The Gospel of Jesus' Wife

[St_Redemption]

What about the Gnostic gospels? When the NT was being compiled, how was it determined as to what was true and what was false, what was to be included, what was to be excluded?

The canonized Gospels were written by persons who knew Jesus or had a close relationship with somebody who knew Jesus. They were also written much closer to Jesus’ life than were the other Gospels. We don’t even know who wrote the other Gospels. Sure they gave them names…such as “The Gospel of Judas” etc…but we reasonably know that those were not the people who wrote them. This was the criteria which was used. And reasonably so.

 

[Faith1960]

Faith, if something so baseless as a single piece of questionable paper unsettles your faith, then how much do other problems which have a WAY MORE SOLID base then this unsettle your faith? Of all the things that could unsettle ones faith, this is a very weak one.

Just because somebody wrote something on a piece of paper, it means nothing, even assuming that they were even saying that Jesus had a wife, which we don’t even know… People probably wrote all sorts of false things about Jesus. We have Church tradition, and the entire New Testament, and we have a questionable piece of paper with a questionable fragment of a statement with no context. I don’t see the reason for concern here. You concerned that the New Testament doesn’t say that Jesus did not have a wife??? Don’t you find it FAR more telling that nowhere does it mention that He HAD a wife?

How do we know that there weren’t other writings with this information that were rejected when the NT was assembled?

 

[commenter]

Really, none of those mentioned say Jesus was single, except tradition. What if that’s wrong? What if this, or other sources, seriously undermine what we’ve been taught?

“Tradition” - or rather that tiny portion of it deemed by the Magisterium as Sacred Tradition - isn’t just custom. It is one of the components of our Faith, along with the Magisterium and Scripture.

I don’t know what it means for Harvard to say it’s “authentic”. All they can, possibly, measure is age. Even that is a very rough approximation, give or take a century or two here or there, often to be revised later on as different data come to light or are reinterpreted.

The Magisterium opened the canon of Scripure. It declared certain works to be “authentic” in the sense of inspired, scripture, and the vast majority of potential biblical books ruled out; not necessarily as false, but not inspired in the sense of Scripture. The Magisterium closed the canon of Scripture.

 

[commenter]

How do we know that there weren’t other writings with this information that were rejected when the NT was assembled?

Who cares? There were many other writings proposed as Scripture, with lots of “information”, much of which would disprove Catholicism, Protestantism, and 100 other isms - if it were inspired. But it’s not. If we were to undo the work of the Magisterium, as some are trying to do, we could bring back to consideration the Gospel of Thomas, which many are starting to put into New Testaments as the 5th gospel. There are a couple hundred other books we could bring back too, some which would strike you as bizarre. And some people are trying to bring them back too, not just the gnostics but many others.

This whole path leads away from conversion, away from God.

 

[Nacho45]

They were doing tests on it and the findings will be in the April edition of Harvard Theological Review. Rumor has it that the tests indicate it’s authentic.

Authentic in what way will be the question.

 

[Nacho45]

Really, none of those mentioned say Jesus was single, except tradition. What if that’s wrong? What if this, or other sources, seriously undermine what we’ve been taught?

If we know each other for 10 years and I never mention a wife or children, and you’ve been to my home and seen no evidence of a family, does it makes sense to say I am married with a family because I never said I wasn’t?

 

[Faith1960]

Authentic in what way will be the question.

Don’t know; assuming it means that the papyrus and ink are old and not a modern forgery like some people (who didn’t even see it) have said.

 

[Faith1960]

If we know each other for 10 years and I never mention a wife or children, and you’ve been to my home and seen no evidence of a family, does it makes sense to say I am married with a family because I never said I wasn’t?

I’d think you have some reason to hide it.

 

[edwest2]

Right on time. Same old story. Like an old underground newspaper with the headline: “Easter Cancelled. Christ’s Body Found.” Complete with a pair of very recent looking feet sticking out of a platform of dirt about six inches above the ground. I mentioned it to a coworker and she told me she knew the people involved.



Ed

 

[Nacho45]

I’d think you have some reason to hide it.

So, not having a wife and family is never an option? Okay.

 

[Nacho45]

Don’t know; assuming it means that the papyrus and ink are old and not a modern forgery like some people (who didn’t even see it) have said.

All that means is its an old forgery.

 

[Faith1960]

Right on time. Same old story. Like an old underground newspaper with the headline: “Easter Cancelled. Christ’s Body Found.” Complete with a pair of very recent looking feet sticking out of a platform of dirt about six inches above the ground. I mentioned it to a coworker and she told me she knew the people involved.



