Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[Cypros]

... The Apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit, who came upon them as "tongues of fire." The Gospels are God inspired, there is no human error. You cannot find even a loose translation claiming Jesus was married with children. This is the Word of God people are questioning, and that is blasphemy. Trying questioning the Quran like that. At the foot of the Cross was Jesus' mother. No wife, no kids. And an apostle.

If the gospels are "God inspired" and lacking human error then why are there discrepancies? Go to the end of each of the four gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Read the part AFTER the crucifixion, the part about the resurrection. Not only are they not the same but they are INCONSISTENT. There isn't any way to read the four version and make them all be right. WHO went to the tomb? WHAT was found there? WHAT happened leading up to the deliverance to heaven?

 

[LovelyPigeon]

And yes, he died and resurrected at 33.

There is no sure way to determine exactly how old Jesus was when he died.

Luke says Jesus began his ministry when Jesus was "about 30 years old". No NT writer gives the age of Jesus when he died.

Bibilical and extra-Biblical references (like Josephus) to seasons, celebrations, paschals, acts of ministry, etc allow scholars to come up with ages for Jesus at death varying from 30 years old to 46 years old.

(One scripture that's interesting in light of Jesus' disputed age is John 8:57, where the Jews say to Jesus "You are not yet fifty years old,and you [claim you] have seen Abraham!" If Jesus was in early 30's, it's reasonable that the Jews would have made the comparison to Jesus' age as 'not yet' 35 or 40 rather than 50.)

 

[Nova]

I was asked by Maral to explain my remark that many of the claims for an historical Jesus are guilty of cherry-picking the available evidence to prove the claim. Here's one example:


http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html


Note that some of his proof consists of highly questionable sources (such as the apparent interpolations into Josephus). Much of it consists of references to Christians, not Jesus himself; proof of a Christian movement in the late first century is not the same as historical evidence of Jesus himself.

(It's also amusing to note that the author claims both (i) that we don't have contemporary accounts of Jesus' life because the evidence and witnesses were destroyed when the Romans put down the Jewish rebellion of C.E. 70; and (ii) that the NT gospel writers wouldn't dare lie because so many witnesses were around to correct them.)

In other claims for the historicity of Jesus, for example, we are told of an inscription found in the past century that confirms Pontius Pilate as a governor of the period. The same sites then cite this as proof for the actions attributed to Pilate in the NT. Not the same thing.

In one, the claimant notes the lack of evidence of a town of Nazareth at the time of Jesus' supposed birth. The claimant then notes that recent archaeological digs have found evidence of first-century and earlier houses in that area. This is surely interesting, but hardly proof that "Nazareth" itself was constituted in that place, much less that Jesus lived there as a child.

As Cypros has pointed out, mere corroboration of public events during the period is not proof of the entire NT. I'm not saying the NT is fiction, but even fiction makes use of some actual places, persons and events.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

At the foot of the Cross was Jesus' mother. No wife, no kids. And an apostle.

John the apostle, Jesus' mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Clopas (believed to be Mary's sister-in-law), and many other women were there together at the crucifixion, standing nearby (or at a distance, depending on the gospel).

Matthew 27:55-56 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

 

[Maral]

Question to DK or Maral: what does the Catholic church make of Jesus' brothers? I know the church doesn't think them the biological children of Mary.

You're right, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a Virgin for her entire life, so she had no other biological children other than Jesus.

There are several verses in the NT that speak of Jesus' "brothers", such as Matthew 12:46. But the words 'brother', 'sister', and 'brethern' do have a wide meaning in the Bible. For example, in Genesis 14:14, Lot is described as Abraham's 'brother', but Lot was the son of Aran, Abraham's deceased brother. So Lot was really his nephew.

The word "brother" was used for "cousin" in the Bible because neither the Hebrew or Aramaic language had a word for "cousin".

