It’s been a long time since I did any serious research on early Biblical and extra-Biblical manuscripts, but I’m still fascinated by the field. And this new discovery of a papyrus that quotes Jesus as referring to his wife is particularly interesting for a number of reasons.
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 was made public in Rome on Tuesday at an international meeting of Coptic scholars by Karen L. King, a historian 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.
We know that there were early Christian groups that believed Jesus was married, likely to Mary Magdalene, but after the 4th century, when the major Christian councils settled on what would be orthodoxy, they mostly faded away. This fragment apparently dates from that time period.
89 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Reginald Selkirk
September 20, 2012 at 2:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think your headline is an oversell. If the fragment is genuine, meaning it really is from the 4th century, it only tells us that an early group of Christians believed that Jesus was married.
Reginald Selkirk
September 20, 2012 at 2:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I recently read Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman, in which he discusses some of the gnostic writings. His main thesis is that there was not one form of Christianity passed from Jesus to his disciples, which was later corrupted by various heresies. Rather, early Christians believed a wide variety of incompatible things, and what we now know of as orthodox Christianity is merely the version which ‘won.’
.
One hilarious example: The Acts of John, in which the apostle John, out spreading the word, stayed overnight at an inn. He ordered the bed bugs out of the room until morning, so that he could sleep unbitten.
Randomfactor
September 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
it only tells us that an early group of Christians believed that Jesus was married.
Which is, of course all anyone knows about Jesus.
nigelTheBold, Venomous Demonic Hater
September 20, 2012 at 2:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Randomfactor:
Untrue! We know from experience he likes to put his picture on toast, in water stains, and in various organic patterns like cut wood. From that, we can surmise he’s really quite vain.
Randomfactor
September 20, 2012 at 2:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In fact, he prob’ly thinks the Gospels are about him.
Geds
September 20, 2012 at 2:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Reginald Selkirk @2: I recently read Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman, in which he discusses some of the gnostic writings. His main thesis is that there was not one form of Christianity passed from Jesus to his disciples, which was later corrupted by various heresies. Rather, early Christians believed a wide variety of incompatible things, and what we now know of as orthodox Christianity is merely the version which ‘won.’
The interesting thing for me is that I first learned that from a Presbyterian pastor. As part of his Sunday morning message.
I grew up Evangelical but left that flustercluck while majoring in history and minoring in religious studies at a state school. I’d been aware for some time of Paul’s arguments with non-Paul schools of early Christian thought, but I’d always been taught that it was Paul arguing for the right way against all the damn heretics.
The funny thing was that the Presbyterian pastor was still making a case that Pauline orthodoxy was the most accurate interpretation. He wasn’t selling it as the only possible or necessarily only proper interpretation. That, I think, was the morning I left Christianity completely. It all just snapped in to place and I couldn’t believe it anymore.
Interestingly enough, I was at the same church for Christmas Eve service last year. The same pastor did an entire thing about how Christianity got hopelessly corrupted by Constantine. For me that’s kind of a, “Yeah, no duh,” sort of moment. But it’s basically like he’s a pastor standing up in front of his congregation and daring them to put the pieces together and realize that Christianity ain’t what it’s cracked up to be.
Michael Heath
September 20, 2012 at 2:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Randomfactor writes:
Awesome, though I wonder what percentage of young people get it.
tacitus
September 20, 2012 at 2:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Proving that at least some early Christians had better bullshit detectors than many Christians of today.
Brad
September 20, 2012 at 2:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This one did.
DiscordianStooge
September 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Is this the theological equivalent to fan-fic claiming Luke Skywalker had kids with the Twi-lek dancer at Jabba’s palace?
newfie
September 20, 2012 at 2:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, 3 hundred years from now, when somebody writes about Xenu’s wife… that will make him real too, right?
Raging Bee
September 20, 2012 at 3:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He ordered the bed bugs out of the room until morning, so that he could sleep unbitten.
He probably ate something that made him smell so repusive that the bedbugs just buggered off.
lofgren
September 20, 2012 at 3:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That works? I wish somebody had told me when I had bed bugs. I have a bed bug allergy and my legs looked like I was beaten by a sock full of pennies. On top of that they only bit me, not my wife. (It’s not uncommon apparently for bed bugs to only attack one person in a bed.)
sumdum
September 20, 2012 at 3:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Feds maybe you should tell him about the clergy project?
