Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[Cypros]

The dreaded FUNDAMENTALISTS!

Gotcha!!

 

[BarnGoddess]

The dreaded FUNDAMENTALISTS!

I will definitely agree with you on that Maral. They absolutely scare me to death.

 

[Cypros]

I will definitely agree with you on that Maral. They absolutely scare me to death.

Oh my Gosh! Is this something upon which we can all agree?!?!?!

 

[Dark Knight]

Oh my Gosh! Is this something upon which we can all agree?!?!?!

Amen!

 

[Details]

Amen!

Heck yeah!

 

[Maral]

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..

I never said that all ancient historians and scholars agree that the events of the NT are factual. But I still maintain that the vast majority of them do.
We can find enough evidence in the writings of such "hostile" witnesses like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Celcus to conclude that Jesus was born, claimed to perform miracles, and died, even without the NT or the writings of the early church fathers. And the writings of the NT and church fathers cannot be discounted for their accurate historical knowledge even though they may seem biased.

Some of those who do deny the historical facts have just as much of an agenda as some of those on the other side who may distort the facts to bolster their case. But fortunately, the majority of historians and scholars look just at the evidence and keep their own Christian theology out of it. They don't have to believe in the divinity of Christ to know the historical value of the NT.

 

[southcitymom]

The Gospels weren't just randomly selected in the 4th Century, they were chose in part because they were in widespread use in Christian communities from the very beginning. 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. ..

I have just gotten around to reading this very interesting thread with lots of great posts. Thanks to everyone.

I too don't care whether or not Jesus was married. It wouldn't change in any way the impact the words and teachings of Christ have had in my life.

I did have a question about this post, DK. Don't you think a mature Christian must question the Bible in order to arrive at an acceptance and understanding of it as the Word of God? Far from being blasphemous, I think questioning the Word of God is what brings many to a more devout belief.

 

[Glow]

[QUOTE
We can find enough evidence in the writings of such "hostile" witnesses like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Celcus to conclude that Jesus was born, claimed to perform miracles, and died, even without the NT or the writings of the early church fathers. And the writings of the NT and church fathers cannot be discounted for their accurate historical knowledge even though they may seem biased.

Some of those who do deny the historical facts have just as much of an agenda as some of those on the other side who may distort the facts to bolster their case. But fortunately, the majority of historians and scholars look just at the evidence and keep their own Christian theology out of it. They don't have to believe in the divinity of Christ to know the historical value of the NT.[/QUOTE]



Here are a few more along the same lines as Maral mentioned above...


Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote: “The name Christian is derived from Christ, whom the*procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of*Tiberius.”
Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also referred to Christ.

"Independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”
~The New Encyclopædia Britannica

In a more modern vein,
Historian H.*G.*Wells said that a man’s greatness can be measured by "what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him." Wells, although not claiming to be a Christian, acknowledged: “By this test Jesus stands first.”

Historian Will Durant argued concerning the idea that Jesus was an "invention"of the Apostles: “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

“The historical result of Jesus activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognised by the chief civilisations of the world, dates from his birth.”
~The Historians’ History of the World


From The World Book Encyclopedia. . “Dates before that year are listed as*B.C., or before Christ,” “Dates after that year are listed as*A.D., or anno Domini (in the year of our*Lord).”

 

[LovelyPigeon]

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.

But we aren't talking about the Septuagint; we're talking about the New Testament and its writers. The translators of the Septuagint are not the same people as the writers of the New Testament.

There's no reason to try and interpret adelphos to mean cousin in the NT when it clearly and obviously means brother, UNLESS there's a need to claim a forever virgin Mary.

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

We can safely believe that woman had no more children after her death. Mary, however, did not die during the birth of Jesus.

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?

The translation you quote is from the Septuagint. The wording "until" isn't used in other translations directly from the Hebrew. I don't believe the writers of the NT who quoted from the Greek Septuagint (and from the Hebrew) thought that Michal had children after she died. Do you?

If you're a literalist, it could mean Michal didn't have a child until the day she died, i.e., she died in childbirth.

I believe it is not supposed to mean she had children after she died, or that anyone would interpret it that way.

