Historian says piece of papyrus refers to Jesus' wife

"Another"? What were the others?

 

Editor at The Atlantic: News Flash, Scholars: Christ's Bride is the Church

 

Come on fellows....are we really going there? Specifically from the NY Times?!?:laugh:

 

WestminsterMan: the text states that Jesus' wife (bride) would be His first disciple.

Huh?

The OP article: "The text beyond “my wife” is cut off."

 

Here is a couple of articles about this:

http://thomaswhite.wordpress.com/20...eed-to-know-about-the-fragment-of-jesus-wife/

http://blogs.bible.org/bock/darrell_l._bock/quick_thoughts_on_the_new_jesus_wife_text

There is not alot here. The author of the original article has an agenda.

 

There is no way that the Lord could have been married based on scripture. First he said this;
And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.

If He had a wife He would have had a place to lay His head at their home. Second scripture says this;
But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife.

The Lord was totally Spirit/God minded so He could not have been married based on scripture.

 

I suspect that it'll eventually be put on the same shelf as James' ossuary.

 

More bunk from the same DaVinci code crowd.

 

If it were true, how would it change anything? Why is a single Jesus necessary? In fact, he said he was tempted in all things. Would he be tempted by adultery if he were single?

 

It would not change anything important.

 

There are a number of good posts by worthy scholars (evangelical and not) who are asking all the right questions about this new find.

It will likely be somewhat dubious as it appears this is part of a larger piece floating around in the underground antiquities market. Scholars generally frown on dealers who not only destroy important artifacts to make a bigger profit but also hold the remaining pieces ransom while they exploit the media controversies around them to make more money. This very well could be the case with this piece.

Now as to the piece...if it stays in its current form it is pretty useless for actual scholarship. It is too short and too limited in its form shown above. The text which is legible is not awfully helpful. It becomes extremely difficult to establish its provenance and credibility right now. Other scholars have noted this and are pointing out that it is odd for a historian from Harvard to suddenly come across this piece. (Though this story is developing) Thankfully Dr King is being dutiful and judicious in her work with this piece.

If the piece stands as it is with no other coorborating texts attached or supplied it will not really shed any light on existing scholarship concerning the historical Jesus. This might just be a text reflecting a discussion in the fourth century Coptic tradition. That is a pretty limited tradition and doesn't show anything helpful. Additionally, there are a lot of metaphors floating around in texts from that era.

The last thing we need is people like Elaine Pagels jumping all over it to justify her attempts at scholarship and rather oddd conclusions. I did listen to her interview on NPR today and wished they had called Dan Wallace, Darrell Bock, or Ben Witherington (which all have said stuff about this.) Now what will be really interesting is when guys like Larry Hurtado get involved. That will signal the next step in the scholarship surrounding the piece.

All that said I do wish to point out that Dr King (the scholar from Harvard) is being rather respectable in her facilitation of scholarship and inquiry about this piece. She is already pushing out a peer reviewed piece which will be placed in an academic journal (I forget which one) so other scholars can interact. She is urging caution and is being dutiful in her work. She is to be commended for this. Now we can't do anything about the media. They are all crazy. They just can't help themselves.

Notice how the media barely glanced at Dan Wallace's claims to a first century fragment from Mark a couple of months ago. That is big news. Bigger than this by an exponetial level. The media is pretty crazed when it comes to this stuff.

But I'll close with this:

Notice how a foundational belief of Christianity (I don't know nor think we can know if Jesus was married...doesn't really matter if He was) is being challenged. This is a longstanding tradition about Christ. But no Christians are running into the streets and burning Dr King in effigy. No Christian is charging the admissions office at Harvard with a bomb or starting riots in protest. Notice how Christianity is reacting...contemplative inquiry.

When you get asked about this or have a moment to talk about this with your friends make sure you point this out. This shows that Christianity is a mature religion with respectable, level-headed believers. I don't think this really impacts our view of Jesus, but at least we're willing to have a sane conversation about the possibility. Nobody is trying to blow us or others up over this.

The difference in reaction between the Christian world and the Muslim world is striking.

 

AMEN to the above conclusion.

Sidebar: I have read several books by Elaine Pagels. She writes well and makes sense. You all know her husband was Heinz Pagels?