- "A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife." It's a tantalizing claim and an irresistible headline. According to a New York Times article published today, a Harvard researcher has discovered an ancient Coptic document that includes the phrases "Jesus said to them, 'My wife ...'" and "she will be able to be my disciple."
If the document is real, and Jesus did in fact have a wife, the implications could be tremendous, the article says:
"the discovery could reignite the debate over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple. These debates date to the early centuries of Christianity, scholars say. But they are relevant today, when global Christianity is roiling over the place of women in ministry and the boundaries of marriage."
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.
These examples seem much less literal to me. I don't think they would work the same if he plainly referred to the church as his wife. Also, does it deeply matter that he had a literal wife? I mean so much has been removed and rewritten. We know the Bible and the information in it has evolved.
Exactly. There is no question that books have been edited, stripped out, and added over the centuries. All of these rotating books were also orally passed down as well, so even more error and variability has been introduced beyond question. But some Christian sects believe that god himself insured that all of the authors retained the integrity and that none of that editing really happened with their version, so I guess technically it would matter to some people, but these would be the exact individuals that would reject this piece as false heresy no matter how good the evidence. So I guess we're back to it not really mattering...at least to the people it should matter to the most imho. i can clearly not choose the cup in front of me!
|There is no question that books have been edited, stripped out, and added over the centuries. As far as the gospels and much of the new testament are concerned, this is incorrect. We get the Jesus narrative from the gospels, and we have really early copies of the gospels, dating back to as early as 125 AD, which, in the case of the Gospel of John is only 30-40 years after the first publication. Considering that it was the old world, pre-printing press, this isn't irregular or uncommon. Also, understand that these writings weren't disposable or thrown around the way we throw books around today. These writings were venerated and cherished. Orthodoxy also holds that tradition is just as valid as the written word. In this case, tradition verifies the text. The Western mind boggles at this, because it has no exposure to (and thus no respect for) any kind of tradition. Anyway, here's a chart with dates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#The_New_Testam...
Holding tradition as being as valid as a written reproducible document unfortunately does not remove the error introduced to by oral tradition, -especially those errors compounded over several decades. Unfortunately, no oral information set in existence has been able to demonstrate zero corruptibity over an observed period of decades, let alone years. This issue is mitigated somewhat if you accept that the Bible is not the literal word of god, but not entirely. Merely holding something to be so does not make it accurate or valid empirically, especially in opposition do evidence to the contrary. That's the main problem that a skeptic would have with this and it can't be EFFECTIVELY addressed through reason. Observable evidence does not support traditional arguments that some sort of higher respect or reliance on oral tradition magically reduces error rates anywhere near zero. Especially on multiple large stories.Orthodoxy also holds that tradition is just as valid as the written word. In this case, tradition verifies the text.