Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by Gnostic Bishop »

I think that it is about time that the world catches up to the Gnostic Christians who have always though of Jesus as married to Mary Magdelaine.

Our gospels show her being kissed by Jesus.

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

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi Blood,

At the time that I read Trobisch's book, I agreed with him. I have recently come to think that his arguments are not as strong as I had thought. Rather, I think it is much more probable that the selection came during the time of and through the efforts of Eusebius-Constantine (circa 325).

Tertullian, writing in the beginning of the Third century never refers to the New Testament as a book or set of books. Typical of his use of the term "New Testament" is this (Prescription Against Heretics, -- Chapter 30:
"For since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is (necessarily) subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was (previously) united. [10] Having then been united previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man who effected the separation."
It is clear that Tertullian is not referring to a set of books which we label "New Testament". Tertullian is saying that the covenant of God was one covenant before Marcian separated it into a new and old covenant.

Likewise Ireneaus, also writing circa 200 C.E. ("Against Heresies" Book IV, 32.2) uses the term New Testament as a synonym for the new covenant:
5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things-not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful-He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, "This is My body." And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, saith the Lord Omnipotent; " -indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.
Again, the term Testament is not referring to a set of books, as Malachi certainly did not speak about a book called the New Testament. The New Testament that Irenaeus believes he talked about was a new covenant between gentiles and God to replace the old covenant between the Jews and God.

Origen, at least some times does not use the term to refer to a specific set of books. Here, he quotes Paul's use of the term "New Testament" in book 6 of Contra Celsus.
For it is the custom of Scripture to give to "intelligent beings" the names of "spirits" and "spiritual things," by way of distinction from those which are the objects of "sense;" as when Paul says, "But our sufficiency is of God; who hath also made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life," where by the "letter" he means that "exposition of Scripture which is apparent to the senses," while by the "spirit" that which is the object of the "understanding."
In other places, he does seem to be referring to a set of writings. For example - Book 10 commentary on John:
Now Jesus is the word of God which goes into the soul that is called Jerusalem, riding on the ass freed by the disciples from its bonds. That is to say, on the simple language of the Old Testament, interpreted by the two disciples who loose it: in the first place him who applies what is written to the service of the soul and shows the allegorical sense of it with reference to her, and in the second place him who brings to light by the things which lie in shadow the good and true things of the future. But He also rides on the young colt, the New Testament; for in both alike we find the word of truth which purifies us and drives away all those thoughts in us which incline to selling and buying.
What books he would include in his New Testament is not known. It is likely that he meant any books that refer directly to Jesus Christ as part of the New Testament.

While many writers wrote gospels and apostolic letters, to argue various points, none had a reason or the power to create a real canon before the time of Constantine. (I hope to write a book to demonstrate this idea).

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Blood wrote:
PhilosopherJay wrote: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
Have you read David Trobisch's "The First Edition of the New Testament"?

Origen and Tertullian were referring to "The New Testament" as a discrete book.
Roger Pearse
Posts: 393
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by Roger Pearse »

Peter Kirby wrote:I tend to think it's a fake, myself. The modern kind.
It pongs a bit to me.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by DCHindley »

Roger Pearse wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:I tend to think it's a fake, myself. The modern kind.
It pongs a bit to me.
Roger,

Honestly, to me it seems that the extreme negative reaction to this fragment is nothing more than knee jerk reactions from the crowd who are aghast that anyone could so much as suggest that the divine aspect of the Son of God could have stooped to union with a <shudder> human female! That's not what Christians believe Jesus was here to do, so it becomes a side show. Besides, the NT says nothing about Jesus being married.

Of course, ruling out a possibility because there is no direct evidence for it, despite being culturally likely, is like ruling out the possibility that the Chinese people existed in Jesus' day because the NT mentions nothing about them. Yet Chinese peoples certainly did exist, and this was common knowledge in the Roman empire. Presumably the NT authors did not consider them relevant enough to their interests to mention them.

Same goes with any wife or wives Jesus' may have had, as the earliest Christian theology was adoptionist. The man Jesus (it wouldn't matter if he was married) was adopted by God the Son at his baptism and dedicated to his holy mission of being a sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

That is only speculation, of course. Regardless of whether Jesus was actually married or not, it is well known that Gnostics were not afraid to explore this:
Gospel of Philip wrote:59. The wisdom which (humans) call barren is herself the Mother of the Angels. And the companion of the [Christ] is Mariam the Magdalene. The [Lord loved] Mariam more than [all the (other)] Disciples, [and he] kissed her often on her [mouth?/hand? the word is damaged]. The other [disciples?/women? the word is damaged] saw his love for Mariam, they say to him: Why do thou love [her] more than all of us? The Savior replied, he says to them: Why do I not love you as (I do) her?
Per Crum, the Coptic word "love" here (ϺЄ, mĕ) is used interchangeably with Greek agapan (selfless love), philein (to love like a brother), philagathos (lover of goodness), eran (to long after), erastēs (to be a devotee), ēdesthai (to enjoy oneself, take delight), pothein and epipo (to long for). His response, it seems to me, is like saying "Do you really want me to love you in the same manner as I do her? Don't be jealous!"

