|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 09/19/2012 : 07:05:11
|
Well, this looks interesting.
| The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, "she will be able to be my disciple." |
| The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions. |
Looks like it'll be an interesting wait and see to me.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
Edited by - the_ignored on 09/19/2012 07:10:27
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2012 : 07:12:28 [Permalink]
|
Earlier and more complete sources never mention a wife. This kind of thing is not particularly unusual, many old Christian texts contain things we might consider unorthodox. The Gospel of Judas for example is an older and more complete text with far more outlandish ideas in it.
But this is still interesting I guess. |
 |
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 09/19/2012 07:16:50 |
 |
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2012 : 07:16:57 [Permalink]
|
There are no sufficiently earlier sources for the Historical Junior--all we have are written in the wrong language and at best decades after his death. Nothing written by anyone who knew him. Paul--a certifiable loon seeking a cult to lead--never knew him: a fact that caused him enough embarrassment for him to rant about in the face of competitors.
All we know is he had a brother.
Earlier traditions than this--by about 300 years--mentions his brothers and sisters. Sort of sinks the whole Mary with the Cherry myth right there.
As the releases from Harvard indicate, this merely speaks to the arguments occurring at the time of composition of the text.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2012 : 09:36:06 [Permalink]
|
In the link to the Harvard site about the papyrus, they have a Q&A section. The first question and answer talks about the idea of christ having been married.
They say that they don't know; the fragment is too late to be able to say for sure.
As for Mary staying a virgin, that was only in catholic tradition if I remember. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 09/19/2012 09:36:55 |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
 Posted - 09/19/2012 : 10:09:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
As for Mary staying a virgin, that was only in catholic tradition if I remember. |
Sort of. The whole Mary with the Cherry or "immaculate conception" is, as with most of them, a late tradition. It is not in the earliest extant gospel--Mk--nor in the latest canonical gospel--Jn. I am sure most are familiar with the probably source for the myth--the LXX--see Snatched for a hilarious telling of it in the opening.
As old men argue about these things, long story short, large groups just sort of declared "she was a virgin!" and then "she was FOREVERS a virgin" leading up to a Papal Bull. That is of course much, much later.
But then, I just found a shopping list given the Shakespeare by his wife . . . it is written in Geordie . . . but I am sure it accurately represents the real list written centuries ago.
Once again "the Press" is hyping this and, yes, Harvard is happy for the publicity. "Yet another late fragment" is not nearly as interesting. What is interesting is that that tradition was preserved. Why? Was it still a "major" tradition? Or did someone preserve an old text. I would think--[WARNING! Speculation!--Ed.]--given the time-consuming nature of writing, particularly translating--a text, the text was sufficiently important to those who paid to have it done.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2012 : 18:11:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
All we know is he had a brother.
|
Given that people bred back then, the probability that he had a brother was significant. Or are you referring to a verified source?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2012 : 19:16:13 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. MabuseOr are you referring to a verified source? |
Yes.
--J.D.
[Stop that.--Ed.]
P.S. Er . . . yes, give me an hour or so, I made the mistake of "checking the computer for JUST a minute before" disposing of the bodies. . . . |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2012 : 20:28:00 [Permalink]
|
Right, unfortunately, I cannot render Greek in neither actual Greek nor English transliteration--shows up properly on preview but not in actual posting. This makes quotation--and discussion of the quotation--impossible.
Much of the "Quest for the Historical Junior" involves scholars cheerypicking passages and traditions they "like" and discounting those they do not. Indeed, Schweitzer was correct nearly 100 years ago when he concluded scholars reconstruct the Junior they want. Despite that, out of thin air, he declared him an "immeasurably great man."
So I will leave aside such nonsense, even "reasonable nonsense."
The earliest extant relevant material comes from Paul.
A loon.
