writings website I linked above, most of the writings have a few-page discussion of their likely age and authorship, and reading through a handful of those descriptions will give you a taste of what a rich field of scholarship there is surrounding the authentication of ancient writings.
Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion. It might be interesting in its own right, but not for studying that topic.
> "does you date refer to survived text or assumed date of original writing?"
The ~150 AD date that I use to separate interesting from uninteresting? Assumed date of original writing. Oldest surviving text can sometimes help establish that date, but only in a one-directional sense. There are lots of other markers of authenticity or inauthenticity that scholars look for; if you click through to the Early Christian Writings website I linked above, most of the writings have a few-page discussion of their likely age and authorship, and reading through a handful of those descriptions will give you a taste of what a rich field of scholarship there is surrounding the authentication of ancient writings.
thanks for engaging, but you did skip over my most interesting question: is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian?
> Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion.
have you read mary or judas? in coptic?
they are fascinating if only from the perspective of enlightenment regarding the life or teachigns of jesus, and shine a light on the early machinations that engineered what would later be known as the christian church and religion
see the excerpt from mary in another comment of mine in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918993
that excerpt brings a fascinating degree of enlightenment at how jesus viewed gender lines that clearly went in opposition to views held by the other disciples
in judas, if you read it in the original coptic you will see that every instance of the proper noun for 'jesus christ', often uniquely abreviated IHC or nXC, is quantified by the attirbutive verb 'laughing', he is the 'laughing christ'.. which for me, was an enlightening view of jesus' life and opinion
> Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion.
have you read mary or judas? in coptic?
they are fascinating if only from the perspective of enlightenment regarding the life or teachigns of jesus, and shine a light on the early machinations that engineered what would later be known as the christian church and religion
see the excerpt from mary in another comment of mine in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918993
that excerpt brings a fascinating degree of enlightenment at how jesus viewed gender lines that clearly went in opposition to views held by the other disciples
in judas, if you read it in the original coptic you will see that every instance of the proper noun for 'jesus christ', often uniquely abreviated IHC or nXC, is quantified by the attirbutive verb 'laughing', he is the 'laughing christ'.. which for me, was an enlightening view of jesus' life and opinion
> "you did skip over my most interesting question"
Actually I found the question banal, and skipped it intentionally. I prefer discussion of ideas, not appeals to authority.
> "they are fascinating if only from the perspective of enlightenment regarding the life or teachigns of jesus"
They're both on the later end of the spectrum, though still early enough that I took the time to read them (in English). They both present views that are consistent with a few other writings (the most famous being Thomas) and at odds with the majority of writings from that era (everything from the canonical writings to the Didache, Clement, Polycarp, and Barnabas.)
I don't see reason to treat them as particularly accurate or insightful. They fit the standard late-Gnostic pattern of "secret knowledge" -- teachings that were supposedly passed down from the only one disciple who heard them but hidden from others, presented as almost entirely dialog between a small group with little narrative structure, without place names or names of "bit characters" or other connections to any sort of actual history. If you're already inclined to believe early Christianity was corrupt and distorted, they certainly fit that narrative, but they don't stand up well to critical analysis.
Actually I found the question banal, and skipped it intentionally. I prefer discussion of ideas, not appeals to authority.
> "they are fascinating if only from the perspective of enlightenment regarding the life or teachigns of jesus"
They're both on the later end of the spectrum, though still early enough that I took the time to read them (in English). They both present views that are consistent with a few other writings (the most famous being Thomas) and at odds with the majority of writings from that era (everything from the canonical writings to the Didache, Clement, Polycarp, and Barnabas.)
I don't see reason to treat them as particularly accurate or insightful. They fit the standard late-Gnostic pattern of "secret knowledge" -- teachings that were supposedly passed down from the only one disciple who heard them but hidden from others, presented as almost entirely dialog between a small group with little narrative structure, without place names or names of "bit characters" or other connections to any sort of actual history. If you're already inclined to believe early Christianity was corrupt and distorted, they certainly fit that narrative, but they don't stand up well to critical analysis.
> Actually I found the question banal, and skipped it intentionally. I prefer discussion of ideas, not appeals to authority.
