Breaking: Some Yahoo Wrote a Paper
If you've got a Facebook or Twitter feed (or a friend who mass-emails) you've probably heard that, according to the New York Times and Harvard, Jesus Christ had a wife. Proof came recently in the form of a tiny scrap of papyrus, written in Coptic and dated to the Fourth Century of the Common Era. (I'm still not sure what's Common about the Era in which we live, but thank Zeus, we can at least pretend it has nothing to do with the Jesus about Whom we're still talking.)
The scrap contains the phrase "Jesus said to them, 'My wife . . . '" before ending unceremoniously with a fibrous tear. And somehow, if the NYT and Harvard are to be believed, this changes everything. And it does—if by everything we mean nothing at all.
The occasion of this revelation by the NYT's Laurie Goodstein is the fragment's coming-out party on Tuesday at the International Congress of Coptic Studies in Rome, in the form of a paper by Harvard Divinity School's Karen L. King. It should come as no surprise that Prof. King is one of those gynder-studies gals and that "the discovery could reignite the debate over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple." Miz Goodstein informs us that "These debates date to the early centuries of Christianity, scholars say." Oh, "but they are relevant today, when global Christianity is roiling over the place of women in ministry and the boundaries of marriage."
See? A little fragment from some heretical sect scribbled 300 years or so after Jesus lived can validate Chick Priests and Gay Marriage, right? And this is just the latest, SCHOLARS SAY, in a series of Big Finds by Scholars, that indicate a Raging Debate that has Raged and Roiled for centuries, right?
Take a quick gander at Professor King's paper. Page one will suffice to show you the way this deceitful language finds its way into the left-wing depository that is Academia.
the fragment does provide direct evidence that claims about Jesus’s marital status first arose over a century after the death of Jesus in the context of intra-Christian controversies over sexuality, marriage, and discipleship. Just as Clement of Alexandria (d. ca 215 C.E.) described some Christians who insisted Jesus was not married,1 this fragment suggests that other Christians of that period were claiming that he was married.
A handy footnote attached to Clement of Alexandria says "See Stromateis III, 6.49." If you do see that, you'll find that Clement of Alexandria is in no way addressing whether some Christians insisted Jesus was not married. Instead he is combatting certain heretics who gave false reasons as to why Jesus was not married, at least in an earthly way.
There are some who say outright that marriage is fornication and teach that it was introduced by the devil. They proudly say that they are imitating the Lord who neither married nor had any possession in this world, boasting that they understand the gospel better than anyone else. The Scripture says to them, "God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble." Further, they do not know the reason why the Lord did not marry. In the first place he had his own bride, the Church; and in the next place he was no ordinary man that he should also be in need of some helpmeet after the flesh.
Again, this misrepresentation (lie) designed to create a false historical dilemma appears on page one of Scholar King's Groundbreaking World-Changing Paper. It's the sort of academic navel-gazing nonsense that today's Ivy League divinity schools engynder, and upon which the likes of "the Luce Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst, and the Graves Foundation" dump cartloads of money.
Never mind the fact that the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the literature attesting to Him, have been studied and debated long before Scholar Karen L. King entered the scene—indeed long before the so-called Quest for the "Historical" Jesus began. (Incidentally, when a stupid film about the Quest for the Historical Muhammad gets made—by a Copt, no less—people die.) Somehow today, a scrap smaller than a sheet of toilet paper proves that our Lord was married to a woman and, ergo, Christians should baptize sodomy and make women pastors.
Are you as glad as I am that today's scholars are so very objective in their pursuit of the truth?
Entries(RSS)
Excellent.
I was reading this news story today and remember the story said that there was great controversy among Christians, in the first few centuries, as to whether Jesus was married or not. I told my colleague that to the best of my knowledge there was no such “controversy” among Christians. It was a controversy between Christians and Gnostics. This scrap of paper screams out Gnosticism. As Mr. Wolf described, these scholars are dishonest. They can only create a “controversy” but making Gnostics into Christians.
