NYT: Jesus Married? Ancient Papyrus Says So

[10fttall]

I am a little disappointed to see so many Christians automatically "circle the wagons" on this subject,

Yes what a bunch of backward rubes, huh? Clearly they should've taken a look at this scrap of paper of unknown origin, partial sentences, and immediately renounced their faith.

[pjfootballer]

I see that a lot when it the discussion is in terms of Jesus and the early church etc, however I see it much less on non-religious historical topics. Which might suggest a particular bias. For instance, very few people have the same level of "lack of faith" in the existence of Marco Polo or other non-religious historical figures as they do in Jesus.

Ah, ok, I see where you are coming from.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes what a bunch of backward rubes, huh? Clearly they should've taken a look at this scrap of paper of unknown origin, partial sentences, and immediately renounced their faith.

"Circle the wagons" must be code for "looking at a small inconclusive document that post dated the New Testament writings by 300 years and disregarding its contents based on the fact that they are non-authoritative, inconclusive, and of extreme variance from the most authoritative texts of the Christian faith".

[alexey]

I understood what your point of the quote was, but I don't see why I have to stand on "reality" being "real".

And I certainly don't see why I have to be certain about anything to have doubts about everything.

*EDIT*

And if you are going to claim that you have to certain to doubt, I'd be curouis to know how you are certain.

I do not have any formal philosophical training and did relatively little reading in it, but I did read Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" a few years back and I felt like I kind of understood it a little bit... I do not think that I am in position to provide a proper account for it, and besides it would be a significant deviation from the topic at hand.

4. "I know that I am a human being." In order to see how unclear the sense of this proposition is, consider its negation. At most it might be taken to mean "I know I have the organs of a human". (E. g. a brain which, after all, no one has ever yet seen.) But what about such a proposition as "I know I have a brain"? Can I doubt it? Grounds for doubt are lacking! Everything speaks in its favour, nothing against it. Nevertheless it is imaginable that my skull should turn out empty when it was operated on.

...

425. It would not be surmise and I might tell it to someone else with complete certainty, as something there is no doubt about. But does that mean that it is unconditionally the truth? May not the thing that I recognize with complete certainty as the tree that I have seen here my whole life long - may this not be disclosed as something different? May it not confound me? And nevertheless it was right, in the circumstances that give this sentence meaning, to say "I know (I do not merely surmise) that that's a tree." To say that in strict truth I only believe it, would be wrong. It would be completely misleading to say: "I believe my name is L. W." And this too is right: I cannot be making a mistake about it. But that does not mean that I am infallible about it.

...

515. If my name is not L. W., how can I rely on what is meant by "true" and "false"?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Needless philosophical circles.

[alexey]

Needless philosophical circles.

Attempts to dismiss other, even more more needless philosophical circles

Don't blame me, I did not bring up the meaningless question about reality of reality

[PeterMP]

I do not have any formal philosophical training and did relatively little reading in it, but I did read Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" a few years back and I felt like I kind of understood it a little bit... I do not think that I am in position to provide a proper account for it, and besides it would be a significant deviation from the topic at hand.

"But what about such a proposition as "I know I have a brain"? Can I doubt it? Grounds for doubt are lacking! Everything speaks in its favour, nothing against it. Nevertheless it is imaginable that my skull should turn out empty when it was operated on."

This if fairly straight forward logic. You appear to be human. Other humans appear to have brains. It is likely that you will appear to have a brain. Is it possible you don't? Yes.

You have clolsely related outside expreinces that you can use for evidence.

That isn't necessarily the case for us being real:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

This is one fo the links on that page:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/barrowsim.pdf

"In this kind of situation, logical contradictions will inevitably arise and the laws in the simulations will appear to break down now and again. The inhabitants of the simulation - especially the simulated scientists - will occasionally be puzzled by the experimental results they obtain. The simulated astronomers might, for instance, make observations that show that their so-called constants of Nature are very slowly changing7."

(Note, reference 7 is to a paper in the peer reviewed scientific literature.)