Ed

I wondered when someone would say that. It’s probably a coincidence. The topic was supposed to be in the Harvard Theological Review in January, but tests were incomplete.

 

[St_Redemption]

How do we know that there weren’t other writings with this information that were rejected when the NT was assembled?

Well we don’t for sure. But theres simply no reason to believe that there was. How do we know that there weren’t writings which stated that Jesus was a professional ping-pong player?

The point is that the Canonical Gospels are the best biographies of Jesus that we have. They were written by people close to the scene.

This is really a non-issue. The evidence in favor of Jesus having a wife is so miniscule as to not even be worth consideration.

 

[seagal]

I wondered when someone would say that. It’s probably a coincidence. The topic was supposed to be in the Harvard Theological Review in January, but tests were incomplete.

They have already done enough tests to come to some conclusions, even if they will be tested again.

Thus, on the basis of the age of the papyrus, the placement and absorption of the ink on the page, the type of the handwriting, and the Coptic grammar and spelling, it was concluded that it is highly probable that the fragment is an ancient text. Although a final conclusion about the parchment’s authenticity remains open to further examination by colleagues and to further testing, especially of the chemical composition of the ink, these assurances were sufficient for work on the analysis and interpretation of the fragment to begin in earnest.

They have already determined that the fragment is “a fourth century CE copy of a gospel probably written in Greek in the second half of the second century” So the age of it is not in real contention.

But the so-called gnostic gospels of Thomas, Mary, Philip, Judas, et al are also proven ancient documents. That doesn’t mean that they contain God inspired text. Just because someone from the 2nd century wrote the words “my wife” doesn’t mean they were writing the truth.

Faith, you are arguing against reason. Our faith as Catholics doesn’t depend merely on what a scrap of parchment might say but on the promise from Jesus that His church would stand firm forever. If Jesus were married what would that mean to our faith? We would probably have to re-visit our interpretation of scripture regarding the symbolism of Jesus as bridegroom and the church as bride, but that wouldn’t change our fundamental beliefs. Because he is still the Son of God, he still was crucified for our sins, died, and rose again. Read the Creed. That is the basis of our faith. And not one mention of whether Jesus was married or not.

 

[patrick457]

I’d also like to say that all these “experts” that deemed GJW a forgery are going to be mighty embarrassed if test results say the papyrus and ink are authentic. No, they’ll probably insist the tests were somehow flawed.

Are you aware that the biggest hurdle in claiming that the GoJW is authentic is the fact that )Gospel of Thomas**tahime? More specifically, the text is similar - too similar - to a modern version of Thomas: Michael Grondin’s Interlinear Coptic-English Translation of the Gospel of Thomas. We know this because the text replicates a spelling error in Grondin’s interlinear.

Let’s say we pretend for a moment that the fragment is authentic. I highly doubt any scholar will seriously take the GoJW as containing reliable information about whether the historical Jesus, any more than they would take, say, the Gospel of Judas or the Pistis Sophia as reliable sources for the historical Jesus. Even if the work really dates from around AD 400 and is perhaps the translation of a late 2nd-century Greek text (as is originally claimed), the fact would still remain that (1) it is late and (2) it is the odd man out, being the only work from antiquity we have that claims Jesus had a wife - and I’m sure you’re very much aware that scholars love it when something is attested early, and attested by multiple sources.

I mean, Karen King herself points out that the fragment “should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married.” No serious scholar would start claiming with a straight face that the historical Jesus was married because a single, late work from antiquity claimed that it was so. You might as well believe that Jesus killed and maimed people with His divine power when He was a child because the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (AD 140-170) said it, or that He had the ability to shapeshift because On the Life and Passion of Christ (8th-9th century) claimed that was the case, or that He really considered His disciples to worship a false god and taught Judas gnostic cosmology because the Gospel of Judas (late 2nd century) said so.

 

[patrick457]

Here’s a picture of the scrap. Now here’s the deal.

(1) The first line contains the words http://i58.tinypic.com/2iizv6d.png “not [to] me. My mother gave me li[fe]…”

These lines correspond with two phrases from the 36th line in folio (page) 49 (Saying 101a, http://i57.tinypic.com/116ie02.png [na]i an ta-maau lit. “to-me not; for my mother…”) and the first line in the 50th folio (Saying 101b, http://i59.tinypic.com/34ebwh3.png as-ti nai m[sup]e[/sup]-pi-onh “she-gave to-me (the)-life”) of the Nag Hammadi codex containing the Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas.