Also, Jesus was refered to as "the son of Mary, not "a son of Mary", implying that He was her only Son. No other person was ever referred to as a son of Mary in the Gospels, even when someone was referred to as Jesus' brother.

 

[Nova]

You're right, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a Virgin for her entire life, so she had no other biological children other than Jesus.

Thanks, Maral.

 

[Cypros]

Are you just as disappointed with all ancient manuscripts where we only have copies of the originals?

I know this wasn't directed at me but I felt the need to respond. Anybody properly trained in historical analysis knows to be careful with ANY copies and to be skeptical of ANY documents that have an ideological or political agenda. A text describing the origins/creations of a soceity is treated very differently than, say, a trade contract. A royal inscription describing the great feats of a king is treated very differently from a land deed. The trade contract and land deed are much more reliable for factual information than a religious document or royal propaganda. Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are not accepted as reliable "historical' documents despite the fact that some of the characters and places existed and perhaps and the general story is representative and symbolic of real events in the Late Bronze Age (a rivalry and clash between the Achaean, aka Mycenean, civilization of Greece and peoples settled along the western coast of Anatolia)

If you are attempting to understand and reconstruct the ancient world in an OBJECTIVE and scientific manner, you never accept any written word as "gospel". The Bible is nothing special in this manner. It does not receive any more criticism or skepticism than any other piece of literature. You also do not limit your knowledge to just one source. The Bible presents a very limited world view. It provides little insight into most of the great (greater) civilizations neighboring ancient Israel/Judea, and nothing about the great contemporary civilization and cultures in East Asia, subsaharan Africa, Europe and the Americas. We have a wealth of extra-biblical information from Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Indus that we must use to gain a broader, more detailed understanding of the world of the Bible. Often we finding conflicting information between the Bible and the other sources in which case you have to analyze the sources and also the archeological record to see which is more reliable. Sometimes the biblical account is more reliable. Sometimes the biblical account is clearly wrong.

Unfortunately, the majority of people do not have much exposure to the methods of studying ancient history and archaeology, and so do not realize the amount of information that is being sifted through and considered with every new discovery and every new claim. If the Bible is your only connection to the ancient past, and you are not aware of the thousands of other texts that are subjected to interpretation, analysis, criticism, etc., then I can understand how it may seem that way.

 

[Nova]

Thanks, Cypros, as always. What an eloquent summary of the situation.

To be fair, both Maral and Dark Knight have demonstrated time and again that they are aware of problems related to ancient, Christian texts. They may draw different conclusions than I do (and they may trust different experts), but neither responds to a controversy by merely looking away.

 

[Cypros]

Nova, where is the "cherry-picking"? The vast majority of ancient historians and scholars agree that the events in the NT are factual. It is considered a historical fact that a man named Jesus was born and died. It is considered a fact that this man claimed to be the Son of God. Whether or not one chooses to believe this claim is a matter of faith. But it is a fact that this claim was made. It is considered a historical fact that His tomb was empty and He appeared to many people after His death. It is a matter of faith to believe that He was resurrected.

Sorry, but it is nmost definitely NOT a fact that ancient historians and scholars agree on the event of the NT as factual. First of all, ancient historians and scholars study much more that the bible and the NT, and those who delve beyond the limited scope of the bible tend to have a good sense of its context in the larger picture.

However, biblical historians within Christian scholarship cannot even agree on what is fact or fiction in the bible. SOME of it is, of course. As I attempted to illustrate with the example of a novel, but there is no agreement on the historicity of Jesus, his actions, his death or his resurrection. Yes, there are biblical literalists who accept as fact that Jesus' tomb was empty and that he was resurrected, but that is not widely accepted by the larger group of ancient historians and scholars (which encompasses Jewish shcolars, muslim scholars, assyriologists, egyptologists, etc. etc. etc.). For my personal experience, the vast majority of ancient historians and scholars do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. That is purely Christian theology.

 

[michelle]

You're right, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a Virgin for her entire life, so she had no other biological children other than Jesus.

