Jesus' wife
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=1
I haven't taken a really good look at this yet.
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
Comments
-
George Somsel said:
I haven't taken a really good look at this yet.
To put it in perspective think Gnostic - interesting but scarcely earth-shakiing.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
More information is here: http://www.hds.harvard.edu/faculty-research/research-projects/the-gospel-of-jesuss-wife
Note particularly the Q&A, which seems reasonable and balanced.
Also, King's draft of an article destined for Jan 2013 Harvard Theological Review on the fragment: http://www.hds.harvard.edu/sites/hds.harvard.edu/files/attachments/faculty-research/research-projects/the-gospel-of-jesuss-wife/29813/King_JesusSaidToThem_draft_0917.pdf
I just zapped the PDF to my Kindle. hope to read it closely over the next few days.
Also, check out April deConick's blog: http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/2012/09/gospel-of-jesus-wife.html
Rick Brannan | Bluesky: rickbrannan.com
0 -
MJ. Smith said:George Somsel said:
I haven't taken a really good look at this yet.
To put it in perspective think Gnostic - interesting but scarcely earth-shakiing.
I agree. If the language is any indication, since Coptic was relatively limited to Egypt and since Egypt seems to have been a hotbed of gnosticism, it almost goes without saying. Of course, there are some reasons to suspect that Jesus might have been married, but the complete absence of the mention of such in the gospels points in the opposite direction. The papyrus hasn't been dated yet so far as I noticed, but I suspect it is much too late to be of historical value.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
The article states much of what you have stated George with the addition it seems to be from the fourth century. As you say long after any reliable historical papyrii found. I think even more can be said about it was found in Egypt the hotbed of this particular teaching.
0 -
Goodnesss, William, that's an interesting way to date papyri.
Over beers tonight the discussion was whether coptic has 'wife' or simply picked up the derivation from the greek context.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Thanks for pointing this out George, and thanks for the pdf link Rick.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
How do I state this as a Logos-related question?
I have not studied Coptic. Can somebody who has illuminate me? Does Coptic have the same wife/woman flexibility as isha in Hebrew or gyne in Greek?
Is there a Logos Coptic lexicon that would clarify this?
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = LogosMax on Microsoft Surface Pro 7 (Win11), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone & iPad mini, Proclaim (Proclaim Remote on Fire Tablet).
0 -
David an article can be found in Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. logosres:eerdbibdct;hw=Coptic
COPTIC (from Arab. qubt “Egyptian”; cf. Gk. Aigyptios).† The final phase of the ancient Egyptian language, derived from the spoken form of Late Egyptian, the administrative tongue of the New Kingdom (sixteenth century B.C.); it was used primarily by the native peasant populace. Coptic received its written form from the artificial literary demotic (ca. second century A.D.), supplementing the twenty-four characters of the Greek alphabet with seven forms borrowed from demotic. Unlike other forms of Egyptian, it was written from left to right. Although the vocabulary was greatly influenced by Greek, the grammar and syntax derived from Egyptian (e.g., three-consonantal roots, nominal sentences).
At least six dialects of Coptic have been attested, the most important of which were Sahidic and Bohairic. By the fourth century Sahidic was the standard literary language of the Nile Valley (cf. Arab. al-sa˓īd “Upper Egypt”). Bohairic, which developed in the western Nile Delta, became the official ecclesiastical language in the eleventh century; its use survives in the liturgy of the Egyptian Monophysite church. Long regarded as secondary to the official Greek instituted by Alexander the Great, Coptic was further restricted following the Arab conquest of A.D. 640; by the fourteenth century it was virtually a dead language.
In addition to a number of Gnostic writings among the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, several Coptic versions of the Bible are attested; these contribute significantly to textual criticism, especially with regard to the LXX. Portions of the New Testament were translated into Sahidic by the early third century, and the entire Bible may have been translated as early as 270; the Old Testament portion may be based on Origen’s LXX text. The Bohairic version, translated independently of the Sahidic, became the standard Coptic version; it may date from the fourth century, although the only extant manuscripts date to ca. the thirteenth century.
Allen C. Myers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 234.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
A list of resources available from Logos on coptic: http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=coptic&start=0&sort=rel&pageSize=60
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
David ... while you're waiting on an answer, if you have the Coptic/Sahidic resources, you can do a little research. The NT reference is from 1 Tim 3:12 where the greek refers to a wife:
:"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
David Thomas said:
How do I state this as a Logos-related question?