Bronze Dog
September 20, 2012 at 3:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Curious how the tests will pan out. If genuine, it’s another interesting bit of trivia for the scholars to mention and for atheists to hint at. I doubt it’ll have much long term impact on popular Christianity, though it might spark a lot of raging fundies to condemn anyone who dares entertain the thought that Jesus lowered himself to getting married and doing the contemptible things married couples do. And then, in the next breath, assert that they’re pro-marriage and pro-family.
chrisfarmer
September 20, 2012 at 3:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
#13, you might want to have a talk with your wife. At least figure out where she’s hiding that sock.
Ben P
September 20, 2012 at 3:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
True, but from the 4th century, that is a bit like us speculating about whether, say, John Locke or Issac Newton was married. (neither was to my knowledge).
Of course written records weren’t quite so prevelant in the first century as the 17th, but there’s certainly a fair argument that a 4th century source has more inherent reliability than a much later source.
John Hinkle
September 20, 2012 at 3:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What’s missing is the rest of the quote:
laurentweppe
September 20, 2012 at 3:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh Shit: Dan Brown was right.
TGAP Dad
September 20, 2012 at 3:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
According to the researcher’s first draft of findings, the parchment dates to the 4th century, but the text is a copy of 2nd century writings, and translated from Greek. And all of this changes nothing. There is still scant (and nowhere near convincing) evidence that a person named Jesus lived during the time when the mythical character is said to have lived, doing the things the mythical character is said to have done. There is literally more evidence for Robin Hood’s existence, than for Jesus’s.
This scrap of parchment is a part of a gospel, a piece of allegorical literature being sold to a credulous followers. Yes, it dates to an era that from this distance seems contemporary to New Testament days. Let’s not forget that the text dates to the 2nd century, and the latter part at that. Think about where we as a society were 150 years ago. That’s how far from “Jesus” this text is. And the scribe who put pen to this parchment was 2 centuries removed from THAT.
Again, this parchment changes nothing, other than providing an interesting artifact for some museum. It seems more likely that “Jesus” never existed, and this parchment was part of a story to placate the masses.
Abby Normal
September 20, 2012 at 3:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Wife” is a bit of a mistranslation. A better word would be “dearest.” The parchment appears to have been ripped from the very beginning of the Bible. The full translation reads:
eoraptor013
September 20, 2012 at 4:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath @7
I bet there’s clouds in your coffee.
gingerbaker
September 20, 2012 at 4:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The whole thing is almost certainly a forgery, and a bad one at that, from what I have read.
eoraptor013
September 20, 2012 at 4:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
there’re
Olav
September 20, 2012 at 4:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
TGAP Dad, #20:
I am not sure about that. Aren’t they both just legends?
My favourite legendary figure is King Arthur. And of course the same problems exist around the question of his historicity.
lactosefermenter
September 20, 2012 at 4:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
New find suggests Jesus was married? I’m still waiting for the find that suggests Jesus actually existed.
Establish that first, then we can talk about Mrs Jesus.
lofgren
September 20, 2012 at 4:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There are at least a few contenders for the real-life inspiration of Robin Hood – men who were sentenced to death, escaped into the forest, started small gangs, were rumored to be excellent shots with a bow, and had a variation of the name Robin or Robert – who are attested to by contemporary legal documents, wanted posters, and news accounts.
The King Arthur did not exist. That’s pretty much a settled question. However aspects of his legend can be traced here or there to this or that petty king in Britain or France, albeit long after the fall of the western Roman empire. (So no matter what Clive Owen tells you, the real King Arthur probably was not a Roman legionnaire, and the real Guinevere probably did not wear leather bikini as armor, nor use Photoshop to increase her bust for promotional purposes.)
robb
September 20, 2012 at 4:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@randomfactor: i hear he walked into the party like he was walking on water
democommie
September 20, 2012 at 4:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Random Factor:
“In fact, he prob’ly thinks the Gospels are about him.
You mean like this:
“You dragged your cross up Golgotha like you were walking onto a yacht.
Your crown of thorns strategically dipped below one eye
Your loincloth apricot.
You had one eye on Mary Mags, man, she was so hot.
And all the girls dreamed that they’d be your partner
They’d be your partner, and…
You’re so vain, you probably think the Gospel’s about you
You’re so vain, I’ll bet you think the Gospel’s about you
Don’t you? Don’t You?*”
* Apologies to Ms. Carly Simon.
lofgren
September 20, 2012 at 4:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I should add that most of the story of King Arthur appears to be total fabrication.
There is more evidence for a historical Merlin.
eoraptor013
September 20, 2012 at 4:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
democommie @29
Where shall I send your new internets?
