Jump to content


Photo

Jesus's Wife?


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Tyler

Tyler

    (Credit Only)

  • Member
  • 6,303 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:03 PM

NY Times:

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.”


It sounds like this can't have any more authority than the Gospel of Judas did a few years ago. Bracing for the responses from people who just see the headline and don't care what textual criticism is, though.

#2 Christian

Christian

    Member

  • Moderator
  • 10,954 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:12 PM

First up: The Atlantic. You might be surprised at the author's response:

There's only one problem, though. The Bible itself refers to Jesus' wife, repeatedly. Only that wife is not Mary Magdalene or any other earthly woman. It's the church.

#3 NBooth

NBooth

    Magpie of Ideas

  • Member
  • 2,932 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 04:30 PM

First up: The Atlantic. You might be surprised at the author's response:

There's only one problem, though. The Bible itself refers to Jesus' wife, repeatedly. Only that wife is not Mary Magdalene or any other earthly woman. It's the church.


"That's it kid, now let's blow this thing and go home!"

Seriously, that's a beautiful interpretation of the six or so words on the papyrus.

#4 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 9,087 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:17 AM

Jimmy Akin's takedown.

#5 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,986 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 08:43 AM

Mark Goodacre offers some initial thoughts.

#6 Tyler

Tyler

    (Credit Only)

  • Member
  • 6,303 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 10:56 AM

First up: The Atlantic. You might be surprised at the author's response:

There's only one problem, though. The Bible itself refers to Jesus' wife, repeatedly. Only that wife is not Mary Magdalene or any other earthly woman. It's the church.


From their Entertainment editor, no less.

#7 Greg P

Greg P

    Episcopi Vagantes

  • Member
  • 1,750 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 11:46 AM

Even if the papyrus was authentic, I fail to see how the speculative notion of Jesus being married affects the doctrine of Christ's divinity or the claims of the gospel one iota.

We emphasize the true humanity of Jesus and by logical extension this must include His sexuality. So why does the possibility of Him being properly married and having sexual intercourse with a woman produce such a visceral reaction in Christian circles?

Akin argues that the New Testament is full of references to the "Bride of Christ"-- His Church-- and that such references would be absolutely incongruous if there were a widowed Mrs.Jesus walking around somewhere in the first century. I disagree. Jesus clearly had a mother and siblings and yet in Matthew 12:48 he publicly disavows His relationship to them in that moment, emphasizing instead a higher principle of spiritual kinship for His followers-- in the same way they were later referred to as His Bride. Those who followed his teachings were His real Family and Wife. But such assertions didn't deny historical realities, they only clarified the higher spiritual purpose of His mission, no?

Edited by Greg P, 19 September 2012 - 12:17 PM.


#8 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 9,087 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 12:08 PM

It's a good question, Greg. I can think of a number of answers...but no time to write them out!

#9 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,986 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 01:19 PM

Greg P wrote:
: We emphasize the true humanity of Jesus and by logical extension this must include His sexuality. So why does the possibility of Him being properly married and having sexual intercourse with a woman produce such a visceral reaction in Christian circles?

Back in my college days, I used to ask people if they could imagine Jesus having a wet dream, and if they said (or indicated) that they couldn't, I told him their theology was faulty because they hadn't grappled with the full humanity of Jesus. (I specified wet dreams because these, as I understand it, are simple biological processes that happen to everyone and don't require any sort of conscious action, moral or otherwise.)

So I'm sympathetic to the idea that we should be open to the possibility that Jesus was married. However, I do find such a situation unlikely, for a number of reasons.

My first objection, believe it or not, is a somewhat theological one. Sex, in the Christian understanding, makes two people "one flesh" -- especially in its marital form, but Paul tells us in one of his epistles that this is true even of temporary hook-ups between prostitutes and their clients. And if Jesus is God incarnate -- God in the flesh -- then I have difficulty imagining that any woman could have become "one flesh" with God. (Incidentally, it was only when I began to take this idea seriously that I began to appreciate the special reverence that Orthodox and Catholics have for Mary, who was "one flesh" with Jesus in the sense that all mothers share flesh with their offspring. And I think it is noteworthy that Christian iconography and typology has often envisioned Jesus and Mary as a sort of new Adam and Eve.)

Then, on an historical level, I am persuaded by John P. Meier's argument that the gospels are full of references to Jesus' female followers *and* to Jesus' family members, yet it never mentions a wife, therefore it stands to reason that Jesus probably didn't have one. (Note: Meier is a Catholic priest who believes that the historical Mary probably had other children besides Jesus, so he's not saying Jesus was celibate simply to toe the Catholic line.)

The biblical references to the Church as Jesus' bride are a third factor, and they are both historical *and* theological, inasmuch as I think they reflect the theology that the historical Jesus subscribed to himself; i.e. I think it likely that Jesus never married an actual woman because he saw himself as married to something much bigger than that, namely his nascent Church.