I have not studied Coptic. Can somebody who has illuminate me? Does Coptic have the same wife/woman flexibility as isha in Hebrew or gyne in Greek?
Is there a Logos Coptic lexicon that would clarify this?
Yes, the two are closely related.
ϩⲓⲙⲉ
, pl. ϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ f.
wife
ϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ
[ϩⲓⲁⲙⲉ] women v. ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ
Well, that didn't reproduce very well. Trust me, there is only one character different between the two.
I would refer you to
Smith, Richard. Vol. 35, A Concise Coptic-English Lexicon. 2nd ed. Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.
It's unfortunate that we don't have Crum's Coptic Dictionary. It was once offered on prepub but was inexplicably pulled. Since this is a public domain work, I doubt that it was due to licensing problems. Also, other references have languished in prepub much longer than this has without being pulled. I suspect that the problem might be with the availability of Coptic fonts since only one (Antinoou) seems to contain all characters.
EDIT: It appears that when posted the font appears properly whereas when composed it does not.george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I was thinking that the timing of this seemed off. Usually these stories only come out during the Easter and Christmas seasons. But then I saw it was for the Harvard Theological Review coming out in January of 2013, it must have a quarterly lead time before it is published in December.
"There is nothing new under the sun..." ~ Solomon
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
George Somsel said:
Of course, there are some reasons to suspect that Jesus might have been married, but the complete absence of the mention of such in the gospels points in the opposite direction
George, I just want to state the obvious. Because scripture is silent on this subject, any argument that is built upon silence is very weak argument.
I simply say that we do not know if Jesus was married or not, and because it does not affect what Jesus did on the cross; it doesn't affect my theology (If it wasn't important for the biblical writers, it is not important for me).
0 -
tom collinge said:George Somsel said:
Of course, there are some reasons to suspect that Jesus might have been married, but the complete absence of the mention of such in the gospels points in the opposite direction
George, I just want to state the obvious. Because scripture is silent on this subject, any argument that is built upon silence is very weak argument.
I simply say that we do not know if Jesus was married or not, and because it does not affect what Jesus did on the cross; it doesn't affect my theology (If it wasn't important for the biblical writers, it is not important for me).
The argument for Jesus being married does not rest on silence. Jesus is occasionally called "Rabbi." It was the custom that a rabbi had to be married. I'm not saying that he most definitely was but rather that custom would dictate that he was while the silence of the NT would seem to imply that he was not.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
The argument for Jesus being married does not rest on silence. Jesus is occasionally called "Rabbi." It was the custom that a rabbi had to be married. I'm not saying that he most definitely was but rather that custom would dictate that he was while the silence of the NT would seem to imply that he was not.
Yes, and we can say that it was also custom for men to be married by the time they were 30.
The biblical writers did not write down what was common for them to do. For an example, scripture does not say that Jesus went to the bathroom. Using the same logic, we can therefore state that Jesus never went to the bathroom. I personally believe that Jesus did go to the bathroom
All I am saying is building an argument from silence is at best a very weak argument.
FYI... The Essenes did not use the bathroom on the Sabbath, and they wrote that down.
0 -
Hmm. Some questions this poses for me:
1. Why do we choose to believe this is authentic truth, just because it is written down?
2. If this parchment was authentic do we think anyone else would have known about it in the early centuries?
3. By extension of arguments presented here, if Jesus as rabbi was expected to be married, he would have also been expected, if in the grace of God, to have children. I would assume Jesus was in the grace of God <g> so where are the children?
4. Why would there have been no mention/evidence of wife or children anywhere? scripture, early Church Fathers, etc.?
5. Why would children not been at the Cross with Mary? Why would Jesus have given his mother Mary to live with John if he had children and a wife, even if the wife had passed away?
6. Would we have expected to see some evidence of the wife and/or children of the Son of God in the activity of the early Church? Or is it plausible God had some other plan for every one of Jesus' family?
Seems very problematic to me....
0 -
One wonders if it is possible to be "tempted in every way" without being married...
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
1. Why do we choose to believe this is authentic truth, just because it is written down?
Who says we do accept it as truth?
Dominick Sela said:3. By extension of arguments presented here, if Jesus as rabbi was expected to be married, he would have also been expected, if in the grace of God, to have children. I would assume Jesus was in the grace of God <g> so where are the children?