Oh, Mr. Wolf, it's so sad that you don't have enough faith to see how useful it is for Christ to have been married to one or several women. Yes sir, Jesus was a progressive before the progressives were invented. It is widely understood in the brightest circles of academia that Jesus was not only married but also kept young boys for sandal polishing and related functions. Good sir, Jesus did not discriminate against alternative lifestyles based on the sexual preferences of the time. No indeed, he loved everyone equally without regard to time or place. Wise professors like Karen King have deduced that Jesus could not have failed to reflect their own solid, timeless values. That is what makes Jesus great, he knew ahead of time just how wise our policy shaping big brained geniuses would be and what values they would consider to be important. Surely nobody would dispute the ability of Jesus to see the future? What further proof do you need?
Aaron,
I agree with W. C. Taqiyya. Only a forward leaning people could have written this about Christ's wife. I know this because on the back of the scrap ( the subject of a future paper) was a note about Genesis in which it was clear that God created Adam and Steve who created Eve.
Mr. Wolf.
I am surprised by the negativity and harsh language you have used for your piece.
Phrases - such as,"one of those gynder-studies gals", "academic navel-gazing nonsense" or "series of Big Finds by Scholars, that indicate a Raging Debate that has Raged and Roiled for centuries", or "left-wing depository that is Academia", or "Scholar King's Groundbreaking World-Changing Paper", or "scrap smaller than a sheet of toilet paper" - don't exactly express a moderate or gentlemanly tone.
I don't mean this as criticism of the person, because I have read your past columns for Chronicles, and I never saw you in such bad spirit before.
That hyperbole and premature conclusions are being drawn about this one single piece of papyrus are true. But these suggestions that there is anti-Christian agenda by leftist groups and millionaire donors to undermine Christianity using lies or deceit in academia - they only send the message that nobody should ever attempt a rational debate on Christianity, on the grounds that it is probably an attempt to insult Christianity.
Because then, anybody can turn that around and say, "No Christian should attempt a rational debate on anything other than Christianity, since they are probably just trying to insult anything which doesn't fall under Christendom." And then, nobody need to engage in rational debate on anything. None of us should go down that road.
Phrases - such as,"one of those gynder-studies gals", "academic navel-gazing nonsense" or "series of Big Finds by Scholars, that indicate a Raging Debate that has Raged and Roiled for centuries", or "left-wing depository that is Academia", or "Scholar King's Groundbreaking World-Changing Paper", or "scrap smaller than a sheet of toilet paper" - don't exactly express a moderate or gentlemanly tone.
Dr. Wolf can defend himself, of course, but I'd be remiss not to point out that courtesy, or rather courteoisie, since the exact sense of the word has been more diluted in English than in French, is a good thing, can be maintained in a decidedly non-courtly atmosphere for only so long.
Sometimes the truth hurts!
That hyperbole and premature conclusions are being drawn about this one single piece of papyrus are true. But these suggestions that there is anti-Christian agenda by leftist groups and millionaire donors to undermine Christianity using lies or deceit in academia - they only send the message that nobody should ever attempt a rational debate on Christianity, on the grounds that it is probably an attempt to insult Christianity.
It isn't academia, good friend, it's the press. Here we have, as I passed to a friend on Itinerarium, a scrap of paper the exact provenance of which remains undetermined, upon which are written several words the exact meaning, context and even VERACITY of which are unknown and probably lost to history... and the mass media touts this to ignite a popular debate. And don't think they don't know what they are doing: it's their job to sell papers, and nothing sells them like sexed-up provocations. That they would entangle the Christian religion into their relentless cat-and-mouse game is more than scandalous: it's sacrilegious.
I think that Aaron's piece is a model of prudential judgment and restrained language.
--John Willson
"Jesus said to them, 'My wife. . .'"
Even if we believe that this source contains an accurate description of something that may have been said 300 years earlier, and even if we believe that those who set it down on papyrus had no political agenda to shape the message, and even if we believe that the person who said it was Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, and even if we believe the translation of the original to the words "My wife" is accurate, and even if we believe that He did not say "The Church" or "My bride the Church" or "May bride," we would still have to overcome the likelihood that He was beginning a parable or other allegory to make a point if we wanted to read these two words as Professor King and the NYT appear to want to read them. All of this seems far-fetched to me. Moreover, all of it seems so intent on using these two words for political gain. There is no doubt that this will be twisted to turn people away from Christ, which is by far the worst aspect of this effort.
There is no doubt that this will be twisted to turn people away from Christ, which is by far the worst aspect of this effort.