This love between Jesus and Mariam can be understood as "taking pleasure in her companionship." It doesn't have to be sexual, as is evidenced by the Gospel of Thomas:
114. Shimon Kefa says to them: Let Mariam depart from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Yeshua says: Behold, I myself shall inspire° her so that I make her male, in order that she also shall become a living spirit like you males.² For every female who becomes male, shall enter the Sovereignty of the Heavens.
The Gnostics who wrote the Gospel of Jesus' Wife (what a presumptuous name to give it), however, may have had other ideas about their relationship, especially if some Gnostics believed - as some church fathers asserted - that an individual had to experience everything life has to offer, including eroticism, before one is capable of ascending to the fullness.

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi DCHindley,

Good point about this being a kneejerk reaction.

Since we already have the gospels of Philip and Mary suggesting that Jesus and Mary were more than just good friends, why would a scholar/scholars go to all the trouble of forging a text and risk destroying their career just to repeat something that is well known?

At least with the "Secret Gospel of Mark," one could imagine a scholar wanting to prove that Jesus was gay and inventing it. Unlike this Jesus' wife text, that text does tell us something new about Jesus' sexuality. It sounds like something a gay writer might invent. Unfortunately, for the conspiracy minded, everything Morton Smith said about the work has checked out and Morton Smith's reputation and life's work are pretty strong evidence in favor of the authenticity of the work.
twenty-five years later, Guy Stroumsa reported that, in 1976, he, along with the late Hebrew University professors David Flusser and Shlomo Pines, Greek Orthodox Archimandrite Meliton, and a Mar Saba monk, relocated the document where Smith had left it. Stroumsa published his account upon learning that he was the last living Western academic to have seen the letter. Stroumsa, Archimandrite Meliton, and the other scholars determined that the manuscript might be safer in Jerusalem than in Mar Saba. They took it back with them, and Meliton subsequently brought it to the Patriarchate library.
To imagine a conspiracy involving Smith, Stoumsa, Flusser, Pines and Meliton with the last four joining the conspiracy some 18 years after Smith started it seems absurd.

In challenging these works,I think that some Christian apologetic Scholars may be projecting their own low moral standards onto others.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

DCHindley wrote:
Roger Pearse wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:I tend to think it's a fake, myself. The modern kind.
It pongs a bit to me.
Roger,

Honestly, to me it seems that the extreme negative reaction to this fragment is nothing more than knee jerk reactions from the crowd who are aghast that anyone could so much as suggest that the divine aspect of the Son of God could have stooped to union with a <shudder> human female! That's not what Christians believe Jesus was here to do, so it becomes a side show. Besides, the NT says nothing about Jesus being married. Of course, ruling out a possibility because there is no direct evidence for it, despite being culturally likely, is like ruling out the possibility that the Chinese people existed in Jesus' day because the NT mentions nothing about them. Yet Chinese peoples certainly did exist, and this was common knowledge in the Roman empire. Presumably the NT authors did not consider them relevant enough to their interests to mention them. Same goes with any wife or wives Jesus' may have had, as the earliest Christian theology was adoptionist. The man Jesus (it wouldn't matter if he was married) was adopted by God the Son at his baptism and dedicated to his holy mission of being a sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

That is only speculation, of course. Regardless of whether Jesus was actually married or not, it is well known that Gnostics were not afraid to explore this:
Gospel of Philip wrote:59. The wisdom which (humans) call barren is herself the Mother of the Angels. And the companion of the [Christ] is Mariam the Magdalene. The [Lord loved] Mariam more than [all the (other)] Disciples, [and he] kissed her often on her [mouth?/hand? the word is damaged]. The other [disciples?/women? the word is damaged] saw his love for Mariam, they say to him: Why do thou love [her] more than all of us? The Savior replied, he says to them: Why do I not love you as (I do) her?
Per Crum, the Coptic word "love" here (ϺЄ, mĕ) is used interchangeably with Greek agapan (selfless love), philein (to love like a brother), philagathos (lover of goodness), eran (to long after), erastēs (to be a devotee), ēdesthai (to enjoy oneself, take delight), pothein and epipo (to long for). His response, it seems to me, is like saying "Do you really want me to love you in the same manner as I do her? Don't be jealous!"

This love between Jesus and Mariam can be understood as "taking pleasure in her companionship." It doesn't have to be sexual, as is evidenced by the Gospel of Thomas:
114. Shimon Kefa says to them: Let Mariam depart from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Yeshua says: Behold, I myself shall inspire° her so that I make her male, in order that she also shall become a living spirit like you males.² For every female who becomes male, shall enter the Sovereignty of the Heavens.
.

The Gnostics who wrote the Gospel of Jesus' Wife (what a presumptuous name to give it), however, may have had other ideas about their relationship, especially if some Gnostics believed - as some church fathers asserted - that an individual had to experience everything life has to offer, including decadent eroticism, before one is capable of ascending to the fullness.