> I don't see reason to treat them as particularly accurate or insightful.
accurate? i fail to see any reason to assume the four canon gospels are 'accurate'
this is why i said it was 'most interesting' as it will present bias that may inform your definitions of 'uninteresting' and 'accurate'
> I don't see reason to treat them as particularly accurate or insightful.
accurate? i fail to see any reason to assume the four canon gospels are 'accurate'
this is why i said it was 'most interesting' as it will present bias that may inform your definitions of 'uninteresting' and 'accurate'
> "i fail to see any reason to assume the four canon gospels are 'accurate'"
But they are certainly insightful as to the beliefs of the early church, whether or not they're accurate regarding an actual historical figure named Jesus.
Judas and Mary fail on both counts, though they do give some insight into a secretive movement from the 2nd or 3rd century that focused on ideas about "hidden knowledge".
> "it will present bias that may inform your definitions"
In other words, it's a way to be accusatory. I gave my definitions; you can take exception to them directly instead of via the roundabout approach of questioning my impartiality.
But they are certainly insightful as to the beliefs of the early church, whether or not they're accurate regarding an actual historical figure named Jesus.
Judas and Mary fail on both counts, though they do give some insight into a secretive movement from the 2nd or 3rd century that focused on ideas about "hidden knowledge".
> "it will present bias that may inform your definitions"
In other words, it's a way to be accusatory. I gave my definitions; you can take exception to them directly instead of via the roundabout approach of questioning my impartiality.
I don't think the early Christianity was monolithic enough to say a pice of text represents it's beliefs. Looking back you can find some threads that where continued, but nothing suggests they where dominant in that time period.
> "I don't think the early Christianity was monolithic enough to say a pice of text represents it's beliefs."
It's clear from most early Christian writings that there were significant disagreements among different parts of Christianity, including its leadership. Even within canonical texts, there are several places where an author takes the time to criticize someone else's doctrine (for example, there's one famous passage where Paul says of those who require circumcision that they should "cut it all off".) So when I say that those early writings are representative of the beliefs, I don't mean it in the sense of being monolithic, but in the sense of showing what sort of issues were treated as uncontroversial or as background information versus what sort of issues were argued over using strong language. Most of the arguments are, not surprisingly, issues that any scholar of second temple Judaism would recognize.
You can certainly pick up both on threads that were continued, and threads that did not persist. But the particular threads that are seen in writings like Judas and Mary aren't early Christian threads, they're late arrivals from some other tradition. They don't show up, even to be criticized, in any of the oldest writings (it's not until late second century that authors like Irenaeus start criticizing those particular beliefs.) They don't use Jewish literary structures in the way they're taught, but rather, distinctly Greek structures. They're disconnected from history and geography -- for example, the "Gospel of Judas" names only one physical place (the region of Judea) and no people other than Jesus, Judas, Adam, and Eve, and the other names it does use (for angels/spirits/heavenly realms) don't resemble Hebrew or Aramaic names. There are no quotations of Jewish scripture and no references to major issues of debate or concern at the time (such as the Roman occupation, the relationship of Jews to Samaritans, or arguments between Hillel and Shammai over issues like divorce.)
In short, the gospels of Judas and Mary aren't first-century Jewish writings by members of a sect that split from Judaism because of the teachings of a Jewish rabbi; they're at best late second-century Greek/Egyptian-mixed writings that use a handful of Jewish names. If you want insight into that first-century Jewish-offshoot religion that we call "Christianity", look to the Biblical canon, plus the Didache, Barnabas, Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Tacitus (discussed in detail at the ECW link above), the Signs Gospel, Polycarp, and Ignatius, and look at the sort of arguments they get into and the things they emphasize and the things they criticize. It's not monolithic, but there are obvious patterns.
It's clear from most early Christian writings that there were significant disagreements among different parts of Christianity, including its leadership. Even within canonical texts, there are several places where an author takes the time to criticize someone else's doctrine (for example, there's one famous passage where Paul says of those who require circumcision that they should "cut it all off".) So when I say that those early writings are representative of the beliefs, I don't mean it in the sense of being monolithic, but in the sense of showing what sort of issues were treated as uncontroversial or as background information versus what sort of issues were argued over using strong language. Most of the arguments are, not surprisingly, issues that any scholar of second temple Judaism would recognize.
