Papyrus find: Jesus' wife

[QuantumTroll]

Please read or skim: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/hi ... wanted=all

This is really cool. I always thought it contradictory that Jesus was supposed to live a full human life but only hung out with dudes. If Jesus were the son of God, why would his life story neglect half of humanity to such an extent? The OT has a lot to say about women (from Eve and the pain of childbirth and onward), so it seems to me that somewhere along the line something must have been left out.

This new find, should it continue to hold up to scrutiny, would strengthen the case for Christianity immensely, in my view. At the very least, Jesus' story becomes much more human.

[Metacrock]

Please read or skim: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/hi ... wanted=all

This is really cool. I always thought it contradictory that Jesus was supposed to live a full human life but only hung out with dudes. If Jesus were the son of God, why would his life story neglect half of humanity to such an extent? The OT has a lot to say about women (from Eve and the pain of childbirth and onward), so it seems to me that somewhere along the line something must have been left out.

This new find, should it continue to hold up to scrutiny, would strengthen the case for Christianity immensely, in my view. At the very least, Jesus' story becomes much more human.

hey QT good you see you here. I know about it. they date it to fourth century.

[KR Wordgazer]

I don't think Jesus was married-- I don't think marriage would have fit in with his mission as he understood it. But I also disagree that he "neglected half of humanity." When you read the parables-- particularly in Luke-- a parable aimed at men (such as a farmer sowing seed) will be immediately followed by a parable aimed at women (such as a woman looking for a coin). A story of a healing of a man will be immediately followed by a story of a healing of a woman. Many women traveled with Jesus, and he considered them disciples and referred to them as such (it's translator bias and cultural misunderstandings that cause us to miss this today). No, he didn't choose any women for the 12 apostles, but there was a specific reason for that. The Resurrection story, especially in John, shows the risen Christ deliberately passing over the male disciples to appear to women first. There was a specific reason for that, too.

Here's my take on it from my blog:

http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2012/02 ... e-men.html

So I don't think it was necessary for Jesus to be married, in order for him to affirm and uplift women in his ministry. In fact, since marriage in those days was a very different thing (men over 30 buying 12-16-year-old girls from their fathers), and since he envisioned a spiritual kingdom of equal siblings with one Father (God)-- it's not at all surprising that he avoided marriage as it was known then.

[Metacrock]

Scholars are saying its too late to be real evidence about Jesus himself. It migh tell us how early Christians looked at things.

[QuantumTroll]

I don't think Jesus was married-- I don't think marriage would have fit in with his mission as he understood it. But I also disagree that he "neglected half of humanity." When you read the parables-- particularly in Luke-- a parable aimed at men (such as a farmer sowing seed) will be immediately followed by a parable aimed at women (such as a woman looking for a coin). A story of a healing of a man will be immediately followed by a story of a healing of a woman. Many women traveled with Jesus, and he considered them disciples and referred to them as such (it's translator bias and cultural misunderstandings that cause us to miss this today). No, he didn't choose any women for the 12 apostles, but there was a specific reason for that. The Resurrection story, especially in John, shows the risen Christ deliberately passing over the male disciples to appear to women first. There was a specific reason for that, too.

Here's my take on it from my blog:

http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2012/02 ... e-men.html

So I don't think it was necessary for Jesus to be married, in order for him to affirm and uplift women in his ministry. In fact, since marriage in those days was a very different thing (men over 30 buying 12-16-year-old girls from their fathers), and since he envisioned a spiritual kingdom of equal siblings with one Father (God)-- it's not at all surprising that he avoided marriage as it was known then.

This is a very good point (although Jesus' parents seem to have been at least one conventionally modern couple), and I should definitely not have missed the parables you brought up. Perhaps I should reread the NT again, since I seem to have missed some things where a feminist perspective manages to shine through. Christians at the few Bible studies I've joined and at church haven't put this light on Scripture before, but now that you mention it I think it's significant.

I still think that having (or planning) a family would "improve" Jesus, but maybe I'm too harsh on the "standard" version...

Scholars are saying its too late to be real evidence about Jesus himself. It migh tell us how early Christians looked at things.

[/quote]
Yeah, I know it's from the 4th century as the article said, but that's an age that is comparable to some of the earliest Biblical scriptures, no?