DCH
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
This looks to be the cruncher for Goodacre as to his claim of clear modern forgery:

Thursday, October 11, 2012
Jesus' Wife Fragment: Further Evidence of Modern Forgery

Please take a look. This is a close up of the first line of the Jesus' Wife fragment, focusing in on that odd missing ⲙ̅ (M+supralinear stroke). Look at the top line:

Image

Close up of the top right hand corner of the Jesus Wife Fragment showing NAEIPW[N2] -- missing ⲙ̅ (M + supralinear stroke) between iota and pi.

And here is a close up of Mike Grondin's Interlinear (PDF version) of Coptic Thomas 101.

Image

Close up of Mike Grondin's Interlinear Coptic Thomas PDF featuring a typo -- missing M

It should read ⲛⲁⲉⲓ ⲙ̅ⲡⲱⲛϩ (NAEI MPWN2), which is what is in Coptic Thomas. But here there is a simple typographical error -- the ⲙ̅ (M + supralinear stroke) is missing, just as it is in the Jesus' Wife fragment.

Is this the smoking gun? It certainly looks like the author of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife fragment betrays his or her knowledge of Mike Grondin's interlinear by reproducing this one, rare typographical error, resulting in strange Coptic.
JW:
I know Goodacre thinks the ending of "Mark" was lost and doesn't believe in Q but I had no idea just how bad his scholarship is as to conclusions:
  • 1) All of the hard evidence supports ancient (at the time Goodacre wrote the above, there was no hard evidence, but the G-man has given no indication that the hard evidence has changed his mind in any way).

    2) Just from reading Goodacre above one would assume that the missing M resulted in a simple and clearly misspelled word. But the missing M only acted as a marker of a direct object.

    3) Assuming than that it is a grammatical error (and not a spelling error) you would need to consider the extent to which the interlinear supports the fragment as ancient due to the same type of grammatical error being made.

    4) Karen King provides ancient examples of the same spelling without the M.

    5) Goodacre seems to assume that the Internet interlinear in question was the only existing one in the Universe.
JW:
The Gospel of JW may be a modern forgery but Goodacre/CBS are either in denial or ignorant of just how much evidence it would take to prove. I think the bigger story here is CBS' reaction to The Gospel of JW.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by Peter Kirby »

"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by andrewcriddle »

PhilosopherJay wrote:At least with the "Secret Gospel of Mark," one could imagine a scholar wanting to prove that Jesus was gay and inventing it. Unlike this Jesus' wife text, that text does tell us something new about Jesus' sexuality. It sounds like something a gay writer might invent. Unfortunately, for the conspiracy minded, everything Morton Smith said about the work has checked out and Morton Smith's reputation and life's work are pretty strong evidence in favor of the authenticity of the work.
twenty-five years later, Guy Stroumsa reported that, in 1976, he, along with the late Hebrew University professors David Flusser and Shlomo Pines, Greek Orthodox Archimandrite Meliton, and a Mar Saba monk, relocated the document where Smith had left it. Stroumsa published his account upon learning that he was the last living Western academic to have seen the letter. Stroumsa, Archimandrite Meliton, and the other scholars determined that the manuscript might be safer in Jerusalem than in Mar Saba. They took it back with them, and Meliton subsequently brought it to the Patriarchate library.
To imagine a conspiracy involving Smith, Stoumsa, Flusser, Pines and Meliton with the last four joining the conspiracy some 18 years after Smith started it seems absurd.

In challenging these works,I think that some Christian apologetic Scholars may be projecting their own low moral standards onto others.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Stoumsa, Flusser, Pines and Meliton were obviously acting in entire good faith.

However all their evidence confirms is the existence at Mar Saba in the mid 970's of the text photographed by Morton Smith in the late 1950's.

Andrew Criddle

(This is drifting a bit off topic. I probably won't reply anymore on this point in this thread.)
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by ficino »

Wasn't the supposed letter of Clement copied onto one of the flyleaves of a manuscript? If so, and if Smith forged it, he would have had to have done that in situ - unless he spirited the manuscript away to his room when he was staying at Mar Saba and later spirited it back to the library. Maybe possible...

sorry, just realized - derailing further!

w/ smith's book being reissued, do we need a separate thread on his work?
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Blogs Abuzz for Jesus' Wife

Post by andrewcriddle »

ficino wrote:Wasn't the supposed letter of Clement copied onto one of the flyleaves of a manuscript? If so, and if Smith forged it, he would have had to have done that in situ - unless he spirited the manuscript away to his room when he was staying at Mar Saba and later spirited it back to the library. Maybe possible...

sorry, just realized - derailing further!

w/ smith's book being reissued, do we need a separate thread on his work?
The letter was copied onto the flyleaves of a 17th century printed book.

Most of those who regard the letter of Clement as a modern work believe that this printed book (with the additional material) was surreptitiously added to the Mar Saba library.

Andrew Criddle

(Hopefully my last post on this point in this thread.)
Post Reply