It follows, like the Egyptian inscription, that she had no children after she died. It does not follow that Mary and Joseph had no sexual relations after the birth of Jesus or that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. There is no biblical teaching that the mother of the messiah would remain a virgin or that Mary remained one.

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

I recognize metaphors in the writings of the NT as well as parable and allegory in the sayings of Jesus, therefore I am not a literalist in that sense. I do believe, though, that some things are literal, like the brothers and sisters of Jesus (Mark 6:3 and others), and some things are not, like a requirement to hate your mother and father in order to be a disciple of Jesus (Luke 14:26).

Those arguments are common to Protestants, not just to fundamentalist Christians, and are based on biblical textual scholarship. Your arguments are common to Roman Catholicism.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

A thoughtful article from St Louis' Washington University has some more information about the DNA testing and the argument for Jesus' having a wife:
The lost tomb of Jesus?
By Neil Schoenherr

...In 1st century Palestine it was customary to bury a person of some means wrapped in linen and spices, let the flesh decay, and then, a year or more later, place the bones in a stone ossuary, which literally means "bone-box." After the second discovery, archeologists moved in and the debate about the meaning of the find started bubbling to the surface. Meanwhile, the bones were buried by Israeli Rabbis following Jewish ritual law. Fragments of the bones, however, remained in the boxes that were not washed out. The boxes are now kept in an archeological warehouse in Jerusalem. --->>

Mitochondrial DNA tests on the bone fragments in the Yeshua and Miriamne ossuaries show that they were not related. Sometime between the initial discovery and the 1990's one of the original ten ossuaries went missing. Tabor and others are claiming that this is the much disputed James ossuary.

One of the chief arguments posed by Kloner and others that this set of names cannot be identified with the family of Jesus is that all of the names were common as water in the 1st century. That is true, but Tabor and the filmmakers have elicited the support of statisticians to argue the likelihood that this set of names would match the names in the New Testament is extremely small. Tabor illustrates by saying that the approximate population of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was 50,000. If you could get all into the local hippodrome, and started asking, would all those whose name is Jesus please stand, 2,796 would rise. Then if you asked, would all those who father is also named Joseph remain standing, 351 would be left. If you ask all those also who mother's name is Mary, 173 would remain. Add the brother's name Jose, and only 23 would be left. Add the name James, and you are down to one.

University of Toronto mathematician calculated that the odds that the tomb does not belong to the Jesus of the Gospels is 1/600. Tabor's mathematician gives the startling odds that out of 42,723,672 families, the Talpiyot combination of names would occur only once. The general public needs to be a little wary of statistical calculations. They never give you the absolute truth but only an approximation of the truth. And Tabor is quick to admit that many of the associations in his book are "speculative." Still, it is important to point out that these numbers do not depend so much on the frequency of a particular name but on the occurrence of the cluster of names, and here the numbers are telling.

The Talpiyot tomb findings are a serious challenge to traditional Christian denominations. Catholics have held as a matter of doctrine that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and that she remained a virgin. The use is the phase "brothers and sisters," they argue must be taken in a "wide" sense of "friends and followers." Many traditional Protestants beg to differ with Catholics on this score. Most claim that Jesus was never married, but scholars of 1st century Judaism now argue that one had to be married to preach in the synagogue, and that is something Jesus did on many occasions (Luke 4:16). --->>

http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8914.html

 

[Dark Knight]

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?

The relevant story, the Resurrection, was the important common denominator. That it happened and there were witnesses. The authors had their own recollection of the various minutiae surrounding the event, certainly. Your question would pose a problem for a biblical fundamentalist, but as a Roman Catholic, I see the Bible in a much larger picture, with the teachings being God inspired and without human error. The minor details ARE a byproduct of the authors viewpoints, as they are not especially relevant to the faith.

 

[Dark Knight]

I have just gotten around to reading this very interesting thread with lots of great posts. Thanks to everyone.

I too don't care whether or not Jesus was married. It wouldn't change in any way the impact the words and teachings of Christ have had in my life.

I did have a question about this post, DK. Don't you think a mature Christian must question the Bible in order to arrive at an acceptance and understanding of it as the Word of God? Far from being blasphemous, I think questioning the Word of God is what brings many to a more devout belief.

I only find the denial of His Resurrection to be blasphemous. As part of a maturing faith, asking lots of questions and praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit is certainly a good thing.