Indeed, and that is where I personally cannot agree with the notion that such deservedly vehement reactions as Dr. Wolf's are "anti-debate" when it comes to Christ: this is not something that is worthy of debate on any level. It is at best a waste of productive time and creative energy.
I blame the Times (and the media in general) more than I blame Professor King. I haven't had a chance to read the original article (and I doubt if I ever will bother to read it), but at least as quoted by the Times, she was quite clear that this document has nothing to do with the historical Jesus. It was the reporter's commentary that tried to insinuate anything along those lines.
But these suggestions that there is anti-Christian agenda by leftist groups and millionaire donors to undermine Christianity using lies or deceit in academia - they only send the message that nobody should ever attempt a rational debate on Christianity, on the grounds that it is probably an attempt to insult Christianity.
There are no debates on Christianity, because there is no such thing as Christianity, now or ever. This poor, unhappy, deranged, haggardly looking soul gave a paper along with three hundred others, she teaches at Harvard where professors are paid to tell big lies about orthodoxy, no attention was paid to the 299 other subjects,helpful leftist laid down some suppressive fire with the media outlets. This has been going on for a couple of long lifetimes. Voltaire thought it all began when a charlatan met a fool. I can't say for sure how it began but charlatans and fools have certainly ended it. Once the hysterical yankees and puritans ran out of bluster and lust for perfection of their souls they decided to attempt to perfect the markets. That's why today , to make a long story short, even backwood Southerners like Bill Clinton walk around repeating the mantra ---- It's the economy stupid, jobs, jobs, jobs, the economy stupid!!Yankees were once territorial, today they are everywhere.
Post-Christian studies anyone ?
If this latest outrage inspires Mr. Wolf to bring back the Heresies column in Chronicles, it may well have been worth it!
Well, honestly Mr. Sanjay, I was restraining myself. These sorts of Breaking News Items send me into a rage. Sarcasm is my final safety valve before full Hank Jr. Beech-Nut mode.
The fact is, such revelations as the "Jesus' Wife Gospel" have nothing to do with rational debate. They treat the Faith once delivered as if it were an archeological find made by John Shelby Spong and decoded by Elaine Pagels. Imagine, a few hundred years from now, someone on the other side of the world unearths a dusty bootleg copy of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and declares that to be proof that our long gone empire was once overrun by creatures of the night.
The funny thing is, the NYT and Prof. King don't even try to hide their far-left agenda. Their tone suggests that the strong probability of Jesus' nuptials is a fact that silverware-using humans can no longer afford to deny, without looking like the right-wing sex-oppressing morons that they already are. They take nothing but their civilization-destroying ideology seriously, and so I laugh at them.
As soon as I saw this on the tee vee, which I should not have been watching anyway, I turned away, knowing it wasn't worth my time or attention.
Mr Wolf is right, ridicule is all they deserve.
Mr. Wolf may be right, that ridicule is all they deserve and that rational discussion was never a real context here (making the rest of Prateek's comments along the lines of a Modest Proposal). But perhaps we need to be mindful of the possibility that the NYT or Harvard now have more sway over people's education than husbands or the Church do. My wife brought this NYT article to my attention two days ago, and if I had just shrugged it off, perhaps it would have communicated the wrong thing to her. There is a large ethos today that demands explanation, and this is perhaps partially encouraged by a vacuum of real knowledge and education among our own.
From the emails (forgive any mispellings or cap mistakes):
"These things are usually anti-christian propaganda. Not to say the actual relic is inauthentic, but the entire press article is sensational and is meant to attack Christianity. A piece of paper written by an unknown person 300+ years after Jesus' life will do nothing to challenge doctrine or the authority of the Bible or the Church. It's sensational and ridiculuous.
"But they are relevant today, when global Christianity is roiling over the place of women in ministry and the boundaries of marriage." This statement is completely untrue, it is only true to a small number of straying religious people in America and Europe who say things like they believe in spirituality but not religion, or divinity professors in the ivy league.
Remember that 54% of American Catholics voted for Obama. This could not be used to infer that global Christianity is unsure of the sanctity of life. It is however a sad statement of the state of Christianity in the West.
...
I don't know if women were considered "inferior". That is sort of a modern-American, feminist perspective, which is considered normal now since our generation has been bathed in it from birth, that the role of mom or wife equates to "inferior". Ironically, it is the same Catholicism that exhaults Mary to the highest position possible without calling her God, yet people continue to focus on celibacy in the priesthood.