Or they might obtain results indicating that fusion is happening under circumstance where it should be impossible based on the laws of Nature.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Attempts to dismiss other, even more more needless philosophical circles

Don't blame me, I did not bring up the meaningless question about reality of reality

Yeah, those discussions are so pointless IMO, in my world you accept the premise that you're alive and what your senses tell you is relatively sufficient to inform you on the reality that you exist as part of. (yeah, I just dangled that sentence, but I don't have time to clean it up)

[alexey]

...That isn't necessarily the case for us being real:...

If we know nothing, then we really do not know anything at all. Like, in that case we really totally know nothing about anything. We cannot even meaningfully talk about anything. So I suggest we stop talking about it.

[Predicto]

It may well suggest that, but the point still stands.

What's more is that you wrote "due to the overwhelming influence of Christianity and dominance of Christians in our society", first I'm not seeing a difference between the "influence of Christianity" and "dominance of Christians", second am I hearing that such increased suspicion (which is not normal for other historical figures) is then being applied to Jesus from biased motivations?

If it came across that way, it was not what I intended. I was just trying to include Christianity as a broad concept along with the fact that so many of the individuals in the discussions happen to be Christians as well, making them personally more interested in the subject.

To put it another way, if an ancient document was unearthed that suggested that Zoroaster was or was not married, people in the USA would probably not care very much. But in the Parsee community of Mumbai, it would be a really big deal.

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 11:01 AM ----------

Yes what a bunch of backward rubes, huh? Clearly they should've taken a look at this scrap of paper of unknown origin, partial sentences, and immediately renounced their faith.

Again, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm not asking or expecting anyone to immediately (or ever) renounce their faith.

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 11:04 AM ----------

I do not have any formal philosophical training and did relatively little reading in it, but I did read Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" a few years back and I felt like I kind of understood it a little bit... I do not think that I am in position to provide a proper account for it, and besides it would be a significant deviation from the topic at hand.

derail - Wittgenstein was the one philosopher I never was able to grasp. Not one bit. I had to write a long paper on The Blue Book and I don't think I understood a single word I wrote. I think I broke my brain.

[PeterMP]

Attempts to dismiss other, even more more needless philosophical circles

Don't blame me, I did not bring up the meaningless question about reality of reality

Well, in an inferrential manner you did.

When you claimed you had to have good evidence to believe things, where you are essentially defining good evidence as broadly repeatable scientific evidence.

The reasonable extension of that idea is why should we act like we believe a large number of things that we don't have broadly repeatable scientific evidence for- including our reality being "real".

**EDIT**

You want to set a burden with respect to belief and religion, but you don't want to apply that same burden with respect to a good number of other things, including science and you being real.

[alexey]

derail - Wittgenstein was the one philosopher I never was able to grasp. Not one bit. I had to write a long paper on The Blue Book and I don't think I understood a single word I wrote. I think I broke my brain.

I think I was aided by not learning about it in an academic environment and being generally ignorant of traditional problems in philosophy. L.W. seems to really step outside of those. He seems to have some recurrent themes, some of them seem to lie along the lines of rendering traditional philosophical problems as meaningless.

I remember feeling some dots connecting for me after running into this entry in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam#Neopragmatism_and_Wittgenstein

For a time, under the influence of Ludwig Wittgenstein, he adopted a pluralist view of philosophy itself and came to view most philosophical problems as nothing more than conceptual or linguistic confusions created by philosophers by using ordinary language out of its original context.

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 02:24 PM ----------

The reasonable extension of that idea is why should we act like we believe a large number of things that we don't have broadly repeatable scientific evidence for- including our reality being "real".

Reality is "broadly repeatable" and belief itself is fundamentally something that is etched into your brain by repetition.

no repetition = no belief

[PeterMP]

Reality is "broadly repeatable" and belief itself is fundamentally something that is etched into your brain by repetition.

Only if you define reality as things that are broadly repeatable.

Only if you say things like Pons and Fleischmans experiments don't represent reality.

[Zguy28]

4. It is virtually certain that Jesus was not married, because if he was, the other texts would say so. There is no theological reason Jesus could not have been married, and marriage was so important in those times that it would certainly have been mentioned. Peter's is, for instance.

Some might argue that the authors of the New Testament might have left it out to downplay Jesus' humanity, but this argument doesn't hold water, because they left in many anecdotes showing Jesus' humanity (growing in knowledge, getting angry, not knowing parts of the future, asking to have the cup of suffering taken from him, etc.), even when they were potentially embarrassing to their other teachings, so there's no reason to think they'd leave this out, especially since Christian doctrine emphasizes Jesus' humanity as well as his divinity.