“Whoever does n[ot] hate his [father] and his mother in my way cannot become a [disciple to] me, and whoever does [not] love [his father and] his mother in my way cannot become a [disciple] to me. For my mother …], but my true [mother] gave me life.”

• Gospel of Thomas, Saying 101

The double-object infinitive tina is used rarely in Coptic so you would ordinarily expect the direct object marker m (the M with a line above it), which introduces the direct object of a transitive verb, to appear before onh (‘life’; cf. ankh). This is where the problem is: whoever wrote the text of the GoJW ungrammatically omitted the crucial M - guess what? The pdf version of Michael Grondin’s interlinear version of Thomas also makes the same typographical error. It isn’t just that that’s fishy: the fragment begins at exactly the same point folio 49, line 36 begins and ends at almost exactly the same point the following line in the next page breaks off in the original manuscript. If this is a forgery, you might say that the author has used a modern edition of the Coptic text where the original line-divisions are preserved (such as Grondin’s).

 

[Faith1960]

They have already done enough tests to come to some conclusions, even if they will be tested again.

They have already determined that the fragment is “a fourth century CE copy of a gospel probably written in Greek in the second half of the second century” So the age of it is not in real contention.

But the so-called gnostic gospels of Thomas, Mary, Philip, Judas, et al are also proven ancient documents. That doesn’t mean that they contain God inspired text. Just because someone from the 2nd century wrote the words “my wife” doesn’t mean they were writing the truth.

Faith, you are arguing against reason. Our faith as Catholics doesn’t depend merely on what a scrap of parchment might say but on the promise from Jesus that His church would stand firm forever. If Jesus were married what would that mean to our faith? We would probably have to re-visit our interpretation of scripture regarding the symbolism of Jesus as bridegroom and the church as bride, but that wouldn’t change our fundamental beliefs. Because he is still the Son of God, he still was crucified for our sins, died, and rose again. Read the Creed. That is the basis of our faith. And not one mention of whether Jesus was married or not.

How was it determined that the 4 Gospels were God inspired texts?

 

[Faith1960]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Gospel_of_Jesus'_Wife.jpg/640px-Gospel_of_Jesus'_Wife.jpg

Here’s a picture of the scrap. Now here’s the deal.

(1) The first line contains the words http://i58.tinypic.com/2iizv6d.png “not [to] me. My mother gave me li[fe]…”

These lines correspond with two phrases from the 36th line in folio (page) 49 (Saying 101a, http://i57.tinypic.com/116ie02.png [na]i an ta-maau lit. “to-me not; for my mother…”) and the first line in the 50th folio (Saying 101b, http://i59.tinypic.com/34ebwh3.png as-ti nai m[sup]e[/sup]-pi-onh “she-gave to-me (the)-life”) of the Nag Hammadi codex containing the Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas.

“Whoever does n[ot] hate his [father] and his mother in my way cannot become a [disciple to] me, and whoever does [not] love [his father and] his mother in my way cannot become a [disciple] to me. For my mother …], but my true [mother] gave me life.”

• Gospel of Thomas, Saying 101

The double-object infinitive tina is used rarely in Coptic so you would ordinarily expect the direct object marker m (the M with a line above it), which introduces the direct object of a transitive verb, to appear before onh (‘life’; cf. ankh). This is where the problem is: whoever wrote the text of the GoJW ungrammatically omitted the crucial M - guess what? The pdf version of Michael Grondin’s interlinear version of Thomas also makes the same typographical error. It isn’t just that that’s fishy: the fragment begins at exactly the same point folio 49, line 36 begins and ends at almost exactly the same point the following line in the next page breaks off in the original manuscript. If this is a forgery, you might say that the author has used a modern edition of the Coptic text where the original line-divisions are preserved (such as Grondin’s).

http://i62.tinypic.com/20sww2f.jpg

1. If the typo is proof this was a forgery why isn’t King acknowledging it?
2. If the dating is as it’s believed, to be a fourth century copy of a second century text, the typo doesn’t matter because they didn’t have computers then.

 

[commenter]

How was it determined that the 4 Gospels were God inspired texts?

The Magisterium determined that.

You can point out certain scholars that had (name removed by moderator)ut (and others who were excluded); you can see where certain traditions helped guide them (the 1% of ancient Christians they found to be Sacred Tradition, not the 99% of traditions they found not reliable. You can look at the books used in many worship communities (though other books were also in use, and did not get into the canon.)
and so on. and so on.
But all those are just guesses as to what maybe, perhaps, influenced those decisions. Some people say if we know the criteria they used, then we don’t really need the Magisterium, either in the ancient church, or now. But using potential criteria, one could choose many different books.

