Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Analyses of Jesus' Wife Fragment Finally Published

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I don't see how marriage necessitates children at all.
    It doesn't, per se, but since barrenness was a bad thing in that culture, choosing to remain childless would have been exceptional, if not unheard of. So if there was a wifey it would open the question of were there any kiddlings.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

    Comment


    • #17
      For the record, I have no reason to think Jesus was married and don't believe he was at all. But the sort of silence people are talking about doesn't have to be all that jarring. The gospels tell us nothing of his life between 12 and 30 at all, because it has nothing to do with the theological purpose of their writing. So if some archaeologist somehow demonstrated that Jesus had been briefly married younger in his life, I would just shrug my shoulders and move on.
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        For the record, I have no reason to think Jesus was married and don't believe he was at all. But the sort of silence people are talking about doesn't have to be all that jarring. The gospels tell us nothing of his life between 12 and 30 at all, because it has nothing to do with the theological purpose of their writing. So if some archaeologist somehow demonstrated that Jesus had been briefly married younger in his life, I would just shrug my shoulders and move on.
        I guess it's my turn to say

        er that's pretty much what I said.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          I've been following this for a couple years. Here is a neat analysis of the evidence for the forgery of the fragment.
          The articles in the latest Harvard Theological Review add some new twists, especially on the age of the fragment (the papyrus and ink DOES appear to be authentically ancient). Professor Hurtado did a terrific summary today here: http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/20...tial-thoughts/

          Interesting bits in the summary include the following:

          Source: Larry Hurtado

          As King now grants, the nature of the hand (and other factors) make it unlikely that the fragment comes from a codex and unlikely that the text functioned as a “gospel” liturgically. Instead, as she notes, it may be some kind of school exercise or perhaps even some kind of amulet-type item. So, can we all please desist from references to a “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife”? There is no reason to suppose that the fragment comes from any such text. We have a “Jesus’ Wife” fragment. Let’s stay with what we have/know.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Source: Larry Hurtado

          As for the scientific tests, those on the ink produced results consistent with the item being old, not modern. The two radio-carbon tests, however, are both a bit puzzling and interesting. The proposed dates of the two tests are out from each other by several hundred years. The one report (by Hodgins) notes the curious date-result (405-350 BCE and/or 307-209 BCE), about a thousand years earlier than the date from the other carbon-dating test (659-969 CE), and Hodgins suggests some kind of contamination of the sample.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Source: Larry Hurtado

          Prominent in the modifications of her [King's] earlier view is the intriguing statement in the appended note at the end of the article that the carbon-dating (taking the dating by Tuross) now seems to demand a date sometime in the 8th century CE (not the 4th/5th century CE dating in her earlier paper). As she notes, this takes us well into the Islamic period of Egypt, and so raises the question of whether, in fact, the fragment might reflect in some way the influence of Islamic ideas about Jesus.

          Certainly, as Prof. King has rather consistently emphasized all along, whatever the date and provenance of the item, it has absolutely no significance whatsoever for “historical Jesus” studies. Contrary to some of the sensationalized news stories, that is, the fragment has no import for the question of whether Jesus was married.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Harvard Theological Review also published one negative critique by Leo Depuydt, professor of Egyptology at Brown University, who still doesn't believe the fragment is ancient.

          Source: Leo Depuydt

          The second fact—which I owe directly to Mark Goodacre, who noticed it independently even if others may have too—is that t = a (my) in the expression t = a-hime (my wife) is written in what looks like bold letters. To be clear, using bold letters for emphasis to my knowledge never occurs in ancient Coptic literary manuscripts; I have never seen it in any documentary texts that have come to my attention. As a student of Coptic convinced that the fragment is a modern creation, I am unable to escape the impression that there is something almost hilarious about the use of bold letters. How could this not have been designed to some extent to convey a certain comic effect? The effect is something like: “ My wife. Get it? MY wife. You heard that right.” The papyrus fragment seems ripe for a Monty Python sketch. I do not want to make light of the situation but rather venture to construct a truly plausible guess as to the actual nature of part of the forger's real intent. If the forger had used italics in addition, one might be in danger of losing one's composure.

          © Copyright Original Source

          Last edited by OingoBoingo; 04-10-2014, 12:49 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            I wouldn't worry too much about the wife and kids. Surely, one of Jesus' brothers would have taken them in. Levitate marriage would have been the common solution if there were no kids.

            As the thread starter, I grant blanket immunity for those making speculative comments about the hypothetical wife and kids without the need for explicit disclaimers about not believing the fragment to be authentic and not thinking there would be anything wrong with Jesus having been married. Pope Sparko has spoken.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              I wouldn't worry too much about the wife and kids. Surely, one of Jesus' brothers would have taken them in. Levitate marriage would have been the common solution if there were no kids.

              As the thread starter, I grant blanket immunity for those making speculative comments about the hypothetical wife and kids without the need for explicit disclaimers about not believing the fragment to be authentic and not thinking there would be anything wrong with Jesus having been married. Pope Sparko has spoken.
              the point being that the silence is unusual were that the case - doesn't prove that there was no wife but does point that way. Also, a wife seems inconsistent with His Earthly ministry - again, not proof but something to consider.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                I wouldn't worry too much about the wife and kids. Surely, one of Jesus' brothers would have taken them in. Levitate marriage would have been the common solution if there were no kids.

                As the thread starter, I grant blanket immunity for those making speculative comments about the hypothetical wife and kids without the need for explicit disclaimers about not believing the fragment to be authentic and not thinking there would be anything wrong with Jesus having been married. Pope Sparko has spoken.
                Poke Sparko? Okay, if you insist

                But I prefer doing this sparko2.gif

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #23
                  Just remember - you encouraged him, not me!
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    I wouldn't worry too much about the wife and kids. Surely, one of Jesus' brothers would have taken them in.
                    Aren't you Catholic?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                      Aren't you Catholic?
                      Sure. But I also think Jesus probably had brothers and sisters. Haven't been excommunicated yet.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        Sure. But I also think Jesus probably had brothers and sisters. Haven't been excommunicated yet.
                        That you know of.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                          That you know of.
                          He's on double secret probation

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            the point being that the silence is unusual were that the case - doesn't prove that there was no wife but does point that way. Also, a wife seems inconsistent with His Earthly ministry - again, not proof but something to consider.
                            Sure. Those who think it is very possible that Jesus was married would not necessarily think that Jesus planned on getting crucified and do not see most of the gospels as having much of a biographical or historical focus, at least not in the modern sense of the term. But, even with those assumptions, I would still think that Jesus was probably celibate and a few of his teachings suggest this.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              Sure. Those who think it is very possible that Jesus was married would not necessarily think that Jesus planned on getting crucified and do not see most of the gospels as having much of a biographical or historical focus, at least not in the modern sense of the term. But, even with those assumptions, I would still think that Jesus was probably celibate and a few of his teachings suggest this.
                              Yes, I remember reading an article a few months ago by an evangelical scholar who did hold that Jesus was probably married at some point. He conceded that Jesus would have been celibate during his ministry.

                              Although it's all speculation, I find the "was Paul ever married" question more interesting, personally.
                              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Also, there is the matter of the church being the bride of Christ
                                Last edited by KingsGambit; 04-10-2014, 06:43 PM. Reason: typo
                                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X