You know that Dan Brown told us all about this [;)] [:D]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
tom collinge said:
I simply say that we do not know if Jesus was married or not
How could the Bridegroom be already married? That would be bigamy. [;)]
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
What's so surprising about this? The Gospels and the book of Revelation call Jesus a bridegroom and tell us he had/has a bride, which is the Church. So what if that papyrus is authentic? What's to say it isn't speaking metaphorically about Jesus' wife as the church. It certainly fits that "she will be able to be my disciple" which the fragment goes on to say.
0 -
On a serious note, and in explanation of the words on the fragment:
I was listening to an interview this morning with Darrell Bock, a senior research professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, and he spoke to the Gnostics having deep spiritual attachment to the groom - bride metaphor of Christ and the church, and he said that it is not unusual to see that sort of language used in their writings.
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Here's another response to it, from Tyndale House, a residential center for biblical research at Cambridge University:
0 -
Tyndale House has some analysis here: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/ReJesusWife
For those of you who spend a lot of time reading ancient material, does this carry the same kind of tone/voice/feel as anything from the first century? (Particularly in the way Jesus himself spoke)
I also think Rosie's thoughts are very interesting.
0 -
Paul Golder said:
On a serious note, and in explanation of the words on the fragment:
I was listening to an interview this morning with Darrell Bock, a senior research professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, and he spoke to the Gnostics having deep spiritual attachment to the groom - bride metaphor of Christ and the church, and he said that it is not unusual to see that sort of language used in their writings.
George and Paul, can we let this subject rest now as everyone knows that I am a bride of Christ. Don't feel bad, so are you, if you are a believer. [:D]
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
Lynden Williams said:
George and Paul, can we let this subject rest now as everyone knows that I am a bride of Christ. Don't feel bad, so are you, if you are a believer.
Metaphorically speaking...[:D]
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Rick Brannan said:
Note particularly the Q&A, which seems reasonable and balanced.
Is it really? It claims that we can now "say with certainty that some early Christians believed that Jesus was married" /my bold/. For that to be true, at least two things have to be proved, besides the fragment's authenticity: 1) that this is indeed a Christian document, and 2) that "my wife" refers to a woman of flesh and blood, and not the Church. I haven't read the article draft, but so far I haven't even seen a discussion of these issues. They seem simply taken for granted.
Rosie Perera said:What's to say it isn't speaking metaphorically about Jesus' wife as the church. It certainly fits that "she will be able to be my disciple" which the fragment goes on to say.
It fits even better with "I dwell with her".
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
If you read the Karen King's draft, she ifs, ands, and buts for pages on end (all the while referring to the fragment by a name implying the conclusion). But she does hold on for dear life with good logic, until the conclusion, where she throws caution to the wind in true scholarship fashion.
I don't know why scholars hold on to 'logic' and supportable arguments until they get to the conclusion, at which point they shift into high gear for that last bit of 'huh?'
The apostles' and brothers' traveling wives is far more interesting. People at church never seem to think about it. I've always wondered at exactly what the wives did during their 'Way of Righteousness' (travels, as Barnabas terms it).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
I've always wondered at exactly what the wives did during their 'Way of Righteousness' (travels, as Barnabas terms it).
[Y]
Not much information we got, haven't we? [:)]
Bohuslav
0 -
DMB said:
The apostles' and brothers' traveling wives is far more interesting. People at church never seem to think about it. I've always wondered at exactly what the wives did during their 'Way of Righteousness' (travels, as Barnabas terms it).
I love to go a-wandering,
Along the mountain track,
And as I go, I love to sing,
My knapsack on my back.george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
tom collinge said:
I simply say that we do not know if Jesus was married or not, and because it does not affect what Jesus did on the cross; it doesn't affect my theology (If it wasn't important for the biblical writers, it is not important for me).
I agree, as a Pastor of mine once said, being married is not a sin and thus even if He was married, He was still sinless.
In Him,
Jim
Philippians 2:3Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
0 -
Interesting article you may not have seen, casting "Doubts over Harvard claim of Jesus' wife payrus"
0 -
-
DMB said:
I don't know why scholars hold on to 'logic' and supportable arguments until they get to the conclusion, at which point they shift into high gear for that last bit of 'huh?'
