Jesus says, "My wife..."
#11
20 centuries later and they still try to bury Jesus but he is Risen!!!!!!
Reply
#12
This sort of document should be no surprise, really. There are some pretty heterodox documents of much earlier. We can even see the Apostles themselves dealing with heresies, and it should not shock us that the heretics would put their stuff in writing.
I bet even among the heretics and atheists of Academia this is seem as just a media exploitation, just like when journalists try to explain something about physics or biology, or when they do their own piece of revisionism, real academics get quite angry.
Reply
#13
(04-11-2014, 05:15 PM)Antonius Josephus Wrote:
(04-11-2014, 04:30 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: It really bugs me though that this hasn't been tossed out as sensationalist garbage.  Who announces a find like this without vetting it thoroughly? 

Evidently, anyone who likes the idea that the early Church was proto-feminist/proto-marxist hippie drum circle.

Which is to say, most of the media.

This! Imagine if millennia from now a person reads a fragment from the Onion or some other fake news outlet. They will think the same thing of those forms of media that we are seeing in this old rag. People were troublemakers / comedians in Jesus' day. People are the same now. Our format is different, but its the same stuff.
Reply
#14
Even if we said this is authentic, and tried to make the argument that Christ was speaking metaphorically of His Church, it would still fall apart.

How many times does the authentic Christ of the Gospels ever use the singular possessive pronoun? "My Kingdom" and "my Father". That's almost entirely it. At all other times, He refers to Himself in the third person, or in parables. His Church is always known by the allegory of virgins or the bride. Grammatically-speaking, He never took direct possession of anything but His Father. This must inform everything else we see.

There's no way this is authentic... and there's no way it could be fudged.
Reply
#15
I have a little bit of experience dealing with manuscripts, though nothing in Coptic.  That said, I would be very leery of claiming to translate any fragment of an ancient document.  If you don't have a whole piece with some context, it's awfully easy to end up with a wrong translation.  Another issue is that it can be very difficult to tell where the punctuation falls.  Just to give an example of the sort of thing that might happen:

Here are the fragments we have been given:

"Jesus said to them, My wife..."
"... she is able to be my disciple..."

From this, the original text might have been:

"As he was discussing the issue of women priests, Jesus said to them, 'My wife is of no less value than the apostles, and so she is able to be my disciple every bit as much as they.'"

But based on what we have, it might just as easily have said:

"I once heard that when the apostles asked about the primacy, 'I have made Peter alone the head of you all,' Jesus said to them.  My wife also heard that He said 'The woman who recognizes the superiority of the man, she is able to be my disciple."

Without some kind of context or testimonial, the original text could be almost anything, and there's just no way to know.  In addition, it could very easily be forged by any number of heretics, etc.
Reply
#16
(04-11-2014, 10:22 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: I have a little bit of experience dealing with manuscripts, though nothing in Coptic.  That said, I would be very leery of claiming to translate any fragment of an ancient document.  If you don't have a whole piece with some context, it's awfully easy to end up with a wrong translation.  Another issue is that it can be very difficult to tell where the punctuation falls.  Just to give an example of the sort of thing that might happen:

An excellent point, and coupled with the sheer amount of "weirdness" that is preserved in Coptic, I have to imagine there's very little to see here.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)