Reginald Selkirk
September 20, 2012 at 4:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For your referral, without comment:
Body hair puts bed bugs off
lofgren
September 20, 2012 at 4:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Believe me, as my wife likes to point out every time I leave the shower without cleaning out the drain, I have plenty of body hair. Did not work for me.
Reginald Selkirk
September 20, 2012 at 4:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yeah, well maybe Jesus didn’t actually exist, but his wife did. I bet you didn’t think of that possibility.
Reginald Selkirk
September 20, 2012 at 5:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Off-topic, but you’ll want to read about:
Mullet found guilty
Ben P
September 20, 2012 at 5:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
While it is true that there is not much truly contemporary writtten evidence for Jesus with the very earliest manuscripts documenting his life dating to the second century (Papyrus 52 is the earliest extant fragment of the new testament and dates to 125 ce) and most not confirmed until the 4th century. (Codex Sinaiticus ~325 ce)
However, there is quite a bit of evidence that early Christianity was firmly established in Jerusalem by 50 CE (the Council of Jerusalem for which there is written evidence) and was widespread around the Mediterranean by 100 CE.
That certainly leaves a lot of white space for people to make up the fantastical aspects of the Christ’s story, (and indeed, I think stories growing in the retelling is exactly how Christ turned from someone we would probably see today as a charismatic cult leader into a divine being) but I’d be really curious as to your explanation for hundreds, if not thousands of people who purport to worship a dead man within 20-25 years of his death if that man hadn’t ever lived in the first place.
Robin hood might actually be an apt comparison. It’s unlikely there was some dispossessed nobleman etc etc. But there are lots of references to various thieves or brigands being referred to as Robin Hood or variations thereof, and its a pretty reasonable assumption that the stories started somewhere and grew in the retelling.
dean
September 20, 2012 at 5:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
(Looks up) Oh man, this is why I can’t have nice historical fantasies.
monsieur
September 20, 2012 at 5:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Regarding this news, from the BBC article:
Jim West, a professor and Baptist pastor in Tennessee, said: “A statement on a papyrus fragment isn’t proof of anything. It’s nothing more than a statement ‘in thin air’, without substantial context.”
This is priceless! Substitute the word papyrus for book, and you have a pretty solid critic of his own religion!
lofgren
September 20, 2012 at 5:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think it is quite an assumption, given that we have no written evidence, to suppose that the Christians of the 50 CE believed in a corporeal Jesus in the same way that Christians do now. It’s not difficult to imagine a composite character coming together fairly quickly in order to illustrate the epitome of righteousness. They may not have seen actual existence as an important factor.
The character of Paul Bunyan is a little over a hundred years old and almost certainly the deliberate creation of a few individuals. Nevertheless, there are believers, and even some folklorists who are committed to the idea that there must have been a real-life individual to inspire the stories. (Folklorists are a funny breed. Tracing a story backwards to its component inspirations is fascinating work, but there appears to be a strong risk of falling into a pattern where you become convinced that nothing is ever original, that everything must have a source. And for some of them, the source always has to be one individual or event – no composites! – that they can label the “real” XYZ. Certainly not all folkorists fall into this trap, but it does appear to be a professional hazard.)
Hell, aliens have only been visiting us for a little bit more than 50 years, but they already have their worshippers. Are you going to tell me that we therefore require positive evidence that aliens do not spend their evenings probing drunken hicks from their flying saucers?
So I see multiple perfectly viable pathways to a Jewish heresy arising that features stories of a superpowered savior, without that savior ever existing as an individual.
Christoph Burschka
September 20, 2012 at 6:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I doubt it for one simple reason. If it were true, then there would be a part of the Da Vinci Code that isn’t straight-up bullshit.
Unlikely.
Ben P
September 20, 2012 at 6:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
lofgren
September 20, 2012 at 7:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Which is fine – although as a layman I do find arguments that there was no historical Jesus, or at least that the Jesus who did exist contributed little to the Jesus of the gospels. But it’s really not my place to opine either way. My only point is that the existence of Christians in the second half of the first century in no way implies the existence of the historical Jesus.
Further,
That’s just human nature, and again does not imply in any way that Jesus existed. Regardless of whether there was a man or not, we would expect divides to occur over technicalities in doctrine. That’s just what we humans do. Besides the fact that specific disagreement you offer has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus’ existence or character, I can just as easily argue that if Jesus was a fictional character there is pretty much no way that attempting to discern the “true” Jesus wouldn’t result in disagreements.