[Metacrock]

I don't think Jesus was married-- I don't think marriage would have fit in with his mission as he understood it. But I also disagree that he "neglected half of humanity." When you read the parables-- particularly in Luke-- a parable aimed at men (such as a farmer sowing seed) will be immediately followed by a parable aimed at women (such as a woman looking for a coin). A story of a healing of a man will be immediately followed by a story of a healing of a woman. Many women traveled with Jesus, and he considered them disciples and referred to them as such (it's translator bias and cultural misunderstandings that cause us to miss this today). No, he didn't choose any women for the 12 apostles, but there was a specific reason for that. The Resurrection story, especially in John, shows the risen Christ deliberately passing over the male disciples to appear to women first. There was a specific reason for that, too.

Here's my take on it from my blog:

http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2012/02 ... e-men.html

So I don't think it was necessary for Jesus to be married, in order for him to affirm and uplift women in his ministry. In fact, since marriage in those days was a very different thing (men over 30 buying 12-16-year-old girls from their fathers), and since he envisioned a spiritual kingdom of equal siblings with one Father (God)-- it's not at all surprising that he avoided marriage as it was known then.

This is a very good point (although Jesus' parents seem to have been at least one conventionally modern couple), and I should definitely not have missed the parables you brought up. Perhaps I should reread the NT again, since I seem to have missed some things where a feminist perspective manages to shine through. Christians at the few Bible studies I've joined and at church haven't put this light on Scripture before, but now that you mention it I think it's significant.

I still think that having (or planning) a family would "improve" Jesus, but maybe I'm too harsh on the "standard" version...

Scholars are saying its too late to be real evidence about Jesus himself. It migh tell us how early Christians looked at things.

Yeah, I know it's from the 4th century as the article said, but that's an age that is comparable to some of the earliest Biblical scriptures, no?[/quote]

No everything in the NT was written in the first century. Although this one seems to be a fourth century copy of a second century work. I'm not sure what part of second.

you talk like you go to chruch and bible study. I thought you lived in Sweden where no one does that anymore?

[KR Wordgazer]

This is a very good point (although Jesus' parents seem to have been at least one conventionally modern couple), and I should definitely not have missed the parables you brought up. Perhaps I should reread the NT again, since I seem to have missed some things where a feminist perspective manages to shine through. Christians at the few Bible studies I've joined and at church haven't put this light on Scripture before, but now that you mention it I think it's significant.

I still think that having (or planning) a family would "improve" Jesus, but maybe I'm too harsh on the "standard" version...

I see no reason to believe Joseph and Mary were in any sense a conventionally modern couple. By the time Jesus is 30 years old, Joseph has disappeared from the scene, while Mary is still quite active. This implies that like most couples of the day, Joseph was much older than Mary and had probably died by the time Jesus became an adult.

ButI think the "feminist" perspective (though the term is anachronistic) shines through more than we have been trained to think. We are taught in childhood to read the scriptures a certain way, and we don't even see what we're missing. Understanding certain things about the culture of the times can throw a whole new light on things. For instance, the Mary and Martha story is taught as a comparison of a works-based life rather than a contemplative one. But that is not what the original readers would have understood at all. They would have seen Martha busy doing the traditional female duties of preparing a meal for her guests, while Mary forsakes the womanly role and goes and "sits at Jesus' feet." This was an idiomatic expression that actually meant "became a student/disciple of." Paul uses it in Acts 22:3 to describe himself as a disciple of Gamaliel. In other words, Mary was taking her place with the rest of Jesus' disciples to receive a lesson from him. Women were not allowed to be disciples of rabbis. But Jesus allowed it-- and when Martha protested that she was doing her duty and Mary wasn't, Jesus replied that Mary had "chosen the better part, which shall not be taken away from her." In other words, what he was saying was, "Mary has just as much right to be my disciple as any of the men. Don't try to stop her. In fact, you would do well to imitate her."

Again, when Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman at the well, we tend to miss the fact that men did not speak to women in public-- and Jesus not only spoke to her, but discussed theology with her-- something that women were presumed incapable of understanding. He simply didn't care about the conventions of the times.

Even Paul's words that are considered misogynistic end up reading differently if understood according to the shared cultural assumptions of the times. Metacrock has quite a bit about this in the "women" section of the Doxa website. There is even more on my website: this one, for instance:

http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2012/09 ... ut-of.html

[QuantumTroll]

Thanks KR, that puts things in a better light

[met]

yes, Kr, thx for your input. You always so astute and interesting on these "gender" topics

[KR Wordgazer]

Thank you both! That means a lot to me.

This was a topic I felt compelled to educate myself on. I just couldn't believe what so many churches were saying-- that God created women to be restricted, subordinate and dependent, and yet somehow still "equal." It just didn't make sense to me-- so I started to look deeper, and was amazed at what I found.