 

[Dark Knight]

A thoughtful article from St Louis' Washington University has some more information about the DNA testing and the argument for Jesus' having a wife:
The lost tomb of Jesus?
By Neil Schoenherr

...In 1st century Palestine it was customary to bury a person of some means wrapped in linen and spices, let the flesh decay, and then, a year or more later, place the bones in a stone ossuary, which literally means "bone-box." After the second discovery, archeologists moved in and the debate about the meaning of the find started bubbling to the surface. Meanwhile, the bones were buried by Israeli Rabbis following Jewish ritual law. Fragments of the bones, however, remained in the boxes that were not washed out. The boxes are now kept in an archeological warehouse in Jerusalem. --->>

Mitochondrial DNA tests on the bone fragments in the Yeshua and Miriamne ossuaries show that they were not related. Sometime between the initial discovery and the 1990's one of the original ten ossuaries went missing. Tabor and others are claiming that this is the much disputed James ossuary.

One of the chief arguments posed by Kloner and others that this set of names cannot be identified with the family of Jesus is that all of the names were common as water in the 1st century. That is true, but Tabor and the filmmakers have elicited the support of statisticians to argue the likelihood that this set of names would match the names in the New Testament is extremely small. Tabor illustrates by saying that the approximate population of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was 50,000. If you could get all into the local hippodrome, and started asking, would all those whose name is Jesus please stand, 2,796 would rise. Then if you asked, would all those who father is also named Joseph remain standing, 351 would be left. If you ask all those also who mother's name is Mary, 173 would remain. Add the brother's name Jose, and only 23 would be left. Add the name James, and you are down to one.

University of Toronto mathematician calculated that the odds that the tomb does not belong to the Jesus of the Gospels is 1/600. Tabor's mathematician gives the startling odds that out of 42,723,672 families, the Talpiyot combination of names would occur only once. The general public needs to be a little wary of statistical calculations. They never give you the absolute truth but only an approximation of the truth. And Tabor is quick to admit that many of the associations in his book are "speculative." Still, it is important to point out that these numbers do not depend so much on the frequency of a particular name but on the occurrence of the cluster of names, and here the numbers are telling.

The Talpiyot tomb findings are a serious challenge to traditional Christian denominations. Catholics have held as a matter of doctrine that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and that she remained a virgin. The use is the phase "brothers and sisters," they argue must be taken in a "wide" sense of "friends and followers." Many traditional Protestants beg to differ with Catholics on this score. Most claim that Jesus was never married, but scholars of 1st century Judaism now argue that one had to be married to preach in the synagogue, and that is something Jesus did on many occasions (Luke 4:16). --->>

http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8914.html

Jesus was the Son of God who was NOT known for following man's rules, lol. He frequently scorned the man-made Jewish laws, and doubt He would care the rules for preaching. He had so many followers, it wasn't like it was easy to just shoo him away every time, lol. They often feared a riot could break out, iirc.

 

[Maral]

Those arguments are common to Protestants, not just to fundamentalist Christians, and are based on biblical textual scholarship. Your arguments are common to Roman Catholicism.

Yes, my arguments are common to Roman Catholicism, but you may want to check out the works of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli before saying your arguements are common to all Protestants. They all taught the perpetual virginity of Mary

 

[Dark Knight]

Yes, my arguments are common to Roman Catholicism, but you may want to check out the works of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli before saying your arguements are common to all Protestants. They all taught the perpetual virginity of Mary

You are correct. Luther certainly taught on Mary's perpetual virginity. Those are the founders of Protestantism, of course, so that shouldn't be viewed lightly.

 

[Details]

A thoughtful article from St Louis' Washington University has some more information about the DNA testing and the argument for Jesus' having a wife:
The lost tomb of Jesus?
By Neil Schoenherr

.......Tabor illustrates by saying that the approximate population of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was 50,000. If you could get all into the local hippodrome, and started asking, would all those whose name is Jesus please stand, 2,796 would rise. Then if you asked, would all those who father is also named Joseph remain standing, 351 would be left. If you ask all those also who mother's name is Mary, 173 would remain. Add the brother's name Jose, and only 23 would be left. Add the name James, and you are down to one.