Don’t believe me? Walk into any comic book shop and tell them you really like Batman, but only the “real” Batman and the “real” Robin… George Clooney and Chris O’Donnell.
Area Man
September 20, 2012 at 7:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I seem to recall that Paul Bunyan is often considered an example of “fakelore”, something that was made up by journalists relatively recently and was then retroactively turned into an old legend.
Not that this disputes your point about Jesus being possibly mythical; if anything it strengthens it.
lofgren
September 20, 2012 at 7:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He was popularized as the central figure in an advertising campaign, actually. Although he appears to have originated in a short story slightly before that.
Personally I don’t like the term “fakelore,” though. I suspect most of our folklore could be fairly categorized as fakelore if you go back far enough.
wholething
September 20, 2012 at 7:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
the comments on WEIT had some suggestions for the rest of “Jesus sas, ‘My wife…’”
My wife, Steve…
My wife is my better half…
pacal
September 20, 2012 at 7:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Actually until this find there was no evidence that early Christian groups thought Jesus was married. Certainly various writings put forth the idea that Mary Magdalene was a very important follower of Jesus and that she had a close relationship to him but none of this documentation claims that Jesus was married to her or anyone else. In fact the earliest reference until this, that any Christian group thought Jesus was married was various beliefs attributed to the Cathars in the early 13th century.
If this interpretation is upheld / verified it would be of importance in establishing that this belief was early and floating about.
Area Man
September 20, 2012 at 7:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I seem to recall that Paul Bunyan is often considered an example of “fakelore”, something that was made up by journalists relatively recently and was then retroactively turned into an old legend.
Not that this disputes your point about Jesus being possibly mythical; it just goes to show that not only can people believe in mythical figures, they can believe that they’ve always believed in mythical figures.
Area Man
September 20, 2012 at 7:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oops, double post.
reverendrodney
September 20, 2012 at 8:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t think Christianity came from a vacuum. Something happened that got the ball rolling. Perhaps it was the desperate wish (for a savior) of brutally oppressed people, but would they have conjured someone like Christ as their messiah?
For myself a far more interesting puzzle than whether Christ was a person is the inclusion of turn the other cheek and forgive others in Christian lore. Those are Buddhist concepts, yet they wound up in the New Testament. How?
laurentweppe
September 20, 2012 at 8:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
An immortal buddhist cro-magnon did it
timgueguen
September 20, 2012 at 9:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I doubt the folks who wrote the Gospels had any encounter with Buddhism. They, Jesus, or whoever else was involved simply came up with those concepts themselves.
helenaconstantine
September 20, 2012 at 9:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh Ed, ED !
After all the times I’ve offered evidence form primary sources that Jefferson and Franklin were atheists, only to have you gainsay it because you think its ‘cool’ to be able to correct radical atheists form a centrist position, insisting that your interpretation of conflicting evidence is correct–after all that–you have to stoop to this outright lying?
You never did “any serious research” into early Christian literature. Who are you trying to fool? I studied Coptic for 2 years as part of My PhD program in classics in the early 1990s just so I would be able to read texts like this. When did you learn Coptic? When did you learn Greek? Just admit you’re boasting and apologize.
ambulocetacean
September 20, 2012 at 9:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What makes you think it unlikely? India is next door to the Middle East and there were Buddhist missionaries all over the place.
Don’t Simon Peter and the Buddha’s disciple Sariputta play the same role as companions whose dimwittedness provides teachable moments in walking-on-water stories?
I know bugger-all about it and could all be just coincidence, but the idea that Christianity was at least partly cribbed from Buddhism is not new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Christianity
lancifer
September 20, 2012 at 9:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I agree, but it hardly matters really. The “gospels” are clearly self-inconsistent and if some historically extant joker named Jesus was the kernel of these idiotic fairy tales it changes not a jot their lunatic/fictional nature.
bahrfeldt
September 20, 2012 at 10:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Holy Blood, Holy Grail” pushed this theme in the 1980’s, presented as an historical argument.
Wikipedia says the book claims Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had children. The children or their descendents went to Gaul, married into (Gallic? Roman?) nobility and using those connections later began the (Frankish) Merovingian dynasty.
My recollection is that the book claimed Jesus avoided the crucifixion, that his son Barabbas (Bar Rabbi= the son of the rabbi, although I prefer Bar Abba= the son of the father) was killed in his stead. Jesus and the rest of the family sailed to Gaul and later founded the dynasty.
The Catholic Church did not like the book.