You can certainly pick up both on threads that were continued, and threads that did not persist. But the particular threads that are seen in writings like Judas and Mary aren't early Christian threads, they're late arrivals from some other tradition. They don't show up, even to be criticized, in any of the oldest writings (it's not until late second century that authors like Irenaeus start criticizing those particular beliefs.) They don't use Jewish literary structures in the way they're taught, but rather, distinctly Greek structures. They're disconnected from history and geography -- for example, the "Gospel of Judas" names only one physical place (the region of Judea) and no people other than Jesus, Judas, Adam, and Eve, and the other names it does use (for angels/spirits/heavenly realms) don't resemble Hebrew or Aramaic names. There are no quotations of Jewish scripture and no references to major issues of debate or concern at the time (such as the Roman occupation, the relationship of Jews to Samaritans, or arguments between Hillel and Shammai over issues like divorce.)
In short, the gospels of Judas and Mary aren't first-century Jewish writings by members of a sect that split from Judaism because of the teachings of a Jewish rabbi; they're at best late second-century Greek/Egyptian-mixed writings that use a handful of Jewish names. If you want insight into that first-century Jewish-offshoot religion that we call "Christianity", look to the Biblical canon, plus the Didache, Barnabas, Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Tacitus (discussed in detail at the ECW link above), the Signs Gospel, Polycarp, and Ignatius, and look at the sort of arguments they get into and the things they emphasize and the things they criticize. It's not monolithic, but there are obvious patterns.
You are assuming all groups are communicating when it's more likely that only groups near each other are in regular communication.
I'm not "assuming", I'm drawing conclusions from the evidence we have. Early-church writings include a significant number of letters between groups spread a great distance geographically. The disputes they talk about aren't just between groups in the same city, but between distant groups, and ideologically diverse groups.
This didn't particularly change between the first century and the second century, either. It's not like e-mail was invented in between those times to speed up communication. When certain disputes start showing up in the writings, suddenly, at the end of the second century, it's reasonable to conclude that they were new disputes and not disputes that had already been hot-button issues for a century and a half.
Also, don't skip over the rest of my post. It's actually fairly significant that the canonical gospels talk about people and places and name them correctly (archaeological digs show Simon was the #1 Jewish male name in first-century Palestine, and there are 9 different Simons named in the canonical gospels, each one carefully distinguished -- Simon Peter, Simon the tanner, Simon the Zealot, etc. The authors of the canonical gospels show a clear personal familiarity with first-century Palestine, as if they had actually been there.) Gnostic gospels generally don't name people and places outside of some tiny core group. This is a hallmark of being written from a distance, by a non-eyewitness, based on pre-existing characters.
It's significant that the canonical writings and many other early-church writings reference issues like the Roman occupation, Samaritans, and divorce, and heavily quote from Jewish scripture, while writings like the gospel of Judas and the gospel of Mary do not. It's significant that the canonical and other early writings show specific hallmarks of different sects of Judaism (not just in what they argue for, but in what they argue against, or even in the vocabulary they use -- John and Hebrews, for example, both talk about the "logos" but use it subtly differently.) Likewise, it's significant that among the gnostic writings, there's a clear progression/development of thought from the Gospel of Thomas to the Sethian writings, and detectable influences from known historical characters like Valentinus.
It's easy for someone who hasn't studied the topic to overlook these sorts of things, but there is actually a great deal of scholarship from both believers and non-believers about minute details in these writings. These aren't mysterious, unknown, could-subvert-our-understanding writings like the Da Vinci Code and similar works imply. Most of what comes out of scholarly analysis is fairly dry stuff, showing a clear development of gnosticism as a follow-on movement to Christianity.
This didn't particularly change between the first century and the second century, either. It's not like e-mail was invented in between those times to speed up communication. When certain disputes start showing up in the writings, suddenly, at the end of the second century, it's reasonable to conclude that they were new disputes and not disputes that had already been hot-button issues for a century and a half.
Also, don't skip over the rest of my post. It's actually fairly significant that the canonical gospels talk about people and places and name them correctly (archaeological digs show Simon was the #1 Jewish male name in first-century Palestine, and there are 9 different Simons named in the canonical gospels, each one carefully distinguished -- Simon Peter, Simon the tanner, Simon the Zealot, etc. The authors of the canonical gospels show a clear personal familiarity with first-century Palestine, as if they had actually been there.) Gnostic gospels generally don't name people and places outside of some tiny core group. This is a hallmark of being written from a distance, by a non-eyewitness, based on pre-existing characters.