5. In that sense, it wouldn't really be an issue if Jesus had been married. It would just be one more sign that he was human as well as divine.

I'm not sure I agree with it not being an issue given who He was.

For example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7 about marriage and celibacy and how it is best to be celibate.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion... The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

I look at it with the view to Jesus being the ultimate example in His life of what is best and most Godly. In this case, that would include not being married and therefore not divided in attention. What did Jesus say about a kingdom divided?

I don't know, maybe a stretch, maybe its out of context, but it seems to me a plausible explanation.

[alexey]

Only if you define reality as things that are broadly repeatable.

Only if you say things like Pons and Fleischmans experiments don't represent reality.

I am fine with the dictionary definition of reality. Only repeatable things can be confirmed to be a part of it.

[Rocky21]

Was this written on rolling papyrus?

[techboy]

How about, natural human biases make it impossible to have a disinterested historical source... so modern historians would generally want a story corroborated by multiple sources that are interested in different things.

You're getting closer, but you're still far overstating the situation. It is absolutely true that multiple attestation is one of the historical criteria used to suggest that a particular piece of a text is more likely to be true. And, it is also true that attestation by those with different (or even better, enemy) views also strengthens a particular case.

The kind of case you are talking about, though, can be pretty rare. To go back to Caesar, the very best source we have is his own (obviously biased) journals. The rest of the sources are much later, and have their own agendas. We don't (as far as I know) have a competing journal from one of his political enemies, for instance.

Historians don't, though, say "Well, I guess we can't know anything about Caesar! Forget it!" Instead, they use a variety of historical criteria that have been shown to work in the ideal cases where we do have multiple contemporary sources from different angles. A.N. Sherwin-White (here's his Wikipedia entry) was an eminent historian of ancient Rome at Oxford University. He wrote Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, among other works. On page 186 of that book he writes:

Subtle techniques of source-criticism have been evolved for the detection and elimination of various types of bias and anachronism, whether of the intermediate or of the original source, or of the writer who actually survives and transmits his work to us. To judge by what is so freely published, we are satisfied with our methods, and believe that a hard core or basic layer of historical truth can be recovered from even the most deplorable of our tertiary sources- be it Diodorus or Florus or even the Epitome de Caesaribus. The basic reason for this confidence is, if put summarily, the existence of external confirmations, and the working of the synoptic principle. From time to time external contemporary evidence of a sort less warped by the bias of personalities- e.g. the texts of laws and public accounts- confirms the conclusions drawn from the critical study of literary sources. Hence we are bold to trust our results in the larger fields where there is no such confirmation. Equally, the criticism of sources tends to reveal the existence of a basic unitary tradition beneath the manifold divergences of detail in rival narratives, which is often the product of their particular bias.

Of course, historians would want a situation such as you describe. That doesn't mean they need it.

I would like to think that I would not dismiss a contemporary Roman source that describes some Jesus guy going around and doing funky things.

You already have.

Paul was a Roman citizen, and a contemporary of Jesus. He was also a Pharisee who persecuted Christians. Although he was not a witness to the events in question, he spoke at length with people that were, like Peter and James (who also began as hostile to Jesus' ministry).

Of course, you will now dismiss Paul because he became a believer in Jesus. But again, since you'd likely reject any report of miracles as the work of a believer, it's an impossible standard.

Also, for what it's worth, Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum almost certainly has Christian interpolations, but even if we look at the "fixed" versions that attempt to pull this out, there's still some reference to Jesus as a miracle worker.

The larger issue is that Palestine was a remote backwater of the Roman Empire, of very little interest apart from the trouble they kept causing (mostly the Jews refusing to bow to the Roman gods, leading to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE), and when Jesus or Christians are written about by Romans, that's what we see discussed (such as Tacitus discussing putting down the "superstition"). The dearth of other writings is about what a reasonable person would expect. Jesus' ministry was contained to a very small area and to a very select group of people, and only later was it expanded.

Frankly, the number and variety of texts we do have regarding Jesus is pretty much unparalleled in ancient history. It's a treasure trove.