Footnote: I have always found it intriguing how Paul writes, in I Corinthians 9, that Peter and James had wives and he did not, but nowhere in that debate does Paul indicate which side of the line Jesus would have fallen on. (Though I guess that could be because, in that case, Paul was referring to traveling apostles taking their wives with them on their journeys, and Jesus clearly wasn't one of those traveling apostles.)

#10 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 9,087 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 02:30 PM

Aside: Peter, does Meier actually say that he himself believes Mary probably had other children? Or is that the outcome he presents within the framework of his proposed "consensus view" experiment/methodology?

#11 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,986 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 04:08 PM

I can't remember, though I don't recall him emphasizing a strictly *personal* distinction on this particular point. In any case, my use of the phrase "historical Mary" was intended to give some wriggle room here: could mean the Mary who actually lived and died nearly 2000 years ago, or it could mean the Mary as reconstructed via Meier's "consensus view" methodology.

#12 Tyler

Tyler

    (Credit Only)

  • Member
  • 6,303 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 08:26 AM

Colbert's take.

#13 M. Leary

M. Leary

    Member

  • Member
  • 5,487 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 12:20 PM

Footnote: I have always found it intriguing how Paul writes, in I Corinthians 9, that Peter and James had wives and he did not, but nowhere in that debate does Paul indicate which side of the line Jesus would have fallen on.


I think that is because Paul did not conceive of Jesus as a model for every category of human behavior. This is part of the intent of his statement that "Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer." Paul sees a definitive break in our perception of Jesus pre- and post-resurrection. While the suffering and humility of Jesus represents for Paul that very fundamental pattern for the Christian life, he does not think of Jesus' personal characteristics as binding on the believer given his unique role in redemption history. For Paul, taking or not taking a wife is a pragmatic question related to one's calling.

Even if the papyrus was authentic, I fail to see how the speculative notion of Jesus being married affects the doctrine of Christ's divinity or the claims of the gospel one iota.


This is not simply a question of Jesus' divinity, it is also a matter of the titles Jesus accepted as descriptions of his ministry. Can one imagine a married Messiah? Well, given that Jewish tradition speaks of Messiah as the restorer of the Davidic lineage, then there is expectation that Messiah is one that will take a wife. Bar Kokhba, who was married and had children, was accepted as Messiah by no less than Rabbi Akiva during the 135 CE revolt.

So it would not have been contradictory for Jesus to have considered himself Messiah and take a wife. However, what happens in the gospels is that we see Jesus accepting the title of Messiah, fully knowing that he would be the one that would reveal to the nation that their Messianic expectation was flawed. Messiah would come to suffer on behalf of the people, rather than rule in immediate glory. What would have been very odd for Jesus is if he had taken a wife knowing that his life would end early in such a tragic way.

This whole Jesus being married thing is not simply a theological issue, it is a narrative issue. A married Jesus just doesn't make any sense, as it would have been very much out of character with everything we know about his early self-perception and the increasing reference to suffering and death we see in his teaching.

Edited by M. Leary, 20 September 2012 - 12:21 PM.


#14 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,986 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 01:55 PM

M. Leary wrote:
: I think that is because Paul did not conceive of Jesus as a model for every category of human behavior. This is part of the intent of his statement that "Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer." Paul sees a definitive break in our perception of Jesus pre- and post-resurrection. While the suffering and humility of Jesus represents for Paul that very fundamental pattern for the Christian life, he does not think of Jesus' personal characteristics as binding on the believer given his unique role in redemption history. For Paul, taking or not taking a wife is a pragmatic question related to one's calling.

Interesting. I hadn't thought about it in quite those terms, but I like this.

#15 Attica

Attica

    Celtic Creation Mystic, Film Buff- -oon

  • Member
  • 1,963 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:59 PM

Greg P said:

:We emphasize the true humanity of Jesus and by logical extension this must include His sexuality. So why does the possibility of Him being properly married and having sexual intercourse with a woman produce such a visceral reaction in Christian circles?



I just finished reading a book called Unclean written by a Christian psychologist that has some relevant thoughts.




Beyond disgust centered on food, morality, or people, disgust is often elicited by stimuli that seem to function as death/mortalit reminders. Events or stimuli that highlight the weakness, decay, or vulnerability of the body often activate disgust responses.....

..... In short, disgust appears to have an existential component. Our body-related disgust is not simply about cleanliness. Rather, disgust seems to be fending off some deeper anxieties and ambivalences, many of cluster around the body and bodily functions. Something about the body seems improper, illicit, degrading and disgusting. Existential psycologists have suggested that the body is disgusting because we experience it as an existential predicament. Although we relish in the body, we know that it will, one day, fail us. Thus, "animal-reminder" stimuli are pushed away as revolting and inappropriate for contemplation......

