[mattyb]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19645273

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/faculty-research/research-projects/the-gospel-of-jesuss-wife

Not a new idea. Interesting though.

In the Pol Lounge because.

[lpkmckenna]

It's important to remember how scholars view stuff like this: a document from someone in the 4th century who thought Jesus had a wife. It might be an independent opinion of one man, it might be a community perspective, it might even be a critical statement by someone who doesn't agree with it. All we know is, someone in the 4th century wrote this down.

It's not proof that Jesus had a wife, it's just proof that someone wrote that idea down way back then.

Myself, I don't think Jesus had a wife. Celibacy was a new idea in vogue among some Jews at that time (Essenes, Theraputae), and Jesus was a bit of a trend-follower it seems.

[ironknee]

according to the secret gospel of Mark, this is wrong

[Chongo]

Jesus said my wife.....is the the church


The church...she will be my disciple.

[Shaddim]

I still believe he and Mary M were married, I posted about this ~5-6 years ago, but they never had kids. It's just a feeling, from this and circumstantial clues, no concrete "AHA!" evidence.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

What circumstantial clues?

Also: I hadn't realized this has been dated around the 4th century BC. That is a long, long time later. Not sure what the life expectancy was around that time, but it's what, 15-20 generations? Yikes.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

according to the secret gospel of Mark, this is wrong

It's important to differentiate between what the Secret Gospel allegedly says, and how it has been interpreted by Morton Smith. Smith himself says his interpretation that it contains allusions to a homosexual Jesus is just that: his interpretation.

Then you have to realize that Smith himself is the only person to have actually seen this document, and he refused to share it with other scholars. Bart Erhman says the chances of the Secret Gospel being a deliberate hoax by Smith himself are about 50-50.

Originally Posted by long fragment of Secret Mark

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

Assuming this really is an excerpt from the Original Mark, all it seems to be is an earlier version of the Lazarus story from John without mentioning Lazarus by name, and the "cloth over naked body" seems to be a link to the unnamed youth who ran away naked in the Garden of Gethsemane after a temple guard ripped off his cloak. I think the possibility that there was an older, more primitive version of the Lazarus story is very interesting, and that the mysterious naked youth might be Lazarus is very tantalizing. It also means there are three total references in Mark to "a youth wearing a white," since the unnamed man in white appears again in Mark 13 announcing the Resurrection of Jesus.

But I just can't fathom Smith's assertion that any of this has homosexual connotations. It just doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I still believe he and Mary M were married, I posted about this ~5-6 years ago, but they never had kids. It's just a feeling, from this and circumstantial clues, no concrete "AHA!" evidence.

Except there is no good reason to believe this.

The Gospel of Luke gives us the best background on Mary Magdalene:

Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Mag'dalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joan'na, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.

The fact that Mary is presented as a financial supporter of Jesus in the same breath as Joanna, and Joanna was probably reasonably wealthy as the wife of Herod's steward, probably means Mary was also pretty wealthy. And the fact that Joanna's husband is mentioned by Mary's isn't probably means Mary was a rich widower.

I also find it pretty interesting that Jesus was supported by someone who worked closely for Herod Antipas. This probably means Herod knew who Jesus was, meaning Jesus had good reason to run away from Galilee after John's beheading, since Herod could easily identify him.

[ironknee]

lpkmckenna

i know, i know .but it's fun!

[aristotles]

Wild speculation by people who can "read" something and yet not understand what they are reading. The church is indeed the bride of christ.

BTW. This site should give a way of undoing a recommend clicked by accident. I thought someone was being facetious.