Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[IrishMist]

At it's EARLIEST estimate, the Gnostic Gospel of Mary was written in the 3rd Century, 300 years afterwards. Some date it as late as the 4th or 5th century. Her ldevoation to Jesus was well covered in the original Gospels.

I thought the Gospel of Mary was dated 120-180 CE

The other four were ranged from late 60's to early 100's.

That's what I understood, anyway.

 

[Nova]

Question- referring to DK's post #316- Mary Magdelene seemed to be an intregal part of Jesus' life and resurrection. Why would her gospel not be included in the Bible?

Contrary to DK's report, the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene) is dated between 120 and 175 C.E, not much later than John.

http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel-of-mary


There are patristic (i.e., mainstream Church) references to it as early as the 200s.

But Mary's Gospel is problematic to the mainstream Church for a couple of reasons:

1. It holds church authority to have descended to Mary Magdalene after Jesus' death, not to Peter. (Not a great argument for male popes.)

2. It portrays the resurrection of Christ as a vision of Mary's, not as an encounter with a physical Jesus, and so calls into to question the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus' physical body.

 

[Mira]

how terribly sad

 

[Nova]

I love this, SO true:

Now I want to show you these five things...five characteristics of willful unbelief. Number one, unbelief sets false standards. And these are universal, they operate today. Number two, unbelief always wants more evidence, but never gets enough. Number three, unbelief does biased research purely subjective. Number four, unbelief rejects the facts. And number five, unbelief is totally ego centric.

Let me add to that:

Five Characteristics of Magical Thinking:

1. Belief relies on low or no standards of proof.
2. Belief is satisfied with any scrap of evidence, whether hearsay or mere coincidence.
3. Belief does research only to the end of proving what is already believed.
4. Belief ignores contradictory facts and/or asserts that facts don't matter in comparison to magic.
5. Belief is totally egocentric, for what could be more egocentric that insisting YOUR truth is the only truth, YOUR god is the only god?

:snooty:

 

[Dark Knight]

Contrary to DK's report, the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene) is dated between 120 and 175 C.E, not much later than John.

http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel-of-mary


There are patristic (i.e., mainstream Church) references to it as early as the 200s.

But Mary's Gospel is problematic to the mainstream Church for a couple of reasons:

1. It holds church authority to have descended to Mary Magdalene after Jesus' death, not to Peter. (Not a great argument for male popes.)

2. It portrays the resurrection of Christ as a vision of Mary's, not as an encounter with a physical Jesus, and so calls into to question the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus' physical body.

I've had read where it, and the other gnostic gospels, were dated much later. It's a matter of debate I reckon.

 

[Cypros]

If a group of people in Jesus' day wanted to "perpetuate a lie" they wouldn't have to write anything at all, but only spread the lie. The writing of the letters and gospels came at least 20 years after Jesus died.

It also must be remembered that until very recently the majority of people were illiterate. The only people reading this stuff were the Church elders, the priests, etc. The discrepancies and conflicts would not be apparent to the masses because they were not reading the text. They depended upon the priests to read it and interpret it and sermonize about the meaning. It isn't really much different today despite widespread literacy -- at least in industrialized societies. Most believers are biblically illiterate. They do not actually read the Bible or they only read the specific passages and verses that they are directed to by their priests/ministers. And the priests/ministers have this habit of avoiding the discrepancies and pointing everybody toward the proclaimed "important" parts that support the ideology of the Church. They tell the congregation that there are no discrepancies in the Bible and the people believe it and repeat it without checking (reading) for themselves. They tell their congregation the archaeological record proves the bible and do not mention the many problems that the archaeological record has revealed and the people believe it.

Today is an exceptionally busy day with a full load of teaching and the belly dancing tonight I see that there are a lot of interesting posts that I will need to come back and read before I can post again tomorrow. I am really enjoying this thread and the civilized approach of everybody involved. :blowkiss:

 

[LovelyPigeon]

They wouldn't be so stupid as to not get their "stories" straight.

By that reasoning, the writers of the gospels included in the NT were stupid for not writing their accounts at the same time and not having their "stories" straight. The stories in the NT gospels differ and sometimes contradict.

Furthermore, they would not have perpetuated the lie to the point of their own death, in sometimes brutal fashion (Peter and Andrew were crucified.)

That isn't an assumption, that is common sense.

There you assume that Peter and Andrew were perpetuating a lie rather than something they believed, which could have been a result of wanting desperately to believe it. (Recall the members of a modern religious cult who commited suicide as a group in order to be taken up by a spaceship in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet--they were willing to die for what they believed.)

The NT only records the death of 2 of the apostles, Judas and James the brother of John. (The descriptions in the NT of Judas' death are inconsistent.)

The others' deaths, including Peter and Andrew, are not known but are only told in traditions.

 

[Nova]

I've had read where it, and the other gnostic gospels, were dated much later. It's a matter of debate I reckon.

DK, the existing copies date from the 300s (which is already older than extant copies of the NT gospels), but the Gospel of Mary is discussed in other works at least a century earlier. No debate there, as far as I know.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

It also must be remembered that until very recently the majority of people were illiterate.

I have to disagree somewhat. The Jews were mostly literate in the first century. The gentiles, though, to whom the message that the Jewish messiah had arrived and was soon returning, were mostly illiterate.

Letters could be sent even by the illiterate, though, by hiring a literate scribe to do the writing. Writings could be copied even by the illiterate copyists.