Brownian
September 20, 2012 at 10:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
rturpin
September 21, 2012 at 12:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ben P:
I’m sympathetic to the notion that surely there must at least have been some preacher who impressed people enough, that a religion was built around him. There’s a sense in which that seems the most straightforward explanation.
On the other hand…
We have in modern times: 1) A religion built around a 19th century seer who claimed to translate plates of gold to which an angel guided him. 2) A religion started by a science fiction author holds that an interstellar emperor 75 million years ago used income-tax audits as a ruse to capture billions of his citizens, fly them to earth in spacecraft resembling DC-8s, freeze them in alcohol, stack them in volcanoes, and destroy them with fusion bombs.
I’d be really curious as to your explanation for how these religions acquired tens of thousands of adherents within a decade or two of their origin.
Now me? My explanation is simple. There are a lot of people who will believe all sorts of horseshit. In pondering the origins of Christianity, my starting point is that I have zero reason to think the first Christians were any less gullible than the first Scientologists.
rogue74656
September 21, 2012 at 12:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@abbynormal #21
“Daddy Issues
by Jesus Hubert Christ”
I’m sorry…it is a well-known fact that the H stands for “Haploid”
rogue74656
September 21, 2012 at 12:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Ben P #41.
You might check out:
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald (ISBN 0557709911)
rogue74656
September 21, 2012 at 12:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@reverendrodney #49:
“Those are Buddhist concepts, yet they wound up in the New Testament. How?”
The answer to your question can be found here:
Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal by Christopher Moore (ISBN 0380813815)
matty1
September 21, 2012 at 4:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@reverendrodney #49:
“Those are Buddhist concepts, yet they wound up in the New Testament. How?”
Are those concepts specifically Buddhist? Certainly Wiki suggests that ideas about forgiveness are common in many religions. Varied certainly but going just by the article I don’t see much to suggest the Christian view is closer to the Buddhist than to the Jewish (which is a more obvious source).
dingojack
September 21, 2012 at 4:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jesus was married?! *
Would this be the fundie equivalent of literally giving Jesus a ‘chinese burn’?
Dingo
—–
* This is hardly news in itself. The idea has been kicking around since the 13th century (at least)
anubisprime
September 21, 2012 at 5:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For what it is worth, it seems rather blatant that Paul had far more to do with the spreading of bullshite then any fictitious, or otherwise, jeebus character, methinks Paul was a seasoned conman that had his eye on the main chance, and took it, not so very different to a certain science fiction writer or a well matched rival in bollix to a 17th century bigamist who managed to con a whole state out of the chaos which was the American dream back then.
Paul had an agenda, and was not keen on women, 1 Timothy 2:12 “I suffer not a woman” that was attributed to him.
In fact most dogmatic, not to mention bigoted responses of the xian church today belongs to the world according to Pauline delusion.
One might be forgiven for suggesting that Christianity should, if there is any truth in the nonsense, be really called Paulinity!
A tad further down that road and not it is not difficult to see some obscure criminal against the state that got nailed to a bit of tree maybe a decade before Paul was born became the perfect skeleton to hang philosophical baggage onto.
One thing is also odd…the Romans liked documenting all sorts of lists, from cargo to weapons to court cases, and making copies and spreading the word around their empire…so the authorities in say Egypt knew what was going on in Rome or indeed Jerusalem as to the sate of the Roman Empire and for, what the xians boast of as a significant court case and sentence there is not one scrap, not even a ‘credit card’ sized scrap of evidence that Jeebus actually existed or was indeed sentenced to death.
That is extremely unlikely.
Tacitus is oft quoted as a prime source of propaganda for xianity, it seems they think he wrote reams of glowing prose about their hero…turns out it was basically one short passage that the intel for was probably gained second hand from Pliny the Younger and which was not exactly full of praise for xianity in general.
Where Pliny might have got it from is also debatable!
And Tacitus though generally regarded as pretty ‘kewl’ although the dude made errors…
The quoting of Tacitus supposed proof of jeebus is fulsome from certain quarters but the truth is without corroborating evidence from at least one other source it seems it is not quite as concrete as the xians boast!
slc1
September 21, 2012 at 7:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Ben P @ #41
It should be pointed out that a leading critic of the notion that there was a historical Yeshua of Nazareth, Richard Carrier, blogs on FTB.
democommie
September 21, 2012 at 7:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@63:
My “scholarship” re: Tacitus consists of one slim volume by someone who held him in high regard as the “father” of historicity. That author also points out Tacitus was not above embroidery and outright obsequiousness in his portrayal of certain figures for political reasons. That old saying about computer programming, “GIGO”, applies to most human endeavors.