.

Wow, I never really knew that. Man, I so want to get into this thread but it looks exhausting, lol!

 

[LovelyPigeon]

There are several verses in the NT that speak of Jesus' "brothers", such as Matthew 12:46. But the words 'brother', 'sister', and 'brethern' do have a wide meaning in the Bible. For example, in Genesis 14:14, Lot is described as Abraham's 'brother', but Lot was the son of Aran, Abraham's deceased brother. So Lot was really his nephew.

The word "brother" was used for "cousin" in the Bible because neither the Hebrew or Aramaic language had a word for "cousin".

The New Testament was written in Greek, though, and not Hebrew or Aramaic. The Greek language does have words for "cousin", as well as for "brother" and "sister". Adelphos is the Greek word used to describe Jesus' brothers as "brothers" rather than anepsios, which means "cousin".

Also, Jesus was refered to as "the son of Mary, not "a son of Mary", implying that He was her only Son. No other person was ever referred to as a son of Mary in the Gospels, even when someone was referred to as Jesus' brother.

Jesus was also referred to as the "firstborn" of Mary, which implies that other children followed his birth. And Joseph is referred to as not having had sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus.

 

[Cypros]

Thanks, Cypros, as always. What an eloquent summary of the situation.

To be fair, both Maral and Dark Knight have demonstrated time and again that they are aware of problems related to ancient, Christian texts. They may draw different conclusions than I do (and they may trust different experts), but neither responds to a controversy by merely looking away.

Hey Nova!

I certainly did not mean to suggest that either of these two respectable and knowledgeable posters are ignorant or simply avoid controversy. My comment about people having limited knowledge was directed at the general public. In America we place little emphasis on history and ancient history receives even less attention. Our children can easily graduate high school without knowing anything but the fundamentals of American history (and even that is not a requirement), and it is very easy to complete four years of college study without taking a course dealing with ancient history or archaeology -- the study of our own past and why we are the way that we are today. It is a real shame because this lack of exposure leads to so much misunderstanding of the past and how we "know" the past. Also, in order to avoid controversy and conflict with the religions of a diverse population, our school's do not adequately teach critical thinking and scientific method so that the distinction between "historical" fact, ideology and fiction is blurred.

P.S. I am glad that you enjoyed GOSPEL. You are a fast read! Even I, the great skeptic, appreciated the commentary on faith and I agree that it is fundamental to human society. God help us all if everybody were to lose faith in what is important to them!!!

 

[Nova]

Hey Nova!

I certainly did not mean to suggest that either of these two respectable and knowledgeable posters are ignorant or simply avoid controversy.

I figured you didn't mean them, but I felt compelled to distinguish them.

My comment about people having limited knowledge was directed at the general public. In America we place little emphasis on history and ancient history receives even less attention. Our children can easily graduate high school without knowing anything but the fundamentals of American history (and even that is not a requirement), and it is very easy to complete four years of college study without taking a course dealing with ancient history or archaeology -- the study of our own past and why we are the way that we are today. It is a real shame because this lack of exposure leads to so much misunderstanding of the past and how we "know" the past. Also, in order to avoid controversy and conflict with the religions of a diverse population, our school's do not adequately teach critical thinking and scientific method so that the distinction between "historical" fact, ideology and fiction is blurred.

Is it ever!

P.S. I am glad that you enjoyed GOSPEL. You are a fast read! Even I, the great skeptic, appreciated the commentary on faith and I agree that it is fundamental to human society. God help us all if everybody were to lose faith in what is important to them!!!

Amen.

 

[Maral]

The New Testament was written in Greek, though, and not Hebrew or Aramaic. The Greek language does have words for "cousin", as well as for "brother" and "sister". Adelphos is the Greek word used to describe Jesus' brothers as "brothers" rather than anepsios, which means "cousin"..