The bottom line is that God chose to use this single agency to convey His Will - the Magisterium. When the Pope speaks in a certain way on faith and morals and makes a proclamation, it is infallible. You can conjecture what books he might have read, who he consulted with, what cultural influences, etc But the bottom line is that he promulgates something THEN it is determined - because he promulgated it. These 4 gospels are canonical only because the Magisterium infallibly canonized them; and then closed the canon. They are not infallible because they are dated before a certain date, or ascribed to an apostle, or the several other reasons sometimes hypothesized after the fact.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

Another interesting is that both Thomas and GoJW use the spelling NAEI for the word “to-me.” NAEI is not incorrect, but the more common spelling of the word is NAI (the spelling with the ei came about as a result of iotacism).

(2) The second line goes: http://i57.tinypic.com/if39g6.jpg Peje m-mathētēs n-I(ēsou)s je “… The disciples said to Jesus …” This also has a parallel in Thomas, in Sayings 12, 18 and 20:

The disciples said to Jesus:
We know that you will depart from us; who is it who will be great over us?
Jesus said to them:
Wherever you have come, you will go to James the Just,
for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.

The disciples said to Jesus: Tell us how our end will be.
Jesus said: Since you have discovered the beginning,
why do you seek the end?
For where the beginning is, there the end will be.
Blessed is he who shall stand at the beginning (in the beginning),
and he shall know the end, and shall not taste death.

The disciples said to Jesus:
Tell us what the kingdom of heaven is like.
He said to them: It is like a grain of mustard-seed,
the smallest of all seeds;
but when it falls on tilled ground, it puts forth a great branch
and becomes shelter for the birds of heaven.

The phrase that appears in GoJW is exactly the same as the one which appears in the three passages in the Coptic: peje m-mathētēs n-I(ēsou)s je “Said the-disciples to-Jesus this.”

(3-4) http://i57.tinypic.com/102s1g2.jpg

…] arna Mariam m-psha m-mo-s a…]
…] Peje I(ēsou)s nau ta-hime m-n…]

…] “deny. Mariam is worthy of it” …]
…]Jesus said to them, "My wife and …]

All the decipherable words in line 3 seem to derive from page 51 of the Nag Hammadi codex of Thomas, from maref-arna ‘let him abdicate/renounce/deny’ in Saying 110 (p. 51, line 5) and Mariham ‘Mary’, m-psha ‘to be worthy’ and m-mo-s ‘her’ in Saying 114 (p. 51, 19-21).

Jesus said:
He who has found the world (and) become rich,
let him renounce the world. (Saying 110)

Simon Peter said to them:
Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life.
Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male,
in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males.
For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Saying 114)

There’s another instance where arna, “deny” appears in the injunctive form maref-arna in Thomas - Saying 81. In Saying 110, the object of renunciation is “the world” (p-kosmos); in 81, the verb is unqualified: “Let the one who has power deny (marefarna).” While we could speculate that the gap preceding arna in the third line was filled with the injunctive and pronominal prefixes (maref- or mares-), it is unclear how that would make sense when it is the disciples who are likely speaking, rather than Jesus Himself (as is made clear in the next sentence).

What’s curious is that the name Mary is spelled Mariham (MAPIϩAM) in Thomas but Mariam (MAPIAM, without the letter hori ϩ) in GoJW. Mariham is the more common spelling of the name in the Sahidic dialect of Coptic, the language Thomas and GoJW are written in; the only Sahidic work in which the name appears as Mariam is the First Apocalypse of James, also found in Nag Hammadi (AD 180-250?) But here’s the news: in Grondin’s pdf interlinear, he gives the spelling ‘Mariam’ in the English translation.



All the decipherable words in line 4, meanwhile, have parallels from words in page 34 of Thomas: peje I(ēsou)s nau “said Jesus to-them” (Saying 12, 34.27) and mn “and-” (34.30). In Coptic, the word ΠEϪE peje ‘said’ is usually accompanied by the conjunction ϪE je ‘this’ to introduce reported discourse. (You can see this in the sentence from Saying 12 “The disciples said to Jesus:” peje m-mathētēs n-I(ēsou)s je.) So the absence of the je here is a little peculiar. Supposing that the text is a forgery, the author might have omitted the je because it is separated from peje I(ēsou)s nau by a line break in the Nag Hammadi Codex and/or because it was regarded as unnecessary. Thomas is often noted as one of the rare extant Coptic texts that varies its usage of peje- with and without je.





NOTE: I’m not yet done.