University of Toronto mathematician calculated that the odds that the tomb does not belong to the Jesus of the Gospels is 1/600. Tabor's mathematician gives the startling odds that out of 42,723,672 families, the Talpiyot combination of names would occur only once. The general public needs to be a little wary of statistical calculations. They never give you the absolute truth but only an approximation of the truth. ...

And there's the error. Carbon dating, nor any other type of dating, is so precise as to give an exact date. So this group of tombs is not from the population of Jerusalem at one point in time, but probably for a minimum of 40 years, plus or minus, if not a hundred. That's several more generations of possible Mary, Joseph and Jesus's out there. In another article, I've also read that the calculations on how common the names were is incorrectly stated - they're using a smaller set of data that is less accurate, in which these names are not quite as common as in the larger set of data. It seems their largest error here is with Joseph - saying that is a very unique name, where Mary is about 50% of the female population (that one sounds about right).

They're also making some strong assumptions about the family relationships here - has DNA testing shown that this was mother, father, son, brothers, unrelated female? For all we know, Jose could be the father in this family group.

 

[Details]

The relevant story, the Resurrection, was the important common denominator. That it happened and there were witnesses. The authors had their own recollection of the various minutiae surrounding the event, certainly. Your question would pose a problem for a biblical fundamentalist, but as a Roman Catholic, I see the Bible in a much larger picture, with the teachings being God inspired and without human error. The minor details ARE a byproduct of the authors viewpoints, as they are not especially relevant to the faith.

Could whether Jesus rose into heaven bodily, or in spirit, after being resurrected, be one of those minor details?

I don't believe this report, because there's just too much wrong with it (location especially), but if they've got more or better data than we're seeing here - I don't see why that would be an attack on faith. Heck, once upon a time, suggesting the earth went around the sun was a major attack on faith. Then it just wasn't true, and whadda know, it wasn't such a big deal.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Yes, my arguments are common to Roman Catholicism, but you may want to check out the works of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli before saying your arguements are common to all Protestants. They all taught the perpetual virginity of Mary

The Lutheran Church, however doesn't consider Luther's personal belief in the perpetual virginity to be a matter of theology. IIRC, Luther had taken a Catholic monk's vows before taking a reformist stand, so it's not surprising that he held that personal view. Calvin was never a priest but he too was Catholic before becoming a reformist and fathering an anabaptist movement, yet the Protestant churches that formed as a result do not consider his personal views on Mary to be theological, either. Zwingli was a Catholic priest when Luther's reformation swept into Switzerland. (I had to look up Zwingli, because I wasn't familiar with his name at all)

(I think Luther also believed that Mary herself was conceived without sin in order to be worthy of bearing the child of the Holy Spirit, but I may have that confused with modern Roman Catholicism.)

You surely realize that Luther's, Calvin's, and Zwingli's Protestant church legacy does not reflect their personal Catholic beliefs about Mary.

 

[Cypros]

The relevant story, the Resurrection, was the important common denominator. That it happened and there were witnesses. The authors had their own recollection of the various minutiae surrounding the event, certainly. Your question would pose a problem for a biblical fundamentalist, but as a Roman Catholic, I see the Bible in a much larger picture, with the teachings being God inspired and without human error. The minor details ARE a byproduct of the authors viewpoints, as they are not especially relevant to the faith.

How can the biblical ext be "lacking in human error" if yuo have four versions of a story presented by four self-proclaimed witnesses, each of the stories with details that CONFLICT with each other. It is not simply that each remembered and wrote about different details -- the stories CONFLICT. It is impossible that all of the versions are correct. Either it is human error or, if you want to assume divine inspiration, then it is divine error. Other options are that that at least a couple of the disciples intentionally misrepresented what happened, or that later redactors intentionally changed details of some of individual gospels to suit the agenda of various sects and/or the Church. The latter two options are the most likely explanation considering the history of the compilation of the NT and the history of early Christianity, IMO.

 

[Nova]

You are correct. Luther certainly taught on Mary's perpetual virginity. Those are the founders of Protestantism, of course, so that shouldn't be viewed lightly.

DK, that's such a Catholic statement, I have to laugh! To most Protestants, founders (other than Jesus and the 12 apostles) don't have much authority.