The point is that there already are roles for celibate women and married men in Catholicism, it is just that they are different roles than those of celibate Priests. The fact of the matter is that Jesus was an unmarried male and Priests are modelled after Him. To dillute that role does nobody any good. Priest's primary duties are oriented towards their flock (congregation) and married men's primary duties are oriented towards their families."
"Remember that 54% of American Catholics voted for Obama. This could not be used to infer that global Christianity is unsure of the sanctity of life. It is however a sad statement of the state of Christianity in the West."
This is an example of the emptiness of the term "christianity". Roman Catholics can no more support or assist in the procurement of abortions than a man can contract a marriage with
three men. It is like saying 54 % of Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity, 25% believe in the Real Presence, 10% believe in Zeus as Creator of Heaven and Earth, while only 3% believe Aphrodite was the Virgin Mary as a greek goddess. There is doctrine and definition, there is a thing from the very beginning, this thing has argued with the world,it has defined errors, even human errors she has committed herself, sometimes members of this thing have groped in the dark like blind men, this group has betrayed and scandalized their divine savior, some have despaired, some have admitted their sinfulness as followers, expressed remorse, and managed to carry on, others have grown weary of the thing, left Her, reduced her to a sham and all the rest. But to reduce the entire edifice to a sentiment, a feeling, a point of view that is biblical etc. is nonsense. Christianity is today whatever one wants it to be --- from Reverend Wright, Jimmy Sawggert and Billy Graham to Archbishop Weakland or Msgr. Lefevre. A term that can be used to call anything, everything, is a meaningless term. And that is where we are today.
Just in the last few years, poor President Carter from Georgia, while introducing a bible he created with notes of his own explaining certain chapters and verses, recalled John Paul II as "a fundamentalist like the Ayatollahs in Iran." He said the Holy Father resented his support for liberation theology and angrily replied to the former President's request to lighten up on liberation theology that "the Church had more to offer men than passing political schemes." When two men are saying contradictory things about the very nature of the life of grace, they cannot both be correct simply by referring to a vague feeling called "christianity." This may be the view of Reverend Sharpton, perhaps the view of President Obama perhaps the view of some apostates, some hardened heretics, some invincibly ignorant souls and even 54% of a population considered American and Catholic, it is not,never was, and never will be considered a Christian teaching.
I'm actually in agreement with Mr. Sanjay. Leroy Huizenga over at First Things actually notes that Prof. King is actually fairly restrained though the media will clearly run with this. Prof. Huizenga offers some interesting reminders on how "lost gospels" garner a lot of attention and vanish.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/09/the-bride-of-christ
I have it on good authority that the actual translation is "Jesus said......Take my wife....Please! "
And I always thought Henny Youngman was the first to use that line.
I was required to read in college a book of the post-modern, neo-Gnostic variety called, I think to remember, The Historical Jesus and the Historic Christ, again, I think to remember, a translation from some profound German text, profound because it had been in German. It was one of those many attempts to deny in some fashion the Incarnation and to demythologize Him in whom is the fullness of the Godhead and reduce Him to mere man, although without the Incarnation man is already less than man. This latest scholarly work appears to be in that vain vein. As to Mr. tenor of Mr. Wolf's post, I say that he drowned his kittens in the warmest possible milk but drowned them he did. (That is one of my father's more repeatable metaphors.)
In light of this whole Professor King issue, I wanted to ask about certain controversies in Christianity and what some of you might feel about them.
What I seek to understand is the line that separates the Professor King controversy from what can be a reasonable debate on Christianity.
In the Apostolic decree, James the Just declared that Gentiles need not convert to Judaism, but would still have to follow certain Noachic commandments - such as abstaining from meat of strangled animals. The decree did not stop Gentiles from converting to Judaism. And it did not invalidate the obligations of Mosaic law to Jewish Christians. Would it imply an anti-Christian agenda to say that Christ did not invalidate the Torah and the Mosaic law, that Christ himself lived by the Torah and Mosaic law, and that early Christians seemed to prefer if someone lived by Jewish law and teachings?