A loon in search of a cult to lead. While quite a few scholars will declare "dis" and "dat" saying "iz t3h r34lz" they are dealing with saying that were composed in Greek rather than represent translated Aramaic. The idioms are Greek. The references are Greek. Even Erhman falls into this fallacy declaring some sayings as "genuine" based on various appeals to ignorance and incredulity.
Now, that does not mean he or others are wrong: such may represent creation of lines from memory. The problem with this is the earliest extant gospel material is Mk and he dates post 70 CE. Theologically bent scholars have, for centuries, tried to "push" him prior to 70 CE since that make it a bit more likely that he is presenting actual history. Hogwash! The problem is 70 CE represents the Squishing of Jerusalem. Not likely much survives that as in direct history. Mk also does not know the geography--laughably do. Further, he is clearly putting together stories. Graduate students go blind while their advisers make tenure imagining the various sources he had. Bottom line: nothing certain. Was the "miracle source" five years earlier? Ten years earlier? Particularly when they are clearly stories written to for a point.
Now consider the distance. IF we consider Al Capone, Mk writes, without knowing Al, Chicago, anything, in the 1970s. Mt and Lk are writing anywhere between the 1980s to about 2010ish--like . . . now. Jn dates about 1990ish--we do have a teenie fragment that serves as a "latest date" or terminus ante quem to use the proper term.
So, really, what do stories tell you?
If we check events for which we have independent sources, we find the history of Mk-Lk-Mt-Jn collectively failures. Leave aside the various contradictions and the fact that Lk, Mk, and Jn freely rewrite Mk's story, we know that there was no tradition of "let one go!" {Welease . . . Bawabus!} Shhh! We certainly know Ol' Pontius was not the mealy-mouthed wet fish portrayed in the source story for the crucifixion. They never gave bodies back . . . leave them in plan view as a warning. Sort of the whole bloody point! Et cetera, et cetera.
So while it is reasonable that, say, the Historical Junior had "brothers and sisters" as noted in Mk, that Thomas--the Twin--is his twin brother--that he probably had a wife, a love of emo psalms and masturbating to goat porn, none of that has any more certainty than believing Elliot Ness confronted Al Capone in the court room.
He did not.
So back to Paul. I am unaware of any challenge to the authenticity of Galatians. It is Pauline in language--consistent with the other legitimate Pauline letters. Historically, it is consistent--at least . . . say . . . Paul does not claim to take a quick stroll to the shore which was really a 30 mile jog!
Fine.
Galatians is Paul's Mein Kampf. He never met the Historical Junior. He is quite aware of this. It is a "problem" for him--why should anyone believe his fairy tales when they contradict those who actually did know him? Much of his argument deals with burying that problem: "I'm better . . . I have . . . visions!"
Paul goes to Jerusalem to confront the "pillars of Jerusalem"--the Merry Men. One of them is James, Junior's brother. How do we know this? Paul refers to him, repeatedly and specifically, as Junior's brother.
[Cue Fanfare.--Ed.]
And that, My Children, is it. Nothing more. No other detail. We do not have the "Pillars" version of the conflict so we can only guess based on Paul's rantings what they were. However, even if we could trust Paul's description--and we should not--we know cults can drastically change during the life of a "Founding Figure"--see the wonderful When Prophecy Fails for such an example. So even if we "knew" what James felt, we do not know that was what the Historical Junior felt.
In other words, My Droogs and Only Friends: we know squat.
Now, various "mythicists" have not dealt at all well--I would say embarrassingly so--with Galatians. Some simply ignore it: reprehensible. Some claim it represents a mere appellation. That shows an ignorance of both Greek and the Pauline letters. IF Paul's references to James were "appellations" why does he never apply it to anyone else? Particularly those he likes and, in many cases, is trying to butter-up to get money from?!
Why, further, would he artificially elevate James to such a status? Certainly, he rather side-steps James--does not really record anything he said.
IF a brother than a brother to be a brother to, so to write.
That is IT.
