Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:54 PM
struggle4progress (71,480 posts)
The Inside Story of a Controversial New Text About Jesus (The Smithsonian)
According to a top religion scholar, this 1,600-year-old text fragment suggests that some early Christians believed Jesus was married—possibly to Mary Magdalene
By Ariel Sabar Smithsonian.com, September 18, 2012 ... The fragment was a shade smaller than an ATM card, honey-hued and densely inked on both sides with faded black script. The writing, King told me, was in the ancient Egyptian language of Coptic, into which many early Christian texts were translated in the third and fourth centuries, when Alexandria vied with Rome as an incubator of Christian thought ... Whatever the truth of Jesus and Magdalene’s relationship, Pope Gregory the Great, in a series of homilies in 591, asserted that Magdalene was in fact both the unnamed sinful woman in Luke who anoints Jesus’ feet and an unnamed adulteress in John whose stoning Jesus forestalls. The conflation simultaneously diminished Magdalene and set the stage for 1,400 years of portrayals of her as a repentant whore, whose impurity stood in tidy contrast to the virginal Madonna ... The collector knew nothing about the fragment’s discovery. It was part of a batch of Greek and Coptic papyri that he said he had purchased in the late 1990s from one H. U. Laukamp, of Berlin ... For legal purposes, however, the 1982 date of the correspondence was crucial, though it — along with the fact that Laukamp, Fecht and Munro were all dead — may well strike critics as suspiciously convenient. The next year, Egypt would revise its antiquities law to declare that all discoveries after 1983 were the unequivocal property of the Egyptian government ... http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Inside-Story-of-the-Controversial-New-Text-About-Jesus-170177076.html?c=y&page=4 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Inside-Story-of-the-Controversial-New-Text-About-Jesus-170177076.html
|
23 replies, 1410 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| struggle4progress | Sep 2012 | OP | |
| pinto | Sep 2012 | #1 | |
| Angry Dragon | Sep 2012 | #2 | |
| nichomachus | Sep 2012 | #7 | |
| Angry Dragon | Sep 2012 | #8 | |
| okasha | Sep 2012 | #12 | |
| Angry Dragon | Sep 2012 | #14 | |
| okasha | Sep 2012 | #19 | |
| Angry Dragon | Sep 2012 | #21 | |
| HockeyMom | Sep 2012 | #3 | |
| pinto | Sep 2012 | #5 | |
| cleanhippie | Sep 2012 | #4 | |
| okasha | Sep 2012 | #6 | |
| cleanhippie | Sep 2012 | #13 | |
| okasha | Sep 2012 | #18 | |
| cleanhippie | Sep 2012 | #20 | |
| trotsky | Sep 2012 | #23 | |
| Angry Dragon | Sep 2012 | #9 | |
| okasha | Sep 2012 | #11 | |
| struggle4progress | Sep 2012 | #10 | |
| cleanhippie | Sep 2012 | #15 | |
| struggle4progress | Sep 2012 | #16 | |
| cleanhippie | Sep 2012 | #17 | |
| moobu2 | Sep 2012 | #22 |
Response to struggle4progress (Original post)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:01 PM
pinto (97,891 posts)
1. from the NY Times -
|
A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife
Laurie Goodstein September 18, 2012 CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …'” The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.” The finding is being made public in Rome on Tuesday at an international meeting of Coptic scholars by the historian Karen L. King, who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity. The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www |
Response to struggle4progress (Original post)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:08 PM
Angry Dragon (24,073 posts)
2. It carries as much if not more weight than Paul's writings
|
The Church is based on Paul who never met Jesus
|
Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #2)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 03:31 PM
nichomachus (10,085 posts)
7. Depends on which Paul you're talking about
|
The authentic writings of the original Paul, who was a Gnostic or the later forgeries ascribed to Paul. They are quire different.
|
Response to nichomachus (Reply #7)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 03:47 PM
Angry Dragon (24,073 posts)
8. I am talking about the Paul of the Bible.
|
The one they also called Saul.
The one that the Catholic Church loves to quote. |
Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #8)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:07 PM
okasha (3,834 posts)
12. There are at least two Pauls of the Bible.
|
N/T
|
Response to okasha (Reply #12)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 05:35 PM
Angry Dragon (24,073 posts)
14. Not aware of more than one
|
could you point them out??
|
Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #14)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:45 PM
okasha (3,834 posts)
19. Sure.
|
There's the real Paul, who actually wrote about five of the epistles attributed to "Paul," and there's whoever wrote the others and slapped Paul's name on them. The latter may in fact be more than one person, identity or identities yet unknown..
|
Response to okasha (Reply #19)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:50 PM
Angry Dragon (24,073 posts)
21. It is my understanding that none of the books have a title nor an author
|
Both were assigned by the Catholic Church
and the order was also determined by the church |
Response to struggle4progress (Original post)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 02:42 PM
HockeyMom (10,708 posts)
3. This is not the first Coptic text
|
if I remember correctly. Others said that Jesus had younger siblings, and that Jesus had a daughter (by Magdalene?) who was taken away by her mother to another country and grew up to have children of her own.