I agree with your observation about most "bible believers" not reading the bible themselves and/or applying any critical thinking to what it says. It appears that way to me, too. I fell into that category for most of my adult years, but have been engaged in both reading and study for the past 15 years. It helps, too, that mrPigeon and I are in a Sunday School class that has for a teacher a bible historian who teaches at a nearby Christian college.

Is that belly dancing class biblical?

 

[Maral]

I can't help but notice that you refer several times in this discussion to fundamentalism and fundamentalists, with obvious disparagement. How do you define the term?

What I understand fundamentalism to be is a belief that a religious/holy collection (like the Bible) of books/texts is infallible and inerrant as to history and to science. Fundamentalists don't accept that there are contradictions to either history or science found in their holy text.

That would be how I define fundamentalists, too, LP.

I've probably said in this thread somewhere that I believe the Bilble is infallible. A Catholic uses that word differently than a fundamentalist. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and infallible in the theological truths that it declares to proclaim. How the human authors of the different books chose to write these truths is not important. What is important is the message they were proclaiming.

 

[Nova]

The Jews were mostly literate in the first century.

Most Jews were literate? What did they read in that day without printing presses?

Seriously. That's the first time I've heard a pre-printing society described as "mostly literate." Are you sure you aren't talking about a certain class of Jews?

Reading Plato and Aristotle, it's easy to get the impression that 5th century B.C.E. Athens was "mostly literate," but in fact the literate were comprised only of free males of the upper class. The vast majority of Athenians couldn't read.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Here's one dating of the Gnostic gospels:

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons confirms the Greek copy of the Gospel according to Judas predates 180 A.D. and he calls it a "fictitious history'. A copy of Judas Iscariot gospel, a translation from Greek to Egyptian, was discovered and dated to 220 to 340. Other Gnostic writings include the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas (110A.D.), the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Mary (early 100'sA.D.) The Secret book of John (150 A.D.) and the Gospel of Truth (150 A.D.). The oldest surviving full New Testament dates to 350 A.D. a Greek Bible (Codex Sinaiticus) and includes Gospel of John, Gospel of Luke, Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew. http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau//euro36.htm

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Most Jews were literate? What did they read in that day without printing presses?

My understanding is that Jewish boys were taught in the synagogues to read and write.

What they read was principally the Torah, written on scrolls.

I'll check out my primary source (a bible history professor) and see if I remembered wrong.

 

[Dark Knight]

That would be how I define fundamentalists, too, LP.

I've probably said in this thread somewhere that I believe the Bilble is infallible. A Catholic uses that word differently than a fundamentalist. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and infallible in the theological truths that it declares to proclaim. How the human authors of the different books chose to write these truths is not important. What is important is the message they were proclaiming.

I agree with this post, well said.

 

[Dark Knight]

By that reasoning, the writers of the gospels included in the NT were stupid for not writing their accounts at the same time and not having their "stories" straight. The stories in the NT gospels differ and sometimes contradict.

That isn't an assumption, that is common sense.

There you assume that Peter and Andrew were perpetuating a lie rather than something they believed, which could have been a result of wanting desperately to believe it. (Recall the members of a modern religious cult who commited suicide as a group in order to be taken up by a spaceship in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet--they were willing to die for what they believed.)

The NT only records the death of 2 of the apostles, Judas and James the brother of John. (The descriptions in the NT of Judas' death are inconsistent.)

The others' deaths, including Peter and Andrew, are not known but are only told in traditions.

All Apostles were martyred. I don't know of anyone who ever disputed that.

Judas doesn't count, for obvious reasons.

It's one thing to commit suicide, quite another to undergo crucifixion.

 

[Nova]

My understanding is that Jewish boys were taught in the synagogues to read and write.

What they read was principally the Torah, written on scrolls.

I'll check out my primary source (a bible history professor) and see if I remembered wrong.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231(200223)121%3A3%3C559%3AJLIRP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W




LP, the link is from a summary of an entire book on the subject. The scholar concludes that Jews were LESS literate than other societies in the first century, Greek-speaking world.

My question came from sheer practicality: hand-copied books were VERY expensive and it takes years of practice to learn to read. How would lower class Jews have had the chance (not to mention time)?

Even if they learned from Torah, how many copies could any one synagogue have?

 

[Nova]

All Apostles were martyred. I don't know of anyone who ever disputed that.

DK, I don't think it's that the martyrdoms are disputed. We're all just trying tp distinguish between what is objectively proven versus what is a matter of tradition and what must be taken on faith.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

All Apostles were martyred. I don't know of anyone who ever disputed that.

John was martyred? I don't know of anyone who ever claimed that, even by tradition.

The means of deaths of all the apostles, except for James and Judas, are a matter of traditional stories not a matter of historical fact. I don't for a minute dispute that they have all died, but only that how they died is not established historical fact.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Even if they learned from Torah, how many copies could any one synagogue have?

Nova, your link isn't clickable. Maybe you can fix it?

The Torah would have been contained on many small scrolls, not on just one large one.

 

[Nova]

Nova, your link isn't clickable. Maybe you can fix it?

The Torah would have been contained on many small scrolls, not on just one large one.

I don't know how to fix it, but it works for me if I cut and paste it.

There isn't much there. It's just one page of a review of an entire book on the subject. I didn't proffer it as the final word on the subject.

Okay, so let's assume a synagogue has their most sacred text on several scrolls. Then they pass those out to 6-year-olds to learn to read? How much time does any one kid get with a scroll?

I'm still convinced literacy to any great extent had to wait for the printing press.