elf: Quote: "I found a special snowflake;" 5-point snowflake (Special Snowflake)
elf ([personal profile] elf) wrote in [community profile] debunkingxian2012-09-19 11:25 am

Because by "wife," he probably meant "secretary"

Tip from [personal profile] herlander_refugee: "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" should stir thought, scholar says

They've got a bit of text in which Jesus refers to his wife:
The fragment, which measures 8 cm by 4 cm (3.1 by 1.6 inches) includes words in ancient Coptic in which a scribe writes: "Jesus said to them, my wife ...".

Another section of the fragment, contains the phrase "she will be able to be my disciple"
So far, so good. However, Karen King, Professor at Harvard Divinity School, doesn't want us to rush to any conclusions:
"I want to be very clear that this fragment does not give us any evidence that Jesus was married, or not married," she said in the interview during a break in the congress.
Fascinatingly, she also said, "this is the first unequivocal statement we have that claims Jesus had a wife," but apparently that claim is not "evidence" in her mind. Because if it were "evidence," then all those churches would be wrong, and we wouldn't want to say that. At least, not in public.

Head, meet desk.
herlander_refugee: My tattoo'd back to the world (Default)

[personal profile] herlander_refugee 2012-09-19 06:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Pretty much, we don't want to bring 'fire' down on one's own head and all.

Like the claims that Jesus was not the bridegroom at the wedding needing wine, and the arguments against his having siblings....deep denial.

'Course, I routinely risk lightening. I say that if he had no siblings, it is because the fastidious Joseph didn't like sloppy seconds.

TADA! Look, still here, no hair afire!
adalger: Earthrise as seen from the moon, captured on camera by the crew of Apollo 16 (Default)

[personal profile] adalger 2012-09-19 09:45 pm (UTC)(link)
The reason the fragment isn't considered evidence is because the fragment appears to come from a couple hundred years later. IIRC, she said on NPR today, "it's evidence that people 200 years later *believed* he was married." Or, it could just be fanfic, like most of the Bible.
coriana: (Default)

[personal profile] coriana 2012-09-19 10:33 pm (UTC)(link)
This. I think Professor King is being both reasonable and realistic in refusing to make excessive claims about the importance of her find -- if she HAD said "this is conclusive proof the dude was married" people would be beating her over the head with the three-to-four-hundred-year gap between the purported lifetime and the probable writing, as though that conclusively DISproved what she had said. I agree that it's pretty self-evident that a rabbi at the time would be married (hey, I bet it's STILL a fair assumption that the majority of rabbis are probably married!), and this text adds confirmation to a state-of-obvious about which the church has spent many centuries in deep denial, but let's not bash legitimate academics for refusing to sensationalize their findings!

(She also asked the New York Times not to compare her to a Dan Brown novel, which they promptly did -- poor chica, she's got a fascinating bit of history to research, but is likely to be overwhelmed with really obnoxious press attention.)

~ c.