Tracer Graves

This doesn't really prove a thing, but it does add to the variety of claims out there about the nature of the figure of Jesus. And this variety seems to add even less certainty to any real truth about who he was or even if he was an actual individual. And this is the problem that the early church faced as well. There were a huge variety of teachings, practices and mythos between the various schools. And that's where the canonization process really came into play. Where "heresy" and "dogma" really became entrenched.

__________________

Ishina

Zactly.

__________________

Lianne Marten

I should have been more specific initially.

Yes he was probably married because not only was he a Jewish man around that time, he was a Jewish Rabbi. It would have been an obligation as part of his role in his society and religion.

__________________

Amity Slade

The fragment may be new, but the theory has been around a long time, put together with various fragments.

I didn't see/read "The Da Vinci Code," but I've read quite a few books from which the idea was taken. There is a whole line of stuff that starts with speculation- backed by pieces that may or may not be proof- that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married.

Jesus bloodline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cindy Claveau

Perhaps, but some scholars also tie him to the Essenes who lived monastic, chaste lives apart from society. If that's what he was, he may have been single by choice.

__________________
"As long as there’s one person on earth who remembers you, it isn’t over." - Oscar Hammerstein

Lianne Marten

I think the main thing that can be taken from all this is that despite how important a dude he was and still is, we really don't know much about him. It's kind of interesting.

Tracer Graves

The Pharisees were also a group that recognized the Jewish scriptures but had their own take on it. It wouldn't surprise me if it ended up being something along these line.

Jahar Aabye

Part of the difficulty with tryng to attribute any aspect of Jesus' life to what might or might not be expected under Jewish tradition is that these traditions changed radically during the century following his death. One reason why you are unlikely to find any scripture dating within the century following his death is that this was also the period that saw the fall of the Second Temple (AD 70), and the Bar Kochba revolt in the 130s, which culminated in the Diaspora, and Rome renamed the region. There were, of course, Jews who remained there, but this period was arguably the most tumultuous, disastrous, and radical change in the history of Judaism.

For example, during the time that Jesus is historically attributed to have lived (let's say 10 BC to AD 40), Judaism would have still been centered around the Temple. The Rabbinic traditions mentioned would evolve later in response to the destruction of the Second Temple and the need to preserve traditions and worship in its absence, which quite literally meant reinventing religion, government, socioeconomic class status, and intertribal relations for an entire civilization that was in the process of fleeing their own conquest. I can't think of any good comparisons because it is quite literally without precedent (how many civilizations that were conquered, destroyed, and dispersed by the Romans survived?).

To bring this back to Jesus, I'm trying to describe the extent to which virtually any later sources would have been viewing this through the prism of the changes that had occurred within the intervening century, and how those changes were probably far more important to their own narrative than the factual accuracy of the story itself. These were Indians on a reservation writing about their great-grandfathers' wigwams and Buffalo hunts despite having never seen either one, if it it helps to compare it to a more recently destroyed civilization.

There would have been pressure to make him appear more like the stereotype of life in Judea, but there would also have been pressure to make him appear to be advocating for the changes that would later occur after the fall of the Temple to make him appear prescient (much like Isaiah and the end of the Exile), and there would have been an understandable desire to make him conform to the standards of the time (hence why any Rabbinic tendencies might be one of the world's oldest RetCons*).

And that's just the historical whirlwind that affected how this story would have begun, before even getting to Saul, the early Christian church, and all of the changes that were involved with that. In short, it's actually something of a miracle that that Jewish tradition and scripture survived that period, much less this story of one historical figure from shortly before the collapse of his civilization. Given the differences between Second Temple priests and the Rabbis who would follow, it's entirely possible that the differences between whatever historical Yeshua bar Yosef existed and the Jesus who emerged in Christian texts would be equally drastically different.

*Not the first, though: the Torah refers to Abraham being born in "Ur of the Chaldeans". Chaldea existed at the time that the Torah was written down, but not in Abraham's time, so it would be like referring to an 18th century individual as having been born in Leningrad, USSR.

__________________
He pulled a Captain Ahab and Jaharpwn'ed her. - Trout

Zaida Gearbox

It's also that parchment decays over time. When Hubby and I went to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in Philly recently we these displays of ink pots that were found around the temple mount or in some other place which "proved" writing took place there, but no documents from those areas survive. The only reason the Dead Sea Scrolls survived is because they were sealed in those pots in an ideal climate.

Richie Waves

He can be anything you like!

Isabeau Imako

http://mgcomplaints.com/2012/09/04/r...esus-painting/

Amanda Dallin

You make some great points but the canonical gospels were all written well within 100 years of Jesus recorded death. This is according to the latest scholarship from critical scholars (as opposed to theologians). Mark was most likely written between 65CE and the destruction of the Temple in 70CE. Matthew and Luke were written around 80 to 85 CE. John was written between 90 and 95 CE. The Gnostic Gospels were generally from after, often well after, 150CE. The Fragment recently discovered has some partial lines on the back that resemble some from the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary.