But, the reason I said it was irrelevant is that the text we're talking about in this thread just says that Jesus was married, which is hardly a supernatural claim.

I agree with techboy

Naturally.

I am a little disappointed to see so many Christians automatically "circle the wagons" on this subject, but I guess it is understandable when you are dealing with a central pillar of people's deeply held faith,

I don't see any "circling the wagons" here, and I'd reject that it's a central tenet in any case. The only branch of Christianity I could see even somewhat effected by this is Catholicism, because they'd lose a justification for keeping the priesthood exclusive to men, assuming this held water (which it doesn't).

What does tick me off is how the media is handling it. I had CNN on at lunch, and they had a "story" where they basically said "There's an ancient gospel that says Jesus was married! Was he? The debate is reignited!"

No mention of the fact that the document was written centuries after the events.

Though they had a quote from Dr. King, no mention of the fact that she herself is saying that this is only evidence of what some believed, not that Jesus was actually married.

It was completely sensationalistic and irresponsible. And unsurprising.

More follow-up:

Reality check on Jesus and his 'wife'

Great article. Here's one excerpt I really liked:

Bart Ehrman, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, voiced similar caution. However, if the document proves authentic, it would represent an important advance in scriptural scholarship, he said.

"It's certainly not reliable for saying anything about the historical Jesus," Ehrman told me. "But what it is important for is that this would be the first time we have any Christian authority or Christian group indicating that, in their opinion, Jesus was married." Like King, Ehrman suggested that such claims might have figured into early Christian debates over the comparative merits of marriage vs. celibacy.

Like I said earlier, I find this text fascinating because despite the implications in the media breathlessly talking about debates "reigniting", this would be the first text (out of hundreds) from the first several centuries that explicitly stated that Jesus was married.

[alexey]

...

Paul was a Roman citizen, and a contemporary of Jesus. He was also a Pharisee who persecuted Christians. Although he was not a witness to the events in question, he spoke at length with people that were, like Peter and James (who also began as hostile to Jesus' ministry).

Of course, you will now dismiss Paul because he became a believer in Jesus. But again, since you'd likely reject any report of miracles as the work of a believer, it's an impossible standard.

...

As you may know, I have an interest in psychology... so I have a general idea about how easily people can make mistakes, come to believe all kinds of things, and so on. Anecotal evidence pointing at suspension of natural laws does very little for me.

The evidence is so thin and we know so much now about inner working of human brains... I find it mind boggling that modern highly educated people can actually believe that these miracles took place. I doubt that people really believe this stuff. I think Daniel Dennett is right and people actually believe in "belief in belief"... but that's another discussion.

[Predicto]

Like I said earlier, I find this text fascinating because despite the implications in the media breathlessly talking about debates "reigniting", this would be the first text (out of hundreds) from the first several centuries that explicitly stated that Jesus was married.

Well, the first SURVIVING text. As I understand it, a lot of heretical texts were deliberately destroyed during the early formation of the Church (or so some claim, anyway). :whoknows:

[techboy]

Anecotal evidence pointing at suspension of natural laws does very little for me.

Then why did you ask if any exists?

You're shifting the topic so fast it's making my head spin.

You were right about one thing, though. It's all a matter of another discussion, although...

I think Daniel Dennett is right and people actually believe in "belief in belief"...

An interesting perspective. What is your general reaction when a Christian tells you that you're not really an atheist, just in rebellion against God?

Me, I prefer to take people at their word as to their thoughts and motivations (in most cases at least), but maybe that's weird.

Well, the first SURVIVING text. As I understand it, a lot of heretical texts were deliberately destroyed during the early formation of the Church (or so some claim, anyway). :whoknows:

That sounds more conspiracy theory than sound scholarship. The Church didn't have the kind of clout necessary to pull that kind of operation off until the 4th century, at which point such documents would have had the chance to spread, to say nothing of the fact that even Constantine's Rome didn't reach everywhere. Even then, they weren't so good at it. Nicea was supposed to stamp out Arianism, but it took 60 years, and in the mean time, Constantine ended up being baptised by an Arian!

I've certainly never seen any evidence of a coordinated attempt to stamp out certain texts, and ironically, many are preserved to our memory by early Church fathers who wrote against them, so if there was a conspiracy, they weren't very good at it!