.... This offensive union-the attachment of our symbolic/spiritual selves with a body-is also implicated in what we might call, following the psychodynamic psychologists, the "scandal of anality". That is, if humans feel like (or at least desire to be) spiritual, angelic, god-like, and immortal beings then participation in basic metabolic functions-eating and excreting- is experienced as offensive and illicit.......

..... Given the "human digust reactions are typically mediated very powerfully by the awareness of death and decay", Nussbaum echoes Becker's analysis that "human beings cannot bear to live with the constant awareness of mortality and of their frail animal bodies. Thus, "self deception may be essential in getting us through a life which is soon bound for death". Digust aids in the self deception by prompting us to push the animal-reminder stimuli away, allowing for a quick restoration to our existential equanimity......

..... But the connection between disgust and death goes deeper. Recall that digust regulates the divinity dimension in human experience. Feelings of digust are triggered when something "high" or "holy" is degraded or profaned. Generally speaking, we tend to place the spiritual aspects of existence "hight" on the divinity dimension. Conversely, things that are physical and animal are seen as "low" on the divinity dimension. Man is "over" the animals. We don't want people to "descend to the level of animals". This is the dynamic a the root of Becker's claim that humans are paradoxical. The spiritual elevated, and "higher" aspects of experience are intertwined with our "lower" animal nature. Given that digust regulates and monitors the movements of elevation and degradation on the divinity dimension, it is not surprising that reminders of our animal nature are often seen as vulgar, inappropriate, illicit, and revolting.





In his book he touches on some of Christendom's reaction to "THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST" when it came out and a possible reason why so many found a few scenes so offensive. Namely Christ's temptation to get married and have sex in the movie. The answer of course is that many associate this with the body, death, "the level of animals", and therefore find it "digusting" and irreconcilable with divinity.

Thus the idea of Christ getting married and having sex is perceived as offensive.

Edited by Attica, 21 September 2012 - 09:12 PM.


#16 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 9,087 posts

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:40 AM

In his book he touches on some of Christendom's reaction to "THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST" when it came out and reason why so many found a few scenes so offensive. Namely Christ's temptation to get married and have sex in the movie. The answer of course is that many associate this with the body, death, "the level of animals", and therefore find it "digusting" and irreconcilable with divinity.

Thus the idea of Christ getting married and having sex is perceived as offensive.

I can't say that this is not why some people found it offensive, but it's not why I found it offensive.

#17 Attica

Attica

    Celtic Creation Mystic, Film Buff- -oon

  • Member
  • 1,963 posts

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:01 PM

In his book he touches on some of Christendom's reaction to "THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST" when it came out and reason why so many found a few scenes so offensive. Namely Christ's temptation to get married and have sex in the movie. The answer of course is that many associate this with the body, death, "the level of animals", and therefore find it "digusting" and irreconcilable with divinity.

Thus the idea of Christ getting married and having sex is perceived as offensive.

I can't say that this is not why some people found it offensive, but it's not why I found it offensive.


Personally I don't think I'm as offended, as much as I think it's just kind of stoopid. I mean really, if Jesus had have been married surely some of the apostles or those taught by them would have written about it. Even if not in the Bible, surely it would have entered into the vast amounts of writings that were rejected from the canon. I mean this isn't just a matter of Jesus sneazing.... if he was married they would have thought that God as man marrying a human was a big deal worth writing about.

Edited by Attica, 22 September 2012 - 11:54 AM.


#18 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 9,087 posts

Posted 22 September 2012 - 07:59 AM

To clarify: When I spoke of being offended I was not referring to the Jesus wife papyrus, but to the vision (or whatever) in LAST TEMPTATION.

#19 Attica

Attica

    Celtic Creation Mystic, Film Buff- -oon

  • Member
  • 1,963 posts

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:00 AM

To clarify: When I spoke of being offended I was not referring to the Jesus wife papyrus, but to the vision (or whatever) in LAST TEMPTATION.

Oh. Okay. I actually haven't seen LAST TEMPTATION so I don't really have an opinion outside of observing what others have said.

#20 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,986 posts

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:30 AM

Attica wrote:
: . . . if he was married they would have thought that God as man marrying a human was a big deal worth writing about.

I would agree, yeah.

I also find myself thinking that we never hear about Jesus' purported wife during any of the passion or resurrection narratives, nor even in the Book of Acts -- but we *do* hear about his mother.

(Interestingly, Luke-Acts does not place Mary at the crucifixion or resurrection, as far as I can recall, but it *does* place her at the early church in Jerusalem, albeit without tying her to a specific event there. It is John's gospel that places Mary at the crucifixion, including the passage where Jesus entrusts her to John's care -- a passage that many have cited as evidence that the "brothers" of Jesus were not Mary's sons, for if they were, surely *they* would have cared for her in Jesus' absence.)