It's significant that the canonical writings and many other early-church writings reference issues like the Roman occupation, Samaritans, and divorce, and heavily quote from Jewish scripture, while writings like the gospel of Judas and the gospel of Mary do not. It's significant that the canonical and other early writings show specific hallmarks of different sects of Judaism (not just in what they argue for, but in what they argue against, or even in the vocabulary they use -- John and Hebrews, for example, both talk about the "logos" but use it subtly differently.) Likewise, it's significant that among the gnostic writings, there's a clear progression/development of thought from the Gospel of Thomas to the Sethian writings, and detectable influences from known historical characters like Valentinus.
It's easy for someone who hasn't studied the topic to overlook these sorts of things, but there is actually a great deal of scholarship from both believers and non-believers about minute details in these writings. These aren't mysterious, unknown, could-subvert-our-understanding writings like the Da Vinci Code and similar works imply. Most of what comes out of scholarly analysis is fairly dry stuff, showing a clear development of gnosticism as a follow-on movement to Christianity.
> But they are certainly insightful as to the beliefs of the early church
this i can agree with, and is also what i take issue with.. the church intentionally left these other ideas out of their beliefs so of course they would do little in directly granting insight to the beliefs of the early church, but indirectly they do present insight
> Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus
but this i completely disagree with, that excerpt from mary is very enlightening to the life and teaching of jesus
just for clarity:
> I prefer discussion of ideas, not appeals to authority.
are you implying that admitting you believe would grant you the authority by which to appeal?
also, it feels like you are only selectively discussing ideas by refusing to answer the question while espousing others
some other ideas, interesting to discuss:
do you think jesus and mary existed as these texts describe?
was jesus a saviour and son of a god?
do you think jesus discussed somethings only with mary as the gospel of mary excerpt implies?
do you think jesus was married to mary? do you think a definitive answer one way or another would, or should, bear consequence for the christian religion?
this i can agree with, and is also what i take issue with.. the church intentionally left these other ideas out of their beliefs so of course they would do little in directly granting insight to the beliefs of the early church, but indirectly they do present insight
> Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus
but this i completely disagree with, that excerpt from mary is very enlightening to the life and teaching of jesus
just for clarity:
> I prefer discussion of ideas, not appeals to authority.
are you implying that admitting you believe would grant you the authority by which to appeal?
also, it feels like you are only selectively discussing ideas by refusing to answer the question while espousing others
some other ideas, interesting to discuss:
do you think jesus and mary existed as these texts describe?
was jesus a saviour and son of a god?
do you think jesus discussed somethings only with mary as the gospel of mary excerpt implies?
do you think jesus was married to mary? do you think a definitive answer one way or another would, or should, bear consequence for the christian religion?
> "are you implying that admitting you believe would grant you the authority by which to appeal?"
No, I'm implying that trying to label either of us with some particular belief system would result in pointless argumentation that would take the form of "thus-and-such tradition is wrong" rather than discussing the actual ideas being presented. "Oh, you're a believer and thus have been corrupted" or "oh, you're a gnostic and thus can't be trusted" or whatever. That makes for uninteresting and unenlightening conversation. So I keep redirecting us back to the ideas -- what does the historical/manuscript evidence point to?
> "the church intentionally left these other ideas out of their beliefs"
This statement presupposes a timeline in which the ideas in Judas/Mary were present simultaneously with the ideas in canonical and orthodox sources -- that these were two competing traditions in the early days after Jesus' life, and that one became stronger and "suppressed" the other.
That simply doesn't match with the historical data. The actual records we have from inside and outside of early Christianity are filled with disputes, and with criticisms of "false teachings". Yet no disputes or criticisms of gnostic-style (gospels of Judas/Mary) teachings show up until the late 2nd century -- as if those appeared on the scene as brand new teachings, not that they had been competing alongside Christianity. There are also indications from various external (Jewish and Roman) historians that Christianity was relatively powerless, not in position to be able to oppress or destroy rival belief systems up until much later -- and even at its height, the powerful (Constantine, Rome, etc.) had limited reach relative to the spread of writings related to Christianity.
There were lots and lots of disputes in early Christianity, and one particular sect eventually "won". But the disputes weren't about the things gnostic writings talk about; those are a later, separate movement that happened to use names from Jewish/Christian sources.