Ugh? Logic's end product is a conclusion by definition. While what you say does sometimes happen, I find what has happened here even more common - the reader attaches all sorts of things to the conclusion that the author did not say. In this case, the author said nothing about the papyrus being factual, she said the papyrus indicated that some believed. People have tons of erroneous beliefs. The major issues outstanding are: the authenticity of the fragment and the context into which the fragment belongs. What the fragment says is what is currently known and is the basis of the paper.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
A paragraph from her conclusion section (I highlighted):
"Whether the Christians responsible for the composition, distribution, and translation of this work thought Jesus was married is, however, a different question. The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife makes it possible to speak with certainty of the existence of a tradition affirming that Jesus was married (probably to Mary Magdalene), and it is highly probable that this tradition dates to the second half of the second century. This conclusion has significant implications for the history of ancient Christian attitudes toward marriage, sexuality, and reproduction." ( Copyright © Karen L. King, 2012.)
First, at best, she locked in the 4th century (at best). Then she guesses it's a coptic translational overlay by Christians (plural), and then moves to 'certainty' of a 'tradition'. She then assigns a probability to Mary of Magda without demonstrating 'any' connectivity to what she presumes are related writings (again not knowing the source that might have that tradition, this being the first instance). That 'certainty' then becomes grist for the claim of 'significant implications' which then somehow jumps to ancient Christian attitudes (remember not knowing even the source), and specifically marriage, sexuality and reproduction.
And so my 'huh?'. She was doing fine until her 'conclusions'. That's when she got on the pony and gave it a good gig.
Or maybe your concept of logical dependence is more liberal than mine. That's possible.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife makes it possible to speak with certainty of the existence of a tradition affirming that Jesus was married (probably to Mary Magdalene), and it is highly probable that this tradition dates to the second half of the second century.
That there was a tradition that Jesus was married to Mary of Magdala seems likely. The point that is not stressed is that this tradition was only in certain circles, viz. gnostic circles. Some scholars seem to accept a certain view which is limited in the scope of its applicability and extrapolating it to the entire christian church. What she says is true, but only withing the circle of gnostic christianity (if we can correctly call gnosticism "christianity").
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Here's another response from Larry Hurtado:
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/the-gospel-of-jesus-wife-maybe-maybe-not/
0 -
DMB said:
This conclusion has significant implications for the history of ancient Christian attitudes toward marriage, sexuality, and reproduction."
I must agree. Her conclusion does indeed have significant implications, however the fragment does not.
One wonders if the personal agenda being driven here is monetary, or philosophical?
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Well, maybe I'm reading the whole thing wrong. I thought her excitement was the first evidence of use of a concrete 'wife'. In coptic.
That's the most 'certainty' that she's got. Everything after that is what scholars complain about other scholars doing: assigning probability (and 'certainty', no less) to speculation. The speculation is then assigned a 'circle' plus a 'tradition' and off we go.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
It looks like Paul dealt with this problem in the first century too...
"we ask you, brothers,1 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or calarmed, either dby a spirit or a espoken word, or ea letter seeming to be from us"
- 2 Thes. 2:1-2
-Whether 4th century or 1st century with Paul's name on it, not anything new.
0 -
DMB said:
Or maybe your concept of logical dependence is more liberal than mine. That's possible.
More literal, I believe. In logic we may argue which logic is applicable but not on the rules for the selected logic. Reasoning may, perhaps, accept the adjective "liberal" but even there I'm uncomfortable with the term. Admittedly, you caught me at the wrong time - I have 2 informal logic books on my desk and 3 on formal logic/machine logic by my bed. I'm starting to feel comfortable with my mind-map of logic/argumentation/hermeneutics in Bible study.
DMB said:The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife makes it possible to speak with certainty of the existence of a tradition affirming that Jesus was married (probably to Mary Magdalene),
The tradition clearly existed. That was known long before this fragment. Dan Brown didn't pick his concepts up from nowhere ... nor did D.H. Lawrence. Or per Wikipedia:
"A document, possibly written by Ermengaud of Béziers, undated and anonymous and attached to his Treatise against Heretics, makes a similar statement.
Also they [the Cathars] teach in their secret
meetings that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Christ. She was the
Samaritan woman to whom He said, "Call thy husband." She was the woman
taken into adultery, whom Christ set free lest the Jews stone her, and
she was with Him in three places, in the temple, at the well, and in the
garden. After the Resurrection, He appeared first to her."
