Jesus had a wife

[OzSpen]

Professor Karen King of Harvard Divinity School is promoting the view that Jesus was married and had a wife, based on a fragmentary document from the 4th century. I recommend the reply to her by Dr Albert Mohler, The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife? When Sensationalism Masquerades as Scholarship.

If you want Prof King's view, see this article in the Boston Globe, 'Harvard professor identifies scrap of papyrus suggesting some early Christians believed Jesus was married'.

What are the errors in Professor King's thinking regarding this information about Jesus' alleged wife? Could Dr Mohler be wrong in his assessment? If so, how?

Oz

 

[Sinthesis]

I have no doubt that some Christians living at least two hundred years after Jesus could believe He had a wife. People can can believe all sorts of stuff that isn't true. Happy Ramadan!

 

[OzSpen]

I have no doubt that some Christians living at least two hundred years after Jesus could believe He had a wife. People can can believe all sorts of stuff that isn't true. Happy Ramadan!

Didn't you read the content of the links I gave? Your response is a red herring because you didn't address the matter of what Karen King believes about Jesus' wife and why she believes it. You mentioned not a word about the content of Dr Mohler's critique of this perspective.

Thus making your response a red herring.

Oz

 

[Corn Pop]

I don't believe Jesus had a wife because there is not enough credible information about it. I don't believe rumours only different accounts from different people that story's all match giving there own seperate accounts I can give credit or prophecy.

I mean, there is nothing really more anyone can go on anything written many centuries ago apart from scientific evidence to claim it as fact or discredit it.

Jesus did and does have a wife spiritually speaking, its his Church

 

[OzSpen]

I don't believe Jesus had a wife because there is not enough credible information about it. I don't believe rumours only different accounts from different people that story's all match giving there own seperate accounts I can give credit or prophecy.

I mean, there is nothing really more anyone can go on anything written many centuries ago apart from scientific evidence to claim it as fact or discredit it.

Jesus did and does have a wife spiritually speaking, its his Church

Dan,

However, that is not the emphasis that Karen King is giving. She's talking about evidence for his actual physical wife. There is no credible evidence that supports this.

Oz

 

[Corn Pop]

Yes, there is no evidence.

 

[JohnDB]

First off everyone agrees that it's at a minimum a Gnostic text. Which automatically disqualifies it as a copy of an autograph. (Which is the only basis of Mohler's argument)

Secondly it is a fragment. Not a single complete sentence. Sentence fragments can go in a multitude of directions. IE the Church is female so since the Church is Jesus' bride a woman can be a disciple.

And then we have no context of "Jesus'" words.

Then there is the hype this woman is creating...it's not spontaneous. It's generated solely by her. She is known for eisogetical hermeneutics of Gnostic text.

Then all of this before the genuineness of the scrap can be tested and proven. It could be a good fake. Especially with the limited history of the piece. (Often the case with fakes)

I find both scientist being disingenuous and merely spitting out junk science. But as also the case with research scientist their egos often get in the way of real science.

But eventually things will come out...like the lack of a real scribe doing the penmanship on the piece. (Obviously done by an amateur)

And considering the real lack of copies of other texts from which this possibly could be a quote. It was probably discarded as the trash it is so many millennium ago.

 

[Sinthesis]

Professor Karen King of Harvard Divinity School is promoting the view that Jesus was married and had a wife, based on a fragmentary document from the 4th century.

The Boston Globe article does not support your assertion that 'Professor Karen King of Harvard Divinity School is promoting the view that Jesus was married and had a wife'.

 

[Edward]

I dont think Jesus had a Wife (yet!) and to pursue the notion...(to what end?) would be to suggest that He is divorced (we know there's a Wife in His future) so that wouldnt even make sense. Besides, it's none of our business about Jesus's private life.

No, I didn't read the link. I guess I'm a red herring now too...but I'ma not sticky the nose where no belong, lol

 

[JohnDB]

I dont think Jesus had a Wife (yet!) and to pursue the notion...(to what end?) would be to suggest that He is divorced (we know there's a Wife in His future) so that wouldnt even make sense. Besides, it's none of our business about Jesus's private life.

No, I didn't read the link. I guess I'm a red herring now too...but I'ma not sticky the nose where no belong, lol

The question of Jesus' wife isn't so much in play here as the underlying issue of the of celibate priests in the Catholic Church and Gnostic text.

On top of this the scholars are eisogeting this fragment of an unknown text which wasn't even done by a scribe.

Of course Jesus didn't have a wife.
That's kinda a given.

But the Gnostics want Jesus to be just a man who wasn't divine. They want to do whatever with no consequence so long as they mean well... because they have good thoughts.

The whole concept of "Spirit and Truth" is lost on them .

 

[OzSpen]

The Boston Globe article does not support your assertion that 'Professor Karen King of Harvard Divinity School is promoting the view that Jesus was married and had a wife'.

Did you miss the heading of the Boston Globe article?

Harvard professor identifies scrap of papyrus suggesting some early Christians believed Jesus was married
Then the article states:

A Harvard professor has identified what appears to be a scrap of fourth century Egyptian papyrus that contains the first known explicit reference to Jesus as married, a discovery that could fuel the millennia-old debate about priestly celibacy in the Catholic church.

The article adds, 'The text is not evidence Jesus was married, said the professor, Karen L. King, a historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School.... The text does not prove that Jesus had a wife, King emphasized..... But the fragment—which King provocatively calls “The Gospel of Jesus’s wife”—does show that some early Christians believed Jesus was married, probably to Mary Magdalene, a follower of Jesus who the gospels say was the first person to see him after his resurrection'.