As for your specific questions:
> "do you think jesus and mary existed as these texts describe? was jesus a saviour and son of a god?"
What I believe is irrelevant. What matters when addressing the various manuscripts is that there's clear indication that early Christians believed Jesus and Mary (Magdalene, presumably) existed as described in the canonical texts, and that Jesus was both the Savior and Divine in some way. And there's a whole lot of evidence that the next 3-4 centuries were filled with argumentation over exactly what that meant. There is little indication that Mary was a particularly significant figure, though plenty of indication that other women (including Jesus' mother Mary) held prominent roles in the early church.
> "do you think jesus discussed somethings only with mary"
Not in the gnostic sense of giving "secret knowledge" only to Mary, or only to Judas, or only to Thomas. The earliest writings about Jesus show him to be a reasonably public teacher, in a traditional Rabbinic style. They show Jesus to have repeated important teachings to different crowds. I also believe Jesus' teachings would be recognizable (but potentially blasphemous) to first-century Jews -- note that many of the questions Jesus addresses in the canonical gospels are questions of Jewish interest, particularly relating to the Roman occupation and some of the major schools of thought regarding the practice of the Jewish religion. The "secret knowledge" expressed in Mary/Judas is very much grounded in a synthesis of Greek/Egyptian ideas that originated at least a century later and probably closer to two.
> "do you think jesus was married to mary? do you think a definitive answer one way or another would, or should, bear consequence for the christian religion?"
I don't think there's any legitimate evidence suggesting such a marriage. But the main consequence it would have on the Christian religion if such a thing were established would be regarding the relation of Jesus to "the church" as a groom and bride; it would not shift any significant doctrinal points regarding, for example, the importance of women. (Those who believe it would are, I believe, misled by certain 20th-century arguments within some segments of Christianity, which are mostly a result of the American church being out of touch with history rather than a result of early Christian doctrine placing women in a subordinate role.)
No, I'm implying that trying to label either of us with some particular belief system would result in pointless argumentation that would take the form of "thus-and-such tradition is wrong" rather than discussing the actual ideas being presented. "Oh, you're a believer and thus have been corrupted" or "oh, you're a gnostic and thus can't be trusted" or whatever. That makes for uninteresting and unenlightening conversation. So I keep redirecting us back to the ideas -- what does the historical/manuscript evidence point to?
> "the church intentionally left these other ideas out of their beliefs"
This statement presupposes a timeline in which the ideas in Judas/Mary were present simultaneously with the ideas in canonical and orthodox sources -- that these were two competing traditions in the early days after Jesus' life, and that one became stronger and "suppressed" the other.
That simply doesn't match with the historical data. The actual records we have from inside and outside of early Christianity are filled with disputes, and with criticisms of "false teachings". Yet no disputes or criticisms of gnostic-style (gospels of Judas/Mary) teachings show up until the late 2nd century -- as if those appeared on the scene as brand new teachings, not that they had been competing alongside Christianity. There are also indications from various external (Jewish and Roman) historians that Christianity was relatively powerless, not in position to be able to oppress or destroy rival belief systems up until much later -- and even at its height, the powerful (Constantine, Rome, etc.) had limited reach relative to the spread of writings related to Christianity.
There were lots and lots of disputes in early Christianity, and one particular sect eventually "won". But the disputes weren't about the things gnostic writings talk about; those are a later, separate movement that happened to use names from Jewish/Christian sources.
As for your specific questions:
> "do you think jesus and mary existed as these texts describe? was jesus a saviour and son of a god?"
What I believe is irrelevant. What matters when addressing the various manuscripts is that there's clear indication that early Christians believed Jesus and Mary (Magdalene, presumably) existed as described in the canonical texts, and that Jesus was both the Savior and Divine in some way. And there's a whole lot of evidence that the next 3-4 centuries were filled with argumentation over exactly what that meant. There is little indication that Mary was a particularly significant figure, though plenty of indication that other women (including Jesus' mother Mary) held prominent roles in the early church.