Now, one can speculate--and I can pontificate further on such speculations--the fact that a number of brothers are noted in the gospels--but they are late. That the James tradition is conserved--in late stories. That "The Twin" spawned quite a few traditions--but a human twin of a divine "a son of a god" is a rather old and common myth.
However, less speculation is that it is not a problem for Mk. Mk, of course, lacks a birth narrative--and his opening has generated volumes of speculation. It is even not a problem for Lk and Mt who provide us with two utterly contradictory birth narratives . . . I mean, despite the various JFK Conspiracy Theories, most get the date correct! They are not off by over ten years!
Right . . . I have pontificated enough. Let me know if that answers your question. Oh, I will add that ALL of the extra-biblical references are suspect--some laughably so. I still snicker when someone cites Josephus who, apparently, stumbles upon a God Man and . . . then . . . drops the subject? Not only that, we can follow when the pious scribal addition was added!
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
| Edited by - Doctor X on 09/19/2012 21:12:00 |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2012 : 22:17:12 [Permalink]
|
| So the source that Jesus had a brother was a loon? |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 09/19/2012 22:17:35 |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2012 : 23:49:46 [Permalink]
|
The only extant reliable source.
I have actually received some rather "loony" attempts to explain it away: that somehow Paul "made up" James. Why? It hurts him to have any rival, and he clearly does not like rivals. Further, he dictates a letter which he then adds the last few lines in, apparently, his own hand to justify himself to an audience. Obviously, we do not have the autographs, but the textual witnesses preserves this. Why would this audience care about James, Peter, or any of the Merry Men in Jerusalem if they had not heard of them?
He is addressing the fact that his intended audience have been swayed by rivals:
| Gal 1:6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! [NRSV--Ed.] |
I will not bother translating, but it appears the NRSV renders it quite accurately--particularly "even if we or a messenger/angel from heaven." Strong claim to make. He needs to justify himself.
So, again, why mention Junior's brother? Why mention he disagreed with him, Peter, and the Merry Men--"the Pillars of Jerusalem?" This does not help his case.
We do not know what the rivals taught--scholars can try to "guess" based on Paul's response but that is rather speculative. Just as we cannot be certain what the Merry Men taught.
--J.D.
|
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2012 : 01:27:21 [Permalink]
|
| Maybe he meant it colloquially. Like "brother from another mother". |
|
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2012 : 02:36:48 [Permalink]
|
No, it does not work in the Greek . . . which I cannot really show you since the this forum does not support it or transliteration 
Further, he never refers to anyone else with that title:
Gal 1:18: Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. [NRSV--Ed.]
More Literally: Then after years three I departed into Jerusalem to inquire/gain knowledge by visit Cephas and remained to him days fifteen but another of the apostles I did not see except Jacob the brother of the lord. |
ton adelphon tou kuriou is different than "brother in the anointed"--which, if I try to transcribe it looks like something weird since I cannot render it. He never uses this specific title for anyone else.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
| Edited by - Doctor X on 09/20/2012 02:38:02 |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2012 : 06:36:38 [Permalink]
|
| Is there always a distinction between brother and halfbrother? To the point that it would be highly unusual not to make that distinction? If so the Catholics could preserve the sanctity of the holy Mary, and pretend she was never soiled by a human penis. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 09/20/2012 06:38:42 |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2012 : 09:20:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Is there always a distinction between brother and halfbrother? |
In Greek it is either "brother by another mother" or [Stop that.--Ed.]
Actually, no. Not really relevant. If we take Mk and enter the world of "reasonable speculation" we have a Junior who constantly hides his identity--despite the sky declaring it in the beginning!--despite him punning on the Tetragramaton--"I am" in Greek--surrounded by two groups: an unidentified collection and the Merry Men who are complete and utter idiots such that it is a shared joke between Mk and his audience.
Who also has brothers and sisters. This does not bother Mk. Nor does it really bother the other canonical authors.
