Or so says the great Anthony Sacramone, in his analysis of the latest news that is supposed to shake the very foundations of Christianity.
Usually this mainstream media tradition of releasing such stories happens at Christmas or Easter. You know the drill: scientists/archeologists/hucksters have discovered Jesus walked on an ice floe, not water/Jesus didn't die so much as pass out after being doped up/Jesus' father was actually a Roman soldier named Pantera.
We all have our favorite. Mine? That time that National Geographic released an unrelenting public relations offensive based around something later shown to be a mistranslation of a 3rd century text about Judas. But for weeks we were told that Judas was more a hero than villain of the Christian story.
Anywho, we were treated to front-page headlines yesterday in the New York Times about Jesus’ wife (“A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife“), based on a very tiny fragment of what one scholar says is a 4th-century writing about Jesus Christ. If there’s one thing we all know, it’s that mysterious stories about 4th-century Coptic fragments of questionable provenance are probably more authoritative (in the media’s eyes) about Jesus’ life than the extensive writings of his contemporaries.
After the juicy headlines some reporters even got around to admitting the find wasn't as significant as the headlines claimed.
So what's the point of the story? I'll let the New York Times explain:
Even with many questions unsettled, the discovery could reignite the debate over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple. These debates date to the early centuries of Christianity, scholars say. But they are relevant today, when global Christianity is roiling over the place of women in ministry and the boundaries of marriage.
The discussion is particularly animated in the Roman Catholic Church, where despite calls for change, the Vatican has reiterated the teaching that the priesthood cannot be opened to women and married men because of the model set by Jesus.
The discovery of this lost fragment, if interpreted in just the right way, matches the views of the New York Times editorial page! It’s an early Christmas miracle!
- Comment (114)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (11)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
At the same time, new sensationalism aside and Mollie's point about the NYT aside, I don't see this as some sort of leftist conspiracy to undermine Christianity. Wouldn't more information about the historical Jesus only help shed further light on your understanding of Him?
Aug '12
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
Tommy De Seno: At the risk of heresy, may I raise the issue of "so what?" Assume it was discovered Christ was married. I see no effect on scripture. I could be wrong, but I recall no exhortations from Christ on remaining unwed, even for himself.
There may be some call for a sea change within the Church on how clergy should follow Christ, but that has no effect on anyone's belief system or the Word.
Christ was fully man. What great difference would there be were a wife discovered? · 2 minutes ago
Uhh, well for starters, I might wonder about the veracity of an historian like St. Luke if he did, in fact, leave out of his books the little tidbit of Jesus actually being married. A writer who includes details such as Jesus eating, not just any old fish, but broiled fish (Luke 24) is unlikely to have skimmed over a corporeal 'bride of Christ.'
Sep '10
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
The Vatican didn't get the memo about Christ's wife as they were harping on Ephesians 5:25 back in 1991. Some Polish guy, Blessed something-or-other.
Jan '12
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
The Vatican teaches no such thing. Rome recognizes the validity of Eastern Orthodox ordination to the priesthood regardless if the Orthodox priest is married. Rome recognizes the validity and regularity of Eastern Rite Catholic priests who are married. And Rome recognizes the validity and regularity of formerly Anglican and Lutheran ministers who are married, received into the Roman Catholic Church, and ordained priests by RC bishops.
In the early church, western priests (and even bishops) could be married. However, the Roman church over time has assimilated its diocesan priests to the model of monastic and mendicant priests. The former remain celibate as a matter of discipline that could be rescinded, the latter as a matter of vows that cannot.
As for women priests, whether Jesus was married has no bearing on that question logically or as a matter of Catholic and Orthodox reasoning about who may not become priests.
Nov '10
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
Their constant preaching of the Church of Global Warming made me cancel my subscription years ago.
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Tommy De Seno: At the risk of heresy, may I raise the issue of "so what?" Assume it was discovered Christ was married. I see no effect on scripture. I could be wrong, but I recall no exhortations from Christ on remaining unwed, even for himself.