There is one slightly more controversial issue. In Hebrew, the word "Almah" can either mean "Virgin" or "Young Woman". Mary was called an Almah in the original Hebrew text. When the Greek Septaugint was written, Mary was called a "Parthenos" which means "Maiden" or "Girl" or "Unmarried Woman" depending on context. Neither of these words explicitly refer to Mary as being a Virgin since they can mean something other than virgin depending on context. Paul also says that Yeshuah ben Josef was τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα or "born of David according to flesh". That implies physical conception and a male lineage going back to King David. So now - given this data and what implies, is it acceptable to discuss whether Mary was not a virgin without necessarily having a leftist anti-Christian agenda?
Now here is the real difficult debate. The word Messiah means King of Israel, or the one prophesised to unite the tribes of Israel, found the Promised Land, and begin the era of the Third Temple. Israelite kings have also been called "Sons of God" informally speaking. King David was called son of God, for example. When Jesus was proclaimed Messiah, his followers also declared him the son of God. But for Jews, "son of God" could merely mean "King of Israel" or "Messiah" and not literally a son of God. And while Jesus was called "Lord" by his followers, "Lord" is also used for rabbis. Given that Jesus' divinity runs to the very core of Christianity, are we all open to the debate that - going by early Scriptures alone - perhaps Yeshua ben Josef was considered a mortal rabbi in his lifetime and not a divine entity?
To repeat my original question, is it possible for a man to discuss these things without being someone who wants to attack or undermine Christianity? To ask these questions (just questions and not conclusions) in the spirit of the truth, and not for baiting and posturing?
Mr. Sanjay,
I think it's possible to discuss the questions you propose in a serious manner, but the problem is that questions of that nature are often posed by persons who immediately exclude any historical testimony that they consider "unreliable." It amounts to a discussion where the questioner is not seeking knowledge but merely seeking to destroy. The Christians have a long legacy of being willing to discuss, defend, and explain the Faith, from St. Peter on through St. Justin Martyr and Tertullian and even down to our modern day mess of the apologist blogger, but, to paraphrase the Desert Father Abbe Moses, you cannot speak words to one who won't stop speaking. The modern media and most of the modern academic world refuse to stop speaking.
Trust me - the questions you pose have been addressed by numerous Christians, sometimes themselves not always seeing eye-to-eye, all throughout the ages. There is no lack of books, both apologetical and theological, addressing these types of questions and drawing on documents and testimony from all quarters. Some of the debates have been settled, some not. I find, however, that these questions are often best addressed in an intimate setting, and that the theatrics of the public media and the Internet tend to derail most thoughtful discussion on this topic (arguably on any topic). This forum is, for the most part, a remarkable exception, although it too has its limits.
Regarding the flap that Dr. Wolf's article addresses, the scorn being heaped upon it is appropriate as it is, by no stretch of the imagination, an attempt to open a thoughtful discussion but merely an attempt to force a jumped-to conclusion into the public's mind. It's no more an attempt to get at the truth than any of Dan Brown's trash. In a world where ridicule is the main form of acceptible public discourse sometimes one must stoop to using the tools of the day.
Mr. Cornell pretty much covered all the territory I was going to cover. The line is at times difficult to draw, but basically after you see enough of these types (this includes see them debunked), you start to get a feel for people whose conclusions are foregone and you know which arguments not to take seriously.
The other caveat is that someone who takes himself either too seriously or not seriously enough is probably not worth taking seriously at all. Again, this is kind of a vague abstraction, but if you read enough people and pay enough attention you'll definitely start to get a feel for it.
Let me address on of Prateek's fundamental mistakes. When he refers to "the original Hebrew text," I don't know what text he is referring to. The oldest texts of the Gospels are in Greek. Hebrew and Aramaic reconstructions cannot be used to prove anything. The text we have is the text we have, rather like Don Rumsfeld's military. In every language words can be ambiguous, but the Church's early traditions make Mary a virgin, and at least in one place it is stated that before her conception she had not known a man. His description of the council at Jerusalem is also highly misleading. The Apostles had met to discuss and issue and debated probably as equals. James does not appear to have issued a decree but he delivered an opinion that backed up Peter. The Church was moving fast in response to challenges. I don't have time to refute or correct, point by point, everything Prateek has said, but his approach is a kind of stultifying Fundamentalism. Samaritans and Gentiles had heard Jesus, and some early converts were Christian. The question was never the one raised by good people like my friend Rabbi Neusner, that is, whether or not Jews and Christians had parallel tracks to salvation, because Christ explicitly declared and the Church always taught that none may go to the Father except through the Son. Within a very short time, the Church declared, first, that Jewish ritual prescriptions were unnecessary and, later on, that they were a blasphemous superstition to be avoided.
