15 Comments

  1. Gary

    Rather tough on gnostics, and King. “King should have stopped at releasing her paper sans speculation”….oh my, scholarship without speculation. Impossible, unless you are a CPA bean counter. Mustn’t promote censorship. Then all the cosmologists would have to quit talking about what multi-universes and 11+ dimensions mean, and just print the dusty old eiganfunction wave equations, which doesn’t give anyone the feel for what reality is. That takes the fun out of scholarship. I think King and Pagels have payed their dues, to release whatever they want to. Unless the “higher role for women” bothers people. If so, the critics should go to their room without supper

    Reply
    1. Gary

      Just as a follow up, King’s conclusion was, “Karen L. King, the Harvard Divinity School professor who received the fragment from an anonymous owner, emphasized that the discovery does not serve as evidence that Jesus was married. Rather, it suggests that there was a debate within the early Christian church on the status of women”….does anyone in their right mind suggest there was no debate? Paul wasn’t exactly pro-women. Clearly clergy wanted to stay in control, from Paul, Irenaeus, to the current pope. So I don’t see the rationale for trashing King.

      Reply

      1. See, that’s the thing. Paul was pro-woman!

        And no one is trashing King – just her speculation and naming this as it was.

        Reply
      2. andom

        what debate? Gnosticism was not pro-women.

        Reply

    2. Oh come on Gary – we do not have to provide speculation when we put forth a real scholarly find!

      I’m not bothered by a higher role for women, but I am bothered by bad scholarship.

      Reply
  2. David Tee

    Will miracles never cease??? Watts wrote some things that i agree with, not everything he wrote but some things.

    I will disagree with Gary’s comment referring to King’s statement. This fragment shows no such thing. it just shows that the author of it had Jesus say the words ‘my wife’. Anything that Ms. King says about it is read into the fragment and has no evidence to support her conclusion.

    One place where I do disagree with Watts is his comment about how scholarship is more important to him than the truth and good theology. it should matter to him if Jesus was married or not for the ramifications for salvation are immense. But then supposed scholars don’t care about things like that, they just want good discussion.

    Reply

    1. Liar – I never said it was more important than truth of good theology. Liar.

      Reply
      1. David Tee

        Re-read your sentence structure it comes across exactly as I stated.

        anyways, here are my thoughts on the issue

        Reply

        1. No, actually, it does not. Your poor reading skills are no doubt systematic

          Reply
          1. David Tee

            Attacking others for pointing out your slips only shows that you do not take responsibility for your words. Here is the line that says it all:

            “Would it matter if Jesus had a wife? Not to me, but what does matter is good scholarship, ”

            You clearly state that the truth doesn’t matter and that good scholarship means more. It should matter to you if Jesus had a wife because it would change everything and the truth should be far more important than ‘good scholarship’. Scholarship means nothing the truth means everything.


          2. Like you do with Scripture – you are taking things out of context and adding tons of your stuff to my words. Liar.

  3. andom

    Now I have realized what is Dr King’ agenda:

    ” It casts doubt “on the whole Catholic claim of a celibate priesthood based on Jesus’ celibacy. They always say, ‘This is the tradition, this is the tradition.’ Now we see that this alternative tradition has been silenced.” (from her interview at the Smithsonian.com)

    Reply
    1. Gary

      I do not take sides. However, it is all open for discussion. People that want to suppress discussion have a clear agenda. Thanks for the reference, since what King said at the Smithsonian site was ““Why is it that only the literature that said he was celibate survived? And all of the texts that showed he had an intimate relationship with Magdalene or is married didn’t survive? Is that 100 percent happenstance? Or is it because of the fact that celibacy becomes the ideal for Christianity?”
      Sounds logical to me. Iraneaus and Athanasius had all the texts (gnostic) burned that disagreed with their position. Which is ironic, since the gnostics thought spirit and flesh were separate, with flesh being bad. But the clergy was to be celibate, to be closer to God (I assume that is the point), which sounds almost a gnostic rationale. The only reason we have the gnostic texts is because some liberated monk decided to bury the texts in some jugs. I didn’t see a King quote saying “It casts doubt on the whole Catholic claim”, but maybe I just missed it. Regardless, if a person totally disagrees with King, OK. But trying to suppress the debate is very un-scholarly. It reflects the days of book burning by the original clergy, like it or not.

      Reply
      1. andom

        I just wrote what I think as you do.
        Why are you accusing me to ‘suppress the debate’?

        Reply
        1. Gary

          Actually, I was referring more to Joel and suppression, not you. Just based upon the title, “…Wife of Jesus Idiocy”. If it is idiocy, why not just burn the parchment, and forget about it. Sorry about that.

          Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!