No surprise that Rome, and other Christian sects, would dismiss, and cover up, these findings. |
Response to HockeyMom (Reply #3)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 03:10 PM
pinto (97,891 posts)
5. fwiw, this group's meeting includes a Vatican Library event.
|
"The Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies will take place in Rome from Monday 17 to Saturday 22 September 2012. The Congress will be hosted at first at Sapienza University of Rome (Monday, opening session), then, from Tuesday to Thursday, in the Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, and finally, on Friday, in the Vatican Library, near Saint Peter's Basilica."
http://www.copticcongress2012.uniroma1.it/ I'm not real familiar with Coptic history, but cover up seems a stretch in this instance. |
Response to struggle4progress (Original post)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 03:09 PM
cleanhippie (14,481 posts)
4. 1600 years old? Hundreds of years after the alleged existence of Jesus?
|
Just how accurate can something like that really be?
|
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #4)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 03:17 PM
okasha (3,834 posts)
6. How accurate can Johansen's and Leakey's arguments for the evolution of H. sap. be
|
considering that they are being advanced millions of years after said evolution occurred?
Same answer in both cases--it's as accurate as evidence shows it to be. In this case, there is a strong Gnostic tradition that Jesus and Mary M. were more than just good friends, and this fragment is in keeping with them. Now, whether that tradition represents history, and certain passages in the gospels seem to hint in this direction, or whether it does not, depends as Dr. King herself says on further investigation. |
Response to okasha (Reply #6)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:58 PM
cleanhippie (14,481 posts)
13. Gnostic tradition is in no way, shape, or form, equivalent to the empirical evidence that supports
|
Evolution. How can we have an honest conversation if we keep making these blatantly false equivalencies?
|
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #13)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:42 PM
okasha (3,834 posts)
18. I didn't say it was. I was just pointing out the absurdity
|
of your basing accuracy on the nearness of an account to its occurrence. To take an example you'll love because it casts the LDS Church in a bad light, the real story of what happened at the Moutain Meadows massacre has only come to light in the last few decades. One of the archaeologists who worked the site is a personal friend and has first hand knowledge of the findings.
|
Response to okasha (Reply #18)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:46 PM
cleanhippie (14,481 posts)
20. While dubious, your example is premised on emprical evidence.
|
And as we already know, empirical evidence is not even remotely related to gnostic tradition.
|
Response to okasha (Reply #18)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:53 PM
trotsky (32,996 posts)
23. Do you know what DNA is?
|
Do you know what analyzing DNA can tell us about the evolution of a species?
|
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #4)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 03:49 PM
Angry Dragon (24,073 posts)
9. The Bible is even older .............
Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #9)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:06 PM
okasha (3,834 posts)
11. In its Catholic form, not by much.
|
In its Protestant form, much younger.
|
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #4)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:05 PM
struggle4progress (71,480 posts)
10. I'm not sure I understand your question. The people who study such artefacts
|
work, with whatever they actually have, to see what they might learn from what they have. It's too bad the provenance is lost: that collectors do damage by removing such materials from context just seems, unfortunately, to be one of the realities of research involving antiquities
|
Response to struggle4progress (Reply #10)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 06:19 PM
cleanhippie (14,481 posts)
15. I'm not questioning it's age, just it's historical accuracy.
|
Meaning that there is little to no extra-scriptural evidence to support any of the assertions these texts make.
|
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #15)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 08:03 PM
struggle4progress (71,480 posts)
16. "... King makes no claim for its usefulness as biography ..."
Response to struggle4progress (Reply #16)
Tue Sep 18, 2012, 09:16 PM
cleanhippie (14,481 posts)
17. That makes me feel better. And I was speaking toward a broader point.
|
Which still stands.
Good catch, thanks. |
Response to struggle4progress (Original post)
Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:41 PM
moobu2 (3,675 posts)
22. When these ancient texts mention Jesus in relation to being married, like this one does,
|
Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2012, 04:25 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) they aren't ever talking about marriage in a literal sense. If you know anything about Christianity you've heard the term "Bride Of Christ" right?, I heard the term all my life. In the Bible, Jesus is referred to as a bridegroom numerous times and there's a bride mentioned as well. When you read these Bible verses in context it's obvious that it was all symbolism and never literal. The bride mentioned in the Bible is usually thought of as being the church itself, though there are other interpretations that can be read about at the link I posted, but virtually no one say's that the Bible claims Jesus was literally married to another literal person.
I believe that the story of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is an astrological allegory drawn from the fact that one of the fishes in the constellation Pisces touches the constellation Andromeda (the chained woman). Mary Magdalene is the personification of Andromeda here. The idea that they were married comes from the fact that they are forever linked together. Here's a diagram showing the fish (Jesus) in Pisces touching the side of andromeda (Mary Magdalene). These weren't even real people much less were they really married. ![]() |