I think that the movie, “Zardoz”, starring Sean Connery in one of his more ludicrous performances, very nicely illustrates how scraps of fictive writing can become scripture in the eyes of those desperate for salvation (or seeking to run a con on those desperate for salvation).
heddle
September 21, 2012 at 8:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
anubisprime,
Well since you think so this is certainly a theory worthy of serious consideration!
Nice quote mine. The greek word properly translated in KJ english as suffer is translated into modern english as permit. In using an anachronistic translation and cutting the quote short you try to use it as a blanket Pauline denigration of women. The actual statement, while no doubt still objectionable to many, is not “I suffer not a woman” but “I do not permit a woman to to teach or be in a position of authority over a man.” Internal evidence in pastoral epistles suggests that this is a narrow restriction to the office of elder (pastor.) And you have conveniently neglected Paul’s loving, respectful, collegial, and favorable disposition toward many women, including Prisca, whom it appears he esteemed over her husband. (And who, in fact, taught Appolos, as reported, in an entirely positive manner, by Paul’s secretary.)
OMG now that is an original idea! Nobody has ever before suggested that Christianty developed from the teaching of Paul rather than Jesus! Why, you should publish that theory! Brilliant!
We are quite aware of the scholarly limitations of Tacitus and even more aware that most of the references to Jesus (all save, perhaps, a casual reference) attributed to Josephus are not authentic. But of course it feeds your pathetic ego to imagine you know this (and I doubt how well you know it) and we don’t.
Just another garden-variety atheist suffering from the myth that he knows more about the bible and the history of Christianity than we do.
democommie
September 21, 2012 at 8:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Anubisprime:
I meant to add to my last post that you should prolly expect heddle to show up and rebut your contentions about Paul. I don’t argue about religion with heddle as I’ve determined that we will NEVER agree on any of that nonsense and I’m not interested in banging my head against that metaphysorical wall.
Having said that, I’m just thrilled that the Ron Paulbots are off licking each others’ wounds and have not been attracted to this thread because their Paulzinger detectors go off at the mention of that single syllable, “Paul”. The last two women I lived with said I didn’t ever express gratitude for “life’s blessings” (I have them to thank for rousing my curiousity to investigate religion and find it to be a massive Ponzi scheme); I’m happy to prove them wrong, well, not “wrong” really, just “unenlightened”, as in down a three mile deep mineshaft without a fucking headlamp.
netamigo
September 21, 2012 at 8:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The Vatican was questioned about this. They replied that they don’t care what proof exists. They stand by their dogma. After all, the Pope has a direct line to heaven and knows everything.
pneumo
September 21, 2012 at 9:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Zero provenance = zero value.
heddle
September 21, 2012 at 9:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
netamigo,
Citation needed.
And of what proof do you refer? Proof that Jesus was married (which this document does not provide, any more than the bible proves that he was not, or even that he existed at all) or proof that the fragment is genuine? Why would the Vatican or any Christian be concerned that the fragmit is legit? There are many legitimate (as in they are not fakes) gnostic and other writings that teach likewise or other aspects of Jesus’ life that are contrary to the canon. This would just join, if indeed it did not come from, the gospels of Thomas, Peter, Barnabas, Mary, Judas, … etc. Rome would be correct to be unconcerned. It is a fascinating archeological discovery–but its theological significance for Christianity is nil.
Big Boppa
September 21, 2012 at 9:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This is big news. Another scrap of papyrus has been found with the balance of the quotation:
“Jesus said to them, ‘My wife, taketh her unto you….please. I sayeth unto you, my brethren, I cannot get no respect.’ ”
netamigo
September 21, 2012 at 9:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I heard the same thing on last night’s national evening news as well that the Vatican was queried and responded they did not care what proof existed as they stood by their dogma.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/09/20/theology-prof-ancient-message-that-jesus-may-have-had-a-wife-will-not-change-catholic-church-doctrine/
heddle
September 21, 2012 at 10:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
netamigo,
Yes the single quote in your linked citation from from the Vatican was:
(The artcle didn’t even say who said that–but no matter. It seems reasonable.)
Now the way you chose to report this unattributed Vatican response, in #68 is:
which in fact your citation does not even remotely support. Where is your citation that they replied that they don’t care what proof exists?