> "do you think jesus discussed somethings only with mary"
Not in the gnostic sense of giving "secret knowledge" only to Mary, or only to Judas, or only to Thomas. The earliest writings about Jesus show him to be a reasonably public teacher, in a traditional Rabbinic style. They show Jesus to have repeated important teachings to different crowds. I also believe Jesus' teachings would be recognizable (but potentially blasphemous) to first-century Jews -- note that many of the questions Jesus addresses in the canonical gospels are questions of Jewish interest, particularly relating to the Roman occupation and some of the major schools of thought regarding the practice of the Jewish religion. The "secret knowledge" expressed in Mary/Judas is very much grounded in a synthesis of Greek/Egyptian ideas that originated at least a century later and probably closer to two.
> "do you think jesus was married to mary? do you think a definitive answer one way or another would, or should, bear consequence for the christian religion?"
I don't think there's any legitimate evidence suggesting such a marriage. But the main consequence it would have on the Christian religion if such a thing were established would be regarding the relation of Jesus to "the church" as a groom and bride; it would not shift any significant doctrinal points regarding, for example, the importance of women. (Those who believe it would are, I believe, misled by certain 20th-century arguments within some segments of Christianity, which are mostly a result of the American church being out of touch with history rather than a result of early Christian doctrine placing women in a subordinate role.)
I definitely think these are the most interesting questions one can ask of early Christian scholarship, but they appear from the outside to be pursued solely by those with an ulterior reason for doing so, and it seems very little progress has been made on resolving these questions over the last 1800-2000 years.
So FWIW, I don't think this comment should have been downvoted to gray.
So FWIW, I don't think this comment should have been downvoted to gray.
[deleted]
While I can't speak for him, in general, you can reasonably assume that most academic commentary is from an analytical/academic perspective and not one of religious belief. That's not to say that biblical scholars can't be believers; they absolutely are. But that sort of rigorous analysis can often come into conflict with how most believers and sects view core theology and the material that informs it. For instance, a critical reading of the gospels that make up the bible--looking at the effects of centuries worth of oral tradition, transliteration, translation, and sometimes very heavy edits--isn't exactly the same as accepting one of the more modern editions as the literal "word of God" put to print.
I've only had some limited exposure to these traditions (mostly through some medieval philosophy, which obviously intersected heavily with the theology of the time), but it's a fascinating field of study. Not only in terms of how theological texts can change over time and how interpretations of them do the same, but also in how that can contrast with conventionally accepted understandings of what those texts are in the first place.
I've only had some limited exposure to these traditions (mostly through some medieval philosophy, which obviously intersected heavily with the theology of the time), but it's a fascinating field of study. Not only in terms of how theological texts can change over time and how interpretations of them do the same, but also in how that can contrast with conventionally accepted understandings of what those texts are in the first place.
The canon of the new testament was effectively decided for the western church (at least) at the regional councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late fourth century. I don't know anything about this particular text, but the canon had been established for centuries by this point.
(Yes, I know it wasn't officially decided in an ecumenical council until Trent in 1545, but those three councils effectively settled the question, given the importance of the regions involved.)
(Yes, I know it wasn't officially decided in an ecumenical council until Trent in 1545, but those three councils effectively settled the question, given the importance of the regions involved.)
The fact that the papyrus is from the 8th century is only relevant if it's the original. If it's a copy, it's not relevant for dating the book.
Irish monks (at least) copied stuff that they knew they disagreed with - pre-Christian pagan stories, for example. See "How the Irish Saved Civilization" for an example.
Irish monks (at least) copied stuff that they knew they disagreed with - pre-Christian pagan stories, for example. See "How the Irish Saved Civilization" for an example.
> "If it's a copy, it's not relevant for dating the book."
It's relevant in a one-directional sense. If you have an early 2nd century papyrus, you know that the original is early 2nd century or earlier -- which is fairly important, in and of itself, when it comes to anything relating to Jesus or Christianity. If you have an 8th century papyrus, you know that the original is 8th century or earlier -- which means very little.
So you have to look for other markers of age/importance/authenticity, such as vocabulary words that were in common use in some specific era. Or markers of inauthenticity, such as... well... a lot of stuff in this article.
It's relevant in a one-directional sense. If you have an early 2nd century papyrus, you know that the original is early 2nd century or earlier -- which is fairly important, in and of itself, when it comes to anything relating to Jesus or Christianity. If you have an 8th century papyrus, you know that the original is 8th century or earlier -- which means very little.
So you have to look for other markers of age/importance/authenticity, such as vocabulary words that were in common use in some specific era. Or markers of inauthenticity, such as... well... a lot of stuff in this article.