There may be some call for a sea change within the Church on how clergy should follow Christ, but that has no effect on anyone's belief system or the Word.
Christ was fully man. What great difference would there be were a wife discovered? · 10 minutes ago
Well, speaking as a Lutheran, this answer would be different than for a Catholic. There are serious implications to Jesus being married or not. And the fact that nothing in Scripture speaks to it would be utterly bizarre to the point of serious problems.
But since Catholics base their prohibition on most clergy marriages on the example set by Christ, it would be a big "so what." If, you know, we hadn't dealt with this whole Gnostic stuff against the divinity of Christ 1600 years ago already. · 3 minutes ago
Edify me. What significance would a Mrs. Christ make to Lutherans.
Mar '11
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
You don't really understand the whole point of groups like the Jesus Seminar, then. Destroying the religious underpinnings of Jesus of Nazareth is precisely their aim. They want to make him just some ranting Jewish guy from antiquity. If Jesus is not who he claimed to be... the only begotten son of God... then he's not some "wise man" to be followed otherwise. He's either a nutcase or a con man. Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. Pick one. There can be nothing else. Secular "Jesus experts" have basically devoted themselves to taking the first option away.
Nov '11
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
Douglas
You don't really understand the whole point of groups like the Jesus Seminar, then. Destroying the religious underpinnings of Jesus of Nazareth is precisely their aim. They want to make him just some ranting Jewish guy from antiquity. If Jesus is not who he claimed to be... the only begotten son of God... then he's not some "wise man" to be followed otherwise. He's either a nutcase or a con man. Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. Pick one. There can be nothing else. Secular "Jesus experts" have basically devoted themselves to taking the first option away. · 0 minutes ago
Can't people (and I obviously don't mean the NYT) have an honest intellectual interest in the historical Jesus without it being an attempt to destroy Christianity?
Mar '11
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
TheRoyalFamily
Their constant preaching of the Church of Global Warming made me cancel my subscription years ago. · 4 minutes ago
Same here. I subscribed for my son years ago, because of the pleasant memories I had of reading my grandfather's stack of NG's when I was a kid. I was surprised to find all the political content in the modern version, and after a year or so, I cancelled the subscription.
Jun '10
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
Where there still is some actual disagreement between Catholics and Protestants is whether Jesus had biological siblings. The Bible mentions Jesus' brothers, but in the original Greek, the word that's used is broad enough to include his male cousins. And as Christ died, he turned over the care of his mother to John the Apostle. If Jesus of Nazareth had a younger brother, there would be no need to call on someone outside the immediate family. So, that would indicate that there was no male sibling of Jesus Christ. At least not living.
Jun '10
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
I saw the headline, but it did not interest me.
The NYT hasn't a clue what motivates belief. Christ lived; he taught (and while one can quibble whether his words were recorded precisely, I believe their substance was preserved); he suffered in Gethsemane and on the Cross (for me and you); he died; and he was resurrected (a fact that, in a manner I cannot explain, allows me to be resurrected as well).
Christianity has been a force for good in the world, and its contributions far outweigh (by vast orders of magnitude) the crimes committed by some misguided Christians.
As Theodore Dalrymple (himself an agnostic) said:
With all due respect the paper the NYT once was and no longer is, I don't read it for anything, least of all for my religious education.
May '10
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
... and set by centuries of bishops and priests, including those who new Jesus and the apostles personally.
May '10
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
Thought experiment.
Say Fred Cole did something extraordinary today. In 2040 or 2050 his best buddies, now retired, write extensively about many intimate details of his life, yet never mention a wife. Not only that, but the lifestyle they write about pretty much precluded having a wife, and it would be a very odd omission if in fact he was married.
Now, say in 2350 or 2400 or thereabouts, some random person writes "Fred Cole had a wife."
Would you find that credible?