Paul's letters are the earliest Christian writings starting around 50 CE to 60 CE. Seven of his letters are considered genuine by most critical scholars. Two or 3 are disputed and 3 are almost certainly written later than Paul. The letters considered genuine might not be entirely so as there appears to be some additions.

The term Rabbi basically meant teacher in the first century. The extreme legalistic interpretations of the Torah were as Jahar indicates after the destruction of the temple and dispersal of the Jews.

Ur of the Chaldeans is the way Ur Kaśdim is often translated but there is much debate on where exactly this meant and if Chaldeans have anything to do with it.

__________________
Michael Linden: Uh, I dunno!


“The world's male chivalry has perished out, but women are knights-errant to the last; and, if Cervantes had been greater still, he had made his Don a Donna.”
-- Elizabeth Barrett Browning

Rory Patrick

Please tell me his spouses name turns out the be something like "Nick" or "John". That would really start flipping heads around.

Cindy Claveau

"Well within" is vague. The synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke), probably date within that range but it's likely that John was penned later.

The Story Of The Storytellers - What Are The Gospels? | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

I've seen other scholars (Crossan for example) who date them much later, yet.

The real controversy is the date of the seminal "Q" document, from which the synoptics were derived. Since they all share so many key elements it's generally thought they are derivative, not original. And in any event, none are eyewitness accounts.

Isablan Neva

So, in other words history would have gone through the same level of revisions and adaptation that Republicans have done to raise Ronald Reagan to sainthood despite plenty of evidence to the contrary?

__________________
________________________________

SLU: I came for the community. I stayed for the derails.


Visit my Marketplace Store!

eighthdwarf Checchinato

Wow, 30-40 years after Jesus' death!
Then that was like when my grandpa talked about the time between the '30s and '50s - and sometimes memory got worse the more time has passed between the event and the tell-tale about it. Sometimes things got jumbled out of context, sometimes things got exaggerated, sometimes things got more priority than others, and so on.
To me, that's not really a "witness report", but rather comparable to "Once upon a time..."

__________________

Cindy Claveau

In an age when average life expectancy was under 40.

Don't forget, it's very likely that these gospel texts were derived - perhaps even copypasted - from earlier works. In that time, it was unusual for anyone to know how to write to begin with, but to assemble a biographical account like this would have required time and resources most people just didn't have. That pretty much leaves out the apostles, just for starters.

Paola Tauber

I'm ashamed to say that I've read that, at first, as "You are of the Chaldeans".

__________________
| thesmophoriazusae |

Hitomi Tiponi

We may find it hard to believe but apparently the oral tradition of scriptures was quite strong at that period in history, and still is in some cultures. The words of the Buddha were not written down for many centuries, but it is believed by scholars to be a very acccurate representation of what happenned.

Amanda Dallin

The dates you quote are also well within a century of the reported death of Jesus. Unless a manuscript is dated or has internal reference to a known event it's impossible to date it closer than a decade or so. the dates I gave are from an audio lecture series by Dr. Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson (Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins Emory University)
puts the "probable composition" of Mark as 70CE, the composition of Matthew and Luke as 85 and the composition of John as 90CE "probable". Dr. Phillip Cary, Professor of Philosophy Eastern University, says the earliest date for Mark is 65CE but some scholars date it after the destruction of the temple in 70CE.

Other than Q, many critical scholars believe there were "sayings" gospels that were used as sources for the synoptic gospels. These would have been lists of sayings of Jesus. Basically we don't know the who wrote or when they wrote about any of the gospels but we have some educated guesses based on internal evidence and church traditions from the letters and writings of the Apostolic Father. If we knew for sure then a lot of historians and literary scholars would be out of work.

Cindy Claveau

That's the rub with any documents of ancient origin. But scholars are able to infer a great deal from writing styles, agglutination and historical references in a text.

There is also the troubling detail that the gospels were all written in Greek, either translated from original Aramaic or Hebrew or else transcribed from oral history. Jesus did not speak Greek. This is one of the problems I've always had with trying to take the books literally.

Again - as approximate dates those aren't totally unacceptable, but there is quite a bit of weight also given to later dates. John, for example, is generally considered to be ritual poetry intended for use in worship rather than an account of events, penned long after the synoptics, possibly as late as 120-150 CE.

Those are fascinating texts, too - especially the Book of Thomas. I think those, as well as others that have been lost, were part of the efforts in the 1st century to record traditions before the oral versions were lost to time. It's natural that there would be literally scores or hundreds of such texts. They serve as an interesting insight into the religious views of early Christians around the time of the destruction of the Temple.

Ingrid

wasn't he married to mary magdellan?

Cindy Claveau

Nobody knows.

eighthdwarf Checchinato

Yeah. To really know, you would need a report of a time-traveling eye-witness...

Soen Eber

The source of the Q gospel?
It would explain quite a lot, actually.

More seriously, keep in mind that even with an average life span of 35, it was common for some to live into their 80's. Those that did were revered and listened to, so eyewitness testimony from the time would have fewer filters to pass through than we imagine. And yes, oral tradition was extremely strong back then. Given the gospels and other literature repeatedly stressed certain themes, just as teachers repeat important concepts in multiple ways to make the lesson stick, anything that does change how we view the Bible will have relatively little consequence.