I'm not enough of a historian to find quickly where the Cathars found the idea. Notice she did not even say that the tradition was Christian which is why some of us have stressed the possibility of a Gnostic tradition.DMB said:and it is highly probable that this tradition dates to the second half of the second century.
Does this not follow from her dating of the text and treatment as a translation? You need to have evidence of other dates to object to this statement.
DMB said:This conclusion has significant implications for the history of ancient Christian attitudes toward marriage, sexuality, and reproduction."
Doesn't every new document that provides additional information about the dates of controversial issues have significant implications for history?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Just a tongue-in-cheek addition to this whole conversation.
If Jesus' bride is the Church, and yet he was married to a human wife as well, wouldn't that make him polygamous? Then he wouldn't have even been qualified to lead in His own Church -- "Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife..." (I Tim 3:2)
0 -
Looks like a good subject to finish discuss on faithlife.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
Now MJ ... I don't doubt the weight of the books surrounding you. But demanding alternative proof for the word 'probably' is a bit of a stretch, no?
Again, I suspect we're coming to the problem from differing perspectives. When someone says 'probably' and 'certainly', most of my aquaintances don't search for counter-evidence. They simply ask for the direct evidence. And this is where Karen is likely to be struggling just about now.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Just a tongue-in-cheek addition to this whole conversation.
If Jesus' bride is the Church, and yet he was married to a human wife as well, wouldn't that make him polygamous? Then he wouldn't have even been qualified to lead in His own Church -- "Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife..." (I Tim 3:2)
I suspect that the church's view of Jesus as the bridegroom is somewhat later than Jesus himself. It would therefore have no significance for the question of whether Jesus did have a literal wife. Remember, the gospels are the product of the teaching of the church and not history.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I've found evidence of the tradition before the Cathars:
The
concept of Mary Magdalene and Jesus as a couple is one supported by the
Gnostic
writings discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. In the Gospel of Philip,
named for the apostle Philip and believed written in the second half of the
third century, it is written,
"And the companion of the Savior is Mary
Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her
often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed
disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?'"
Jesus
answered them with a lengthy discourse on how "Great is the mystery of
marriage!" and how it was "a great power" necessary to the existence of the
world.Unfortunately, my Logos library is shy on relevant resources.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I've found evidence of the tradition before the Cathars:
The concept of Mary Magdalene and Jesus as a couple is one supported by the Gnostic writings discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. In the Gospel of Philip, named for the apostle Philip and believed written in the second half of the third century, it is written,
"And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?'"
Jesus answered them with a lengthy discourse on how "Great is the mystery of marriage!" and how it was "a great power" necessary to the existence of the world.
Unfortunately, my Logos library is shy on relevant resources.
As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother [of the] angels. And the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. [… loved] her 35 more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […]. The rest of [the disciples 64 …]. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you 5 like her?Robinson, James McConkey, Richard Smith and Coptic Gnostic Library Project. The Nag Hammadi Library in English, "The Gospel of Philipp" II.3. 4th rev. ed. Leiden; New York: E. J. Brill, 1996.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
Remember, the gospels are the product of the teaching of the church and not history.
Um...
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
(Joh 21:24)
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Paul Golder said:George Somsel said:
Remember, the gospels are the product of the teaching of the church and not history.
Um...
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
(Joh 21:24)
Thank you...a good start. The core issue, however, is that the Gospels are inspired by YHWH Himself. He uses His utter sovereignty to produce precisely what He wants to exist, and the Gospels are those. Each writer used his own words, and produced exactly what YHWH desired.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Paul Golder said:George Somsel said:
Remember, the gospels are the product of the teaching of the church and not history.
Um...
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
(Joh 21:24)
I decided it is best not to respond. Which is terrible ...[:#]...[:(]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Just a tongue-in-cheek addition to this whole conversation.
If Jesus' bride is the Church, and yet he was married to a human wife as well, wouldn't that make him polygamous?
I presume you didn't read my post just before your earlier one? [;)]
George Somsel said:I suspect that the church's view of Jesus as the bridegroom is somewhat later than Jesus himself.
Hardly, as it's all over the OT. Hosea 2:19-20 especially, the verses that observant Jews recite while laying tefillin. Sinai was the signing of the ketubah. The Incarnation was the arrival of the Bridegroom. The Cross was the consummation of the marriage. On the macro level, that is. For us, baptism is the wedding ceremony and the Eucharist is the consummation.
But now I'm arguing theology. [:$]
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0