Moreover, if you wanted to know more about Fred Cole's life, and you somehow accepted what the person in 2400 wrote, wouldn't it cast doubt on the account of the eyewitnesses for leaving out such a critical piece of information?
It's not neutral. If you take this single 400-year-late piece of paper seriously, then you can't really take the Gospels seriously. That's why Christians care, and don't see it as just another piece of a picture of the historical Jesus.
However, since the provenance of the claim is weak and far removed from the person of Jesus himself, we're not too "worried" about this new piece of "evidence."
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
JayWoo
Tommy De Seno: At the risk of heresy, may I raise the issue of "so what?" Assume it was discovered Christ was married. I see no effect on scripture. I could be wrong, but I recall no exhortations from Christ on remaining unwed, even for himself.
There may be some call for a sea change within the Church on how clergy should follow Christ, but that has no effect on anyone's belief system or the Word.
Christ was fully man. What great difference would there be were a wife discovered? · 2 minutes ago
Uhh, well for starters, I might wonder about the veracity of an historian like St. Luke if he did, in fact, leave out of his books the little tidbit of Jesus actually being married.
Was Luke ever in the presence of Christ?
Look - I'm not making the case that Christ was married. Far from it. I just don't see the effect on my religion (distinct from my church) if a 2000 year old fact was discovered.
And if Luke never saw Christ, I'd not hold the later find against his historical research skills.
Nov '11
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
Does the absence of a Mrs. Jesus in the Gospels really turn things on their head?
The gospels were written decades after the fact by people of dubious credentials (did they have the connections they claimed to Jesus?) and the writers included their current world view and what they considered significant and insignificant. It also reflects their historical and political views at the time. The number of women in the Bible shows their significance to the writers at the time of writing.
The inclusion of certain gospels over other competing gospels in the cannon was a result of decisions made due to contemporary political considerations. Their only validity over other gospels is their inclusion in the Bible.
Now, you can believe that God guided the hand of the men holding the pens, and you can believe God guided the decision makers on what made it into the final cannon. That's perfectly valid. In other words: If Jesus had a wife and nobody mentions it in the Bible, it is the will of God that it is so. Am I wrong here?
Mar '11
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
Fred Cole
Can't people (and I obviously don't mean the NYT) have an honest intellectual interest in the historical Jesus without it being an attempt to destroy Christianity? · 1 minute ago
Individuals can. All of the major secular Jesus historical groups however... including the elite academics... have all focused their work to specifically attempt to debunk the religious claims of Jesus. You've heard of the term "concern trolling", right? Where someone claims to be worried about something they inherently dislike? These groups' have a similar mindset. They're passionately devoted to the "truth about Jesus"... so that we can all finally leave that risen from the dead son of God rubbish behind, and honor him for his true achievement: the most important early social progressive. Or, to prove that he was just another middle east whacko. Take your pick.
In the Ivies, you will find very few Jesus researchers that don't have an angle or an axe to grind.
Jul '12
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
I guess I look at this from a different perspective. When I saw that the NYT had a headline about Jesus I thought, "Wow, they admit that Jesus existed!"
Nov '11
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
I think it's generally accepted by most people, non-Christians and atheists included, that there was a guy named Jesus who lived at that specific time in that specific place. The doubt is to his divinity.
Feb '12
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
Isn't this kind of like the first historical mention of the Jamestown colony being written yesterday?
Nov '11
Re: Christians—Keep Your Heads! Eructations, Bronx Cheers, Face Palms, and Eye Rolling Have No Place in the Body of Christ!
More cont'd from #35
HOWEVER, if you don't believe God was guiding the pen holders and the men finalizing the cannon, then you need to accept that they made their choices based on political considerations specific to their time period.
There may have been, for reasons of political expediency at the time, or because of their ancient world view, reasons to exclude a woman, especially a bride of Jesus, from the narrative. This could have been done at the writing stage or at a later editorial stage.
Edited on September 19, 2012 at 6:17pm