Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 4999
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by Peter Kirby » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:23 pm

In case you haven't heard the news... "it's authentic."

http://peterkirby.com/50-blogs-abuzz-fo ... -wife.html

Whole buncha links just from today.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by andrewcriddle » Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:09 pm

Others disagree
e.g. Watson

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 4999
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by Peter Kirby » Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:52 pm

I tend to think it's a fake, myself. The modern kind.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 4999
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by Peter Kirby » Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:13 pm

Interesting. Stephan, you can file this under more evidence that "Jesus was a myth" has gone way beyond the biblical studies crowd:

http://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.c ... esus-wife/
http://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.c ... el-moroni/

This is a blog I check sometimes. It's got nothing to do with biblioblogs, but there you go.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 695
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by toejam » Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:09 am

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. AT BEST, all this fragment shows is that people in the 8thC were writing about Jesus having a wife. I could have guessed as much. For all we know, this is just 8thC entertainment ficiton - their equivalent of "The Da Vinci Code"! I don't see that it has to be a "sacred Gospel". It doesn't shed any light on the Historical Jesus or the pre-Constantine branches of early Christianity - which is what most people are interested in I suspect.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

User avatar
Blood
Posts: 851
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by Blood » Fri Apr 11, 2014 4:46 am

What I find interesting are all the comments you see posted in these articles. It is constantly repeated as if fact that the NT was compiled at Nicea; or, otherwise hundreds of years after the second century (the actual date it was compiled). Which just goes to show how utterly futile/non-existent Biblical scholarship is to the masses. I get the impression most people never thought about when/how the NT was compiled until they read "The DaVinci Code." Pop culture mythology will trump scholarship every time.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp

PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by PhilosopherJay » Fri Apr 11, 2014 5:36 am

Hi Blood,

I have found the evidence that the NT was compiled before the time of Constantine less than convincing and about equal to "wishful thinking". Please provide your best evidence. Please note that the Muratorian Fragment originally placed by 18th Century Catholic Scholars in the Second century, has more recently been placed by more objective scholars in the Fourth Century where all the other evidence for the New Testament compilation lies.
I believe the Internet culture of wide-spread instantaneous information has allowed the the masses to leap ahead of the Religious Biblical writers who fashion themselves as scholars and are still using pre-Baconian, 16th Century methodologies for their medieval inspired scholastic scholarship

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
Blood wrote:What I find interesting are all the comments you see posted in these articles. It is constantly repeated as if fact that the NT was compiled at Nicea; or, otherwise hundreds of years after the second century (the actual date it was compiled). Which just goes to show how utterly futile/non-existent Biblical scholarship is to the masses. I get the impression most people never thought about when/how the NT was compiled until they read "The DaVinci Code." Pop culture mythology will trump scholarship every time.

PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by PhilosopherJay » Fri Apr 11, 2014 5:57 am

Hi Andrew Criddle,

Professor Watson appears to have no qualifications whatsoever for determining the authenticity of ancient documents. Despite lacking these qualifications, he has written articles not only denouncing the authenticity of the document in question before any scientific tests had been run, but also denouncing the authenticity of the "Secret Gospel of Mark." Having written articles labeling two documents as modern conspiracies without any any scientific evidence to back up his conclusions, may we now label him a conspiracy theorist?
andrewcriddle wrote:Others disagree
e.g. Watson

Andrew Criddle

TedM
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by TedM » Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:04 am

From the article in question, we have the following:
..the text has been constructed out of small pieces–words or phrases–culled from the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (GTh), especially Sayings 30, 45, 101 and 114, and set in new ontexts...The author has used a kind of “collage” technique to assemble the items selected from Thomas into a new composition. While this is a very unlikely way for an ancient author to compose a text, it’s what might be expected of a modern forger with limited facility in the Coptic language.4I do not see anything in Dr King’s response to cause me to retract that last sentence.Furthermore, I pointed out that the very first line of the fragment begins in the middle of a word, at exactly the same place as in the equivalent passagei n the one surviving Gospel of Thomas manuscript. And line 1 ends with the same ending as the following line in Thomas.This is quite a coincidence, and it suggests that the author f[the Jesus’ wife fragment]may have drawn his Thomas material from a modern printed edition
If the part in italics is correct, IMO this text is almost certainly a forgery, and there is no need for experts to weigh in. All that is needed is some common sense.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 840
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:15 am

JW:
In general, this is another hit on the credibility of CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship), starting with the conclusion that The Gospel of JW is a modern forgery before the hard evidence is presented (trying to proof-text based on supposed modern parallels). Obviously Believers don't like evidence such as Jesus being married because it is clearly contradicted by what they think the evidence shows/proves. One of my criteria for evidence of fiction is likelihood in general. In Jesus' supposed setting, most men were married, so evidence supporting this should not be surprising.

Specifically, I currently have Mark Goodacre ranked as the top Internet Christian Bible scholar since Daniel Wallace jumped off the deep theological end. Goodacre has taken a hit here since he was so supportive of Modern Forgery:

http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/je ... ce-of.html

and even worse, is not now confessing his sin.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Giuseppe, Google [Bot], lsayre and 59 guests