I doubt they said that at all. Given that any reasonable person understands that this document is not even alleged to prove anything. Quoting (from your link) the lead scholar on the fragment Susan King:
I think you just made some shit up.
anubisprime
September 21, 2012 at 10:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
heddle @ 66
Where to begin…?
Call it how you see it!
That Paul was a chancer and a geezer with a plan seems self evident to many folks!
There is no denying the modus operandi is identical to several con-men like Hovind, Comfort and Smith and certainly Hubbard et al.
So Paul is definitely teaching something in his ministry ‘how to dupe 101′ seemingly.
It does not matter how you spin it genius the point remains the same, Women are not permitted to have an opinion over man only be submissive to them in all things apparently!
How it that a quote mine?, swapping one word for another word that sounds softer in intent does not change the scriptural blurb one iota!
So nice try yourself but lacking in coherency or even point!
Yea…I see how theists do it now, they make a complete bollix of a bigoted attitude, embarrass themselves then pretend they were misquoted or just misspoke.
Then is all else fails pretend the embarrassment away with post hoc adjustments to translations or intent.
Your ‘pastoral epistles’ are meaningless heddle, even if they do exist which I doubt but cannot be bothered chasing down anyway, …because they are made up to fit the need as and when required!
Citations please!
Well someone seems a little disturbed and frothing at the anus over such a consideration!
I do but believe you protesteth to much heddle!
I am in fairly good company if indeed good company it can be called, Nietzsche was of that persuasion as were and are several other academics therefore I cannot lay claim to the idea, just report that it is a valid alternative scenario, so tough heddle…like it or lump it!
You might all be aware of it but very very few admit it…they tend to lie about it or just ignore the reality….like true little jeebus sunbeams!
You must try harder heddle….you are losing your shaky grasp of relevancy these days!
Waffler, of the Waffler Institute
September 21, 2012 at 10:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Who is this ‘we’ you speak of? Garden-variety Christians? You think ‘garden-variety’ Christians are “quite aware of the scholarly limitations of Tacitus”? Or is this the royal we?
heddle
September 21, 2012 at 10:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
anubisprime,
Well, since you said it is self-evident and that there is no denying. I am utterly defeated.
Priscilla and Aquila were Christians from Rome that Paul encountered in Corinth–(which must have utterly astounded him since at that time neither he nor Peter nor any known missionary had been to Rome.) Here is the clear indication that Priscilla taught Appolos. Also, contra custom, she is always named first, before her husband, indirect evidence that Paul held her in especially high regard.
Because you used it this way a) you chose a translation from a time in which suffer was used for permit, when now it clearly sends a much different message. I suffer children no longer means the same as I permit children, and b) you cut the quote short, implying Paul was making a blanket statement about women in all aspects of life when he was talking about church office. An honest person would have argued that Paul was sexist because he didn’t permit women elders, not that he “didn’t suffer women” period. Classic, textbook quotemine.
That’s a compelling argument for against my mocking of your presenting the “Christianity is attributable to Paul” argument as, somehow, insightful? Uncle.
The old “outlier” argument. Sigh. Well your refutations are too substantive. I have no comeback.
anubisprime
September 21, 2012 at 10:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
heddle @ 76
Yes…that seems very apparent!
Floundering in literary comment you are not…just drowning in bitter tears by the shape of it!
lancifer
September 21, 2012 at 11:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Big Boppa- “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife, taketh her unto you….please. I sayeth unto you, my brethren, I cannot get no respect.’ ”
Yeah, thou hast conflated Henny the Younger with Rodney from the dangerous field.
Pulleth my finger.
Marcus Ranum
September 21, 2012 at 1:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
(It’s not uncommon apparently for bed bugs to only attack one person in a bed.)
Are you sure you had bedbugs and not very small republicans?
Marcus Ranum
September 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
the parchment dates to the 4th century, but the text is a copy of 2nd century writings, and translated from Greek. And all of this changes nothing.
Yep. Because goddists will say, “Well, it’s obviously a lie!” while simultaneously asserting that the account of the resurrection is obviously a true miracle.
Silly goddists.
Raging Bee
September 21, 2012 at 1:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…the real Guinevere probably did not wear leather bikini as armor, nor use Photoshop to increase her bust for promotional purposes.
She didn’t? Damn, another cherished belief down the drain…
He was popularized as the central figure in an advertising campaign, actually.
Sort of like the Coca Cola version of Santa Claus, which then became the “standard” interpretation of who Santa/St. Nicholas was and what he looked like.