Besides, a lot of the hundreds of texts I was referring to were heretical, such as the Gnostic gospels.

But yes, it's the first text we know about (if it's legit). We can only draw conclusions based upon what we know, leaving room of course for modification given future evidence. Maybe some shepherd is crashing through a sink hole into a long lost cave even now...

[Predicto]

Then why did you ask if any exists?

You're shifting the topic so fast it's making my head spin.

You were right about one thing, though. It's all a matter of another discussion, although...

An interesting perspective. What is your general reaction when a Christian tells you that you're not really an atheist, just in rebellion against God?

Me, I prefer to take people at their word as to their thoughts and motivations (in most cases at least), but maybe that's weird.

That sounds more conspiracy theory than sound scholarship. The Church didn't have the kind of clout necessary to pull that kind of operation off until the 4th century, at which point such documents would have had the chance to spread, to say nothing of the fact that even Constantine's Rome didn't reach everywhere. Even then, they weren't so good at it. Nicea was supposed to stamp out Arianism, but it took 60 years, and in the mean time, Constantine ended up being baptised by an Arian!

I've certainly never seen any evidence of a coordinated attempt to stamp out certain texts, and ironically, many are preserved to our memory by early Church fathers who wrote against them, so if there was a conspiracy, they weren't very good at it!

Besides, a lot of the hundreds of texts I was referring to were heretical, such as the Gnostic gospels.

But yes, it's the first text we know about (if it's legit). We can only draw conclusions based upon what we know, leaving room of course for modification given future evidence. Maybe some shepherd is crashing through a sink hole into a long lost cave even now...

Fair enough. As I've said before, I'm no expert in this area.

[alexey]

Then why did you ask if any exists?

You're shifting the topic so fast it's making my head spin.

You were right about one thing, though. It's all a matter of another discussion, although...

I'm just trying to explain where I am coming from... If there were more evidence, there would be more to explain. A bunch of people telling each other miraculous stories and coming to believe something is easily explained without miracles.

Humans have a tendency to attribute things to supernatural forces. Look at Muhammad's military victories, which I understand were considered to be miraculous, but are also easily explained without involving the supernatural.

All religions offer stories and "proofs" that are not very convincing. I do not see them offering enough evidence to even begin a conversation about the supernatural.

An interesting perspective. What is your general reaction when a Christian tells you that you're not really an atheist, just in rebellion against God?

Me, I prefer to take people at their word as to their thoughts and motivations (in most cases at least), but maybe that's weird.

I cannot take people at their word because I do not understand what the word "God" actually means. Its properties are self-contradictory and Abrahamic religions define it as incomprehensible by definition :whoknows: Do you understand what the word "God" means?

A person says "I believe in God". What are they saying? What does that mean?

[PeterMP]

I am fine with the dictionary definition of reality. Only repeatable things can be confirmed to be a part of it.

How about this.

There is no repeatable evidence you are not part of a computer simulation.

There is no repeatable evidence that the assumptions underlying science are true (i.e. no conformation to use your word).

Yet, I don't see you going around pointing out to people that are making arugments that essentially require that they aren't computer simulations or that different scientific "facts" are real that they have reached conclusions w/o good evidence.

Yet do the samething w/ respect to a belief in God on a regular basis.

[alexey]

There is no repeatable evidence you are not part of a computer simulation.

There is no repeatable evidence that the assumptions underlying science are true (i.e. no conformation to use your word).

Yet, I don't see you going around pointing out to people that are making arugments that essentially require that they aren't computer simulations or that different scientific "facts" are real that they have reached conclusions w/o good evidence.

Yet do the samething w/ respect to a belief in God on a regular basis.

Think of repeatability as a line between what we can know and what we cannot know (which is another way of saying that repeatability is an assumption underlying science).

We cannot know whether we are a part of a computer simulation and we cannot know whether there is a God.

[PeterMP]

Think of repeatability as a line between what we can know and what we cannot know (which is another way of saying that repeatability is an assumption underlying science).

We cannot know whether we are a part of a computer simulation and we cannot know whether there is a God.

And we can't know if the assumptions underlying science are valid.

Therefore we can't know if science itself is valid.