Before I go on a short holiday, I thought I'd better share this, so I have a nice long discussion to read when I return. I personally think it doesn't matter much, but I suspect many will disagree or cry blasphemy.
- 7 Replies
I'm going to quote the article.
But Brown University Professor Leo Depuydt, in an analysis also published Thursday by the Harvard Theological Review, remains unconvinced and argues the text contains grammatical errors that a native Coptic speaker would not make.
The above quote from the article, mentions a professor that is convinced the document is fake. (This is a different professor than the Harvard professor, Karren King, mentioned earlier in the article.)
However, Prof King has stressed the text does not prove Jesus actually had a wife, but suggests ancient Christians wrote about this possibility.
The professor who believes the document is real, but does not believe the document proves anything about a wife.
Even if it is authentic, it's still about 700 years too late to be relevant.
Is the family not a central topic of christianity? As a reminder, a wife is an important part of traditional families. Assuming Jesus is a role figure, even from a christian perspective I fail to see how this would be blasphemous.
Of course I understand that elder conservative people would never allow a woman to be next to their god, but you know.. theoretically speaking...
Theological Newsflash: Nothing changed today
Oh wait that's not news.
Is the family not a central topic of christianity? As a reminder, a wife is an important part of traditional families.
There already is an example of family for Christianity, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.
Of course I understand that elder conservative people would never allow a woman to be next to their god,...
Except that the Virgin Mary is a woman and gave birth to Jesus and that there are several devotions too Mary in Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholic churches.
The above quote from the article, mentions a professor that is convinced the document is fake.
But on the flimsiest of grounds. The language of the text indicates the intended audience more than it does the author's preference.
[...] (who had, for some reason, never been mentioned before in any translation of the current Bible).
Seeing as the "current" bible is the refined product of many centuries of editing that followed the first translation and weeding out of apocrypha, I don't consider that to hold much weight.
I'm curious as to why this is a big deal. Sure, there was mention of chastity, but marriage doesn't preclude that. The bible as we know it makes no mention of a wife, but why should it? There are many things that aren't touched upon in the bible, very likely because they weren't considered relevant to the story.
Well, Christianity doesn't accept the other non-canonical works that discuss Jesus or other parts of Christianity. I don't know why they would accept this.
The non-canonical Bible is really interesting to read.
You must be logged in to post a reply!