I’m sorry…it is a well-known fact that the H stands for “Haploid”
Or “Hubbard?”
Marcus Ranum
September 21, 2012 at 1:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If it were true, then there would be a part of the Da Vinci Code that isn’t straight-up bullshit.
There is a Louvre Museum in Paris. There is, in fact, a Paris. So Dan Brown actually did have several true facts in that book. I find it hard to accept, too.
heddle
September 21, 2012 at 2:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Marcus Ranum,
Fair enough. And the atheists will say: Jesus didn’t exist while simultaneously asserting that he was married. And that Paul didn’t exist, while simultaneously asserting that he was probably gay. And he usurped Christianity. From Jesus. Who didn’t exist.
Marcus Ranum
September 21, 2012 at 2:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t think Christianity came from a vacuum. Something happened that got the ball rolling. Perhaps it was the desperate wish (for a savior) of brutally oppressed people, but would they have conjured someone like Christ as their messiah?
It didn’t!! There were assloads of messiahs and mountebanks wandering around palestine at that time, making trouble, rabble-rousing, mooching and panhandling. One of them happened to have better market traction and went viral because his followers leveraged social media and a critical mass of +favs. It could have been anyone.
CJO
September 21, 2012 at 2:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Perhaps it was the desperate wish (for a savior) of brutally oppressed people, but would they have conjured someone like Christ as their messiah?
Since actual claimants and their followers had a bad habit of ending up dead due to heavy infantry, and the continued hegemony of Rome in the region was an indisputable reality, if a messiah were to be conjured it would have had to be “someone like Christ,” that is a spiritual savior on cosmic terms.
Waffler, of the Waffler Institute
September 21, 2012 at 2:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Analogies: you are bad at them.
Michael Heath
September 21, 2012 at 5:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
heddle writes:
I’ve never encountered anyone claiming Jesus didn’t exist but was married. And if such was stated in this thread, I must assume it was from a poster whose comments I don’t read.
I’m surprised to hear some atheists argue Paul didn’t exist. Is that a strawman (all groups have an outlier of morans); or a joke which passed over my head? It’s my understanding we have compelling evidence that Paul not only existed but both traveled as noted in the New Testament and wrote much of the biblical passages attributed to him (though of course we know there’s been plenty of editing from him to us).
I have heard the argument that Paul was gay, but those assertions came with no evidence that was true where the source always had an agenda other than objective truth. A common rebuttal to the gay notion is that Paul wasn’t married because he firmly believed the end of the world was soon coming. However that doesn’t make sense either because he was an activist prior to becoming a Christian if we can believe the non-supernatural narrative in the New Testament regarding Paul’s past prior to becoming a Christian. So perhaps an un-reported reason existed for his not being married.
I find the hypothesis that Paul effectively started Christianity compelling; though neither convincing or more compelling than other explanations argued by credible historians. We simply lack the evidence to favor one over the other by much.
Michael Heath
September 21, 2012 at 6:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
heddle responds:
This seems irrelevant. Paul was a demonstrable bigot [1] and justified his bigotry by attributing it to the Old Testament. Plenty of bigots demonstrate some fondness for individuals in the victim class, e.g., slaveholders sometimes loved their slaves, Republicans like some Uncle Toms like Clarence Thomas, etc. But such fondness towards a few doesn’t negate the root cause of their bigotry and their demonstration of bigotry.
And Paul’s overt bigotry is a core motivation for the bigotry and institutionalized discrimination that remains in many U.S. Christian evangelical and fundamentalist denominations to this very day. That’s given these denominations’ prohibition of women head pastors, preaching when men are in attendance, teaching Sunday School where adult males are present, and in their colleges, teaching male students.
I happen to think a key factor on why the Republican party is so successful keeping conservative women loyal to the party in spite of a plethora of policies which knowingly harm females is how these churches condition females.
1] 1 Timothy 2 [RSV]:
CJO
September 21, 2012 at 6:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The pastorals weren’t written by whoever wrote (most of) the so-called Authentic Paulines, so you can’t use 1 Timothy to show that Paul was a bigot.
As far as Paul certainly existing, someone wrote (most of) the so-called Authentic Paulines, so to that extent Paul existed. But there’s zero evidence outside of Acts for the career of the legendary figure there known as Saul/Paul. What we can glean from the authentic letters themselves mostly contradicts or fails to support the timeline of Acts, though it certainly paints a picture of an itinerant missionary. Heddle, of course, is obliged to believe that Acts is accurate in every detail, so it’s really fruitless having a discussion with him about it.