> such as... well... a lot of stuff in this article
Can you elaborate on some of these things and provide some reasoning as to why they are markers of inauthenticity?
Can you elaborate on some of these things and provide some reasoning as to why they are markers of inauthenticity?
The wikipedia article goes into more detail (with less storytelling): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife
The short answer is, the manuscript has no traceable history, seems to have come from someone with motive to create a forgery whose story is inconsistent, was presented along with a forged papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, and is physically questionable -- the handwriting, shape of the piece of paper (probably cut recently), the quality of the ink, and even the grammar are suspect. It has some grammatical weirdness that appears in a particular, modern, translation of the Gospel of Thomas and nowhere else.
The short answer is, the manuscript has no traceable history, seems to have come from someone with motive to create a forgery whose story is inconsistent, was presented along with a forged papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, and is physically questionable -- the handwriting, shape of the piece of paper (probably cut recently), the quality of the ink, and even the grammar are suspect. It has some grammatical weirdness that appears in a particular, modern, translation of the Gospel of Thomas and nowhere else.
i don't know - the eastern orthodox churches don't have celibacy for priests (only for bishops), they base this practice on the third council of Constantinople in 680; so in the eight century it was ok for priests to marry in these quarters, also Egypt was home to many sects considered heretical by the official church in Constantinople.
It wasn't okay for priests to marry, but rather it was/is okay to ordain married men – subtle difference, but important.
As one goes further back in time, the issue isn't so much about celibacy but about the obligation of sexual continence for those ordained to the ministerial priesthood. In the Christian West, the obligation of perpetual sexual continence (= husband and wife not having sexual intercourse at any time after the husband is ordained) was eventually safeguarded by the obligation of celibacy (= can't be married). In the Christian East, the obligation of perpetual continence was more or less put aside for all but those ordained to the episcopate. Note that Christian monasticism in the East and West entails/ed "evangelical chastity" (cf. the life of Christ and the Apostle Paul; Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7), so it's a somewhat separate consideration that monks don't marry.
Interestingly, in much of the Christian East periodic sexual continence is still an obligation for married priests, i.e. for some period of time prior to their celebration of the eucharistic liturgy. Such periodic sexual continence (or abstinence) of married clergy is sometimes referred to as "levitical continence" while the perpetual variety is referred to as "apostolic". Some of the early Church Fathers maintained that after Pentecost and the birth of the Church, the Apostles of Jesus dedicated themselves in a total way to the spread of the gospel and their ministry, such that they no longer had sexual intercourse with their wives. The lesser form of continence is then seen to be modeled after the obligations of the levitical priesthood of ancient Judaism. A greater share in the apostolic ministry (bishop vs. simple priest) thus entails a greater obligation of continence. To safeguard that obligation, it is the general practice in the Christian East to only ordain to the episcopate men who have already committed themselves to a life of perpetual continence, i.e. monastic clergy.
As one goes further back in time, the issue isn't so much about celibacy but about the obligation of sexual continence for those ordained to the ministerial priesthood. In the Christian West, the obligation of perpetual sexual continence (= husband and wife not having sexual intercourse at any time after the husband is ordained) was eventually safeguarded by the obligation of celibacy (= can't be married). In the Christian East, the obligation of perpetual continence was more or less put aside for all but those ordained to the episcopate. Note that Christian monasticism in the East and West entails/ed "evangelical chastity" (cf. the life of Christ and the Apostle Paul; Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7), so it's a somewhat separate consideration that monks don't marry.
Interestingly, in much of the Christian East periodic sexual continence is still an obligation for married priests, i.e. for some period of time prior to their celebration of the eucharistic liturgy. Such periodic sexual continence (or abstinence) of married clergy is sometimes referred to as "levitical continence" while the perpetual variety is referred to as "apostolic". Some of the early Church Fathers maintained that after Pentecost and the birth of the Church, the Apostles of Jesus dedicated themselves in a total way to the spread of the gospel and their ministry, such that they no longer had sexual intercourse with their wives. The lesser form of continence is then seen to be modeled after the obligations of the levitical priesthood of ancient Judaism. A greater share in the apostolic ministry (bishop vs. simple priest) thus entails a greater obligation of continence. To safeguard that obligation, it is the general practice in the Christian East to only ordain to the episcopate men who have already committed themselves to a life of perpetual continence, i.e. monastic clergy.