The denial, the tradition--which Mt, Lk, and Jn continue--that the Merry Men never, ever, considered him divine suggests that the Historical Merry Men--including Peter, and James--never considered him a divine figure at all. You can see how this process of mythmaking expands. No one knows for certain, but the tradition of a non-divine Junior definitely existed--as did many other traditions.
| To the point that it would be highly unusual not to make that distinction? |
Not really a problem. Returning to Mk who, remember, wrote a good 40-50 years after the Historical Junior, makes it rather clear by actions in his story that Junior is "a son of a god"--itself a Greek sort of appellation rather like calling Michael Jordan "a god!" Ignore the first line of the text--"son of a god/Theou" is an addition--he never addresses him as such but consider the resume:
1. Immediately after the sky announces him to a crowd of wet people.
2. He controls the weather.
3. He walks on water--a very complicated but funny joke against the hapless disciples yet again.
4. He cures the sick . . . usually
5. He puns on YHWH.
6. His steals underpants.
7. Profit [Stop that!--Ed.]
 Awesome!
Yet, this same divine figure:
1. Fears crowds crushing him.
2. Is unable to perform miracles.
3. Hilariously gets a miracle wrong.
4. Has brothers and sisters--who think he has gone off the deep end.
This does not bother Mk. It, presumably, does not bother his audience. It would bother later readers certainly! It bothers current readers such that, frankly, when pointed out to them I get the Usual Apologies:
1. No!
2. NO!
3. THATS OUT OF CONTEXTS!!111ELEVENTY
4. I WILL PRAY FOR YOU!!!*
Having an essentially polytheistic world--a Big Daddy and Junior--does not bother Mk. Does not really bother later authors. It bothers some. Further, there are groups who have many many more gods running about!
*[Translation: "Go fuck yourself!"--Ed.]
If so the Catholics could preserve the sanctity of the holy Mary, and pretend she was never soiled by a human penis.
|
Depends on the Catholic. Many simply do not know the texts like most Christian Fundamentalists--they "read" them as predigested and explained chunk under the assumption that they support whatever particular mythology they hold. When confronted with such contradictions, they merely wave their hands. The entire trinity mess is a late head-burying-in-the-sand approach to the fact you have what is a polytheistic world-view. So they just deny it.
Or they make up stories. Catholic, Pentecostal, C of E . . . bring up the "brothers and sisters" references and you will get all sorts of made-up apologies that cause greater problems like claiming the "brother and sisters" were Joseph's from another marriage! Absolutely no evidence for that! So we would then have to assume Joseph and Mary married . . . and . . . had no sex . . . ever? Frankly, most Catholic and other religious scholars--who cannot avoid these issues--sort of mutter "maybe they were . . . like . . . younger brothers and sisters?"
Finally, [ZZZzzzzzZzzzzZZZ--Ed.] notice there really is very little interest in historical veracity. Mk creates geographical mistakes by mixing and matching miracle stories. Lk and Mt individually quite happily change him, alter his order, create their own stories.
Return to Paul: he is singularly uninterested in the Historical Junior. Understandably--he never met him. Was never a student. He is in competition with those who did. Yet--and this I cudgel those who try to claim "we KNOW" that "dis and dat" saying is legitimate--Paul never quote him. Are we to assume, that in ALL of his conversations with Peter and James and the Rest, he never heard one word, one sentence, one quip to quote?
Yet we believe somehow "sayings" survived decades?
So, to wrap all that blather up, we really know nothing certain about the Historical Junior other than he had a brother. What then follows is reasonable to progressively unreasonable to bloody laughable speculations.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
| Edited by - Doctor X on 09/20/2012 09:23:54 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2012 : 17:55:16 [Permalink]
|
This discovery means nothing, some people will believe what they will with or without evidence. They routinely reject real truths base on sound and overwhelming evidence and whole-heartedly accept complete fantasies with none.
e.g. all theists do the latter. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2012 : 19:08:39 [Permalink]
|
I'm not believing it until I see pictures of her topless and lounging around a beach at the Sea of Galilee.
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Papyrus refers to Jesus' wife?