Yes, LP, I know that. But the writers of the NT were brought up to use the Aramaic equivalalent of "brethren" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing that the translators of the Septuaiant did. The translators of the Septuagint favored "adelphos" even for cousins.

Jesus was also referred to as the "firstborn" of Mary, which implies that other children followed his birth.

To the ancient Jews, the term "firstborn", meant the child that opened the womb. The first male child of a marriage was alway called the "firstborn" even if he was the only child. An inscription discovered in Egypt refers to a woman who died during the birth of her "firstborn".

And Joseph is referred to as not having had sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus.

The word "till" had a different meaning when the Bible was written than it does today. It meant only that some action had not happened up to a certain point, not that the action happened later, as the word does today. An example: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death." (2 Sam 6:23). Is this supposed to mean that she had children after she died?

I was surprised you used those examples, LP, since I know you are not a Bible literalist. Those are common arguements used by fundamentalists.

 

[Cypros]

An inscription discovered in Egypt refers to a woman who died during the birth of her "firstborn".

That is a great example, Maral. Do you have a source for that?

 

[Nova]

Yes, LP, I know that. But the writers of the NT were brought up to use the Aramaic equivalalent of "brethren" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father.

This is certainly possible, but in the case of the Gospels how would we know? Since we don't know who wrote them.

Another possibility mentioned on one website I read is that the authors of the existing Greek gospels were working from an earlier, Aramaic one. In which case they simply imported the vocabulary problem from Aramaic.

 

[Maral]

That is a great example, Maral. Do you have a source for that?

Cypros, I got that example from a book I have "The Attack on 'Romanism' by 'Bible Christians". Unfortuanately, the author did not give a source. I tried to search for a source and I mostly came up with apologetic sites that are using this author's same words.

However, I finally found a source:
The inscription was published and analyzed by Lietzmann in the Zeitschrift fër die neuetestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 22, 1923, p. 283.
Link

 

[Cypros]

Cypros, I got that example from a book I have "The Attack on 'Romanism' by 'Bible Christians". Unfortuanately, the author did not give a source. I tried to search for a source and I mostly came up with apologetic sites that are using this author's same words.

However, I finally found a source:
The inscription was published and analyzed by Lietzmann in the Zeitschrift fër die neuetestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 22, 1923, p. 283.
Link

Thanks! What an interesting and useful discussion of linguistics.

Just out of curiosity, who exactly are the "Bible Christians" referenced in that title?

 

[BarnGoddess]

Wow, what a deep discussion. I'm impressed by our scholars on WS. I will watch the show on Discovery. I'm always open to new ideas.

DK and Maral, love you both to death, but I think that various religions demand us to believe only as they teach. I simply cannot accept that I must believe what a particular religion says I must. I noticed someone discussed Josepha, one of the "forbidden" books. I have been watching History, Science, Discovery channels on the books left out of the Bible, and have to agree, that MAN made the decisions as to what would be included and what wouldn't. Why couldn't Mary Magdeline be an apostle? Why were women left out? Who decided? How do you answer your child when he asks if Adam and Eve were the only humans on earth and had two sons, who could they have babies with?

Another post I read stated that the NT books were inspired by tongues of fire and words spoken directly by God. Does God speak directly now? Why not? Was the last time He spoke was to those who penned the NT? Which is more accurate, the Roman Catholic Bible or the King James version? Which translation am I to believe is the only true word of God? Can someone answer why I must believe that Jesus couldn't have married and had children?

Why did the Catholic church decide priests couldn't marry? Early popes were certainly married. Was it declared to make the church more powerful by aquiring land? That being that if priests had no heirs, then their land and assets would be given to the church? Why were some popes left out of the official lineage? (I had read that somewhere.) There are so many unanswered questions, that I can't help but question. It's not in my nature to accept without question.

 

[Maral]

Thanks! What an interesting and useful discussion of linguistics.

Just out of curiosity, who exactly are the "Bible Christians" referenced in that title?

The dreaded FUNDAMENTALISTS!