Why would professor label the fragment, 'The Gospel of Jesus's wife'?

Dr Mohler's assessment revealed more of what was reported about Karen King's discovery in an article in the Smithsonian:

The whole world changed on Tuesday. At least, that is what many would have us to believe. Smithsonian magazine, published by the Smithsonian Institution, declares that the news released Tuesday was “apt to send jolts through the world of biblical scholarship — and beyond.” Really?

What was this news? Professor Karen King of the Harvard Divinity School announced at a conference in Rome that she had identified an ancient papyrus fragment that includes the phrase, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife.'” Within hours, headlines around the world advertised the announcement with headlines like “Ancient Papyrus Could Be Evidence that Jesus Had a Wife” (The Telegraph).

'Could Be Evidence that Jesus Had a Wife' sounds awfully speculative.

Oz

 

[smaller]

If you want Prof King's view, see this article in the Boston Globe, 'Harvard professor identifies scrap of papyrus suggesting some early Christians believed Jesus was married'.

It was probably a scrap of the Israel equivalent of the National Enquirer.

 

[OzSpen]

It was probably a scrap of the Israel equivalent of the National Enquirer.

That is not a wise kind of statement. I suggest that you do a more thorough investigation than that. Karen King does not work for a sensationalist newspaper but for the Harvard Divinity School. It's not a Mickey Mouse institution.

 

[OzSpen]

First off everyone agrees that it's at a minimum a Gnostic text. Which automatically disqualifies it as a copy of an autograph. (Which is the only basis of Mohler's argument)

Secondly it is a fragment. Not a single complete sentence. Sentence fragments can go in a multitude of directions. IE the Church is female so since the Church is Jesus' bride a woman can be a disciple.

And then we have no context of "Jesus'" words.

Then there is the hype this woman is creating...it's not spontaneous. It's generated solely by her. She is known for eisogetical hermeneutics of Gnostic text.

Then all of this before the genuineness of the scrap can be tested and proven. It could be a good fake. Especially with the limited history of the piece. (Often the case with fakes)

I find both scientist being disingenuous and merely spitting out junk science. But as also the case with research scientist their egos often get in the way of real science.

But eventually things will come out...like the lack of a real scribe doing the penmanship on the piece. (Obviously done by an amateur)

And considering the real lack of copies of other texts from which this possibly could be a quote. It was probably discarded as the trash it is so many millennium ago.

John,

Professor Karen King has been found out.

She has admitted at last that the 'Gospel of Jesus' wife' which she has been promoting since 2012 is a forgery. See this article in the July/August 2016 issue of The Atlantic, "Karen King Responds to ‘The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife’: The Harvard scholar says papyrus is probably a forgery'.

What kind of damage will this do to the reputation of a renowned professor at an eminent divinity school?

The Daily Mail (17 June 2016) in the UK published this article: "Harvard historian admits papyrus that 'proves Jesus was married' is probably a fake as her source is unmasked as Egyptologist-turned-pornographer who set up ‘America’s #1 Slut Wife’ website".

Oz

 

[JohnDB]

Wow,
She is done. Her career is over. All for being too eager to prove what she wanted to be true.

That's really poor science. Her colleagues new better. And Harvard has a reputation to uphold. (Harvard's pay for employment is pathetic though... maybe this will make them review that policy)

 

[smaller]

That is not a wise kind of statement. I suggest that you do a more thorough investigation than that. Karen King does not work for a sensationalist newspaper but for the Harvard Divinity School. It's not a Mickey Mouse institution.

Brought to us by the same level of higher intellects the provided the various (potential) gospel(s) of Q theories.

Sometimes what these people propose is a bit beyond crazy or revolves around lopsided emphasized interests in particular fields such as history or archeology. But because they have some heavily stamped educational sheep skins hanging in their offices they get by with various long postures of potential redactional speculations of every sort.

And we should also be aware that people in higher education make their living by making such speculations and eventually publishing all their nonsenses, getting grants, selling books, educating people in their field by hammering out such creditials, etc etc.

And then follows all their adherents who think that because they read and follow these people they are now experts too. (think N.T. Wright and his clan of hyper scholarly historical emphasis pumpers)

If we think Jesus had a wife and the entirety of O.T. and N.T. writers neglected to mention it (other than the Bride, the Church members) and base that instead off a side bar of institutional pursuits where they make their livings conjuring up this stuff I'd say a lot of it if not the majority of it is a side track. There are probably millions of such side tracks.

 

[smaller]

Wow,
She is done. Her career is over. All for being too eager to prove what she wanted to be true.

That's really poor science. Her colleagues new better. And Harvard has a reputation to uphold. (Harvard's pay for employment is pathetic though... maybe this will make them review that policy)

Makes you wonder how much the middle eastern historical document peddler/scammer bilked out of Harvard to buy that shred of nonsense. Some of these institutions pay huge money to get their hands on that stuff so they can potentially "change history" and score for their higher learning departments.

I think we maybe should face the reality that these systems are really vulture capitalist at their core rather than all that educational.

 

[Corn Pop]

You would think any proof would at least have the basics of a name for his wife. I mean really. Dates, place, times, names are always good. Without even any one of the basics above how could I even bother thinking he had a wife.

Who what why when how. Lol.

 

[Corn Pop]

Even in just basic single sentence on a man called Joseph I know he was a rich man, his name was Joseph, and he was from Arimathia.

Jesus had a wife gives nothing.

 

[Hospes]

meh...
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. (Titus 3:9 ESV)
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. (1 Timothy 1:3-4 ESV)