Prateek,
I thought all your questions were excellent . At this point, however, having lost so much of our tradition and our understanding of it, the answers must be recovered individually and this takes a very long time. Some of your questions have been answered for centuries, some are rather unique, none would be considered offensive or insulting by any Christian I I know.
I am not well studied in this area, but I have always thought that the Virgin Mary's own words were a confirmation of her virginity. When the angel proclaims that she will be with child, she says, "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" Obviously the Virgin Mary had a knowledge of basic biology. What could compel a young betrothed lady to respond this way? When the Lord told Sarah she would conceive, she may have thought it funny because she was barren but she had no questions about the mechanics of how such a child would come about. Unlike any of the other cases of Heavenly announcements of impending babies, the Virgin Mary was not already proven to be barren. It seems that, for her question to make any sense it would have to be understood in the context that she was then a virgin and had some intention of remaining a virgin, at least in the near future to include after her marriage to Joseph.
I know it's not like having rock hard evidence (or a tiny scrap of parchment with Coptic scribbles), but it always struck me as noteworthy.
Miraculous births are a common element in historical literature and religious texts. The Jewish tradition surrounding the birth of Moses for instance is quite extraordinary. The problem we moderns have with the ancients is the miraculous. It is same with our prejudice against ancient art as when we say " Oh, but they did not know how to draw with perspective, their stick figures represent their simple minds, only with enlightenment and the renaissance did men's minds begin to grow,..... and other such nonsense that is more miraculous that men should believe, than in Virgin births.
" Later on, Miriam also foretold to her father, Amram, that a son would be born to him who would liberate Israel from the yoke of Egypt.
He was born circumcised, and was able to walk immediately after his birth; but according to another story he was circumcised on the eighth day after birth. A peculiar and glorious light filled the entire house at his birth, indicating that he was worthy of the gift of prophecy. He ( the child Moses) spoke with his father and mother on the day of his birth, and prophesied at the age of three. His mother kept his birth secret for three months, when Pharaoh was informed that she had borne a son. The mother put the child into a casket, which she hid among the reeds of the sea before the king's officers came to her, For seven days his mother went to him at night to nurse him, his sister Miriam protecting him from the birds by day."
As I never weary of saying because it cannot be repated too often, "the biggest problem in understanding another's faith is the failure to understand ones own"
Yes, Mr. Cornell makes the necessary addition. Aaron Wolf and I were just talking about this, and, interestingly, we were discussing also the parallel virgin birth stories in ancient religions which confirm that tradition. If Prateek were referring to the passage in Isaiah, the choice we have there is whether the prophet meant a virgin would bear the savior or an immoral young women of the type we now refer to as "single mom"?
the passage in Isaiah, the choice we have there is whether the prophet meant a virgin would bear the savior or an immoral young women of the type we now refer to as "single mom"?
Dr. Fleming,
I have spent too much of my life ( actually wasted ) looking for what is often termed "the sperm donor " for "modern mothers."In fact this is a more common practice for contemporary culture as the old serial divorce and television intereviews with serial killers was for our greatest generation. And of course, if and when we ever find the said donor, the only thing we expect or ask as a society is that the poor bloke pay money and keep moving.( Remember, everything is about the economy stupids!!) It is difficult if not impossible in such an age, such a sterile, dreary and dreadful age, to imagine entire epochs of history where "once upon a time" a fathers' most prized possessions were his children, his wife who willingly and generously gave them, his own relatives future and past, his dear friends and loved ones. I believe this is very difficult to imagine today because it is very difficult to remember such a time. After thrity years of working with youthful criminals I think the one thing young children desire most is to see a father who loves or at least respects their mother. But of course this is considered such a stupid, sentimental idea today and an outright malicious attack against women that I digress.
Just my opinion, and I happily prefer to defer to scholarship when it's guided also by the faculty of reason even though reason like everything else in the world has its limits. Myths here in the world are necessary since the purely divine we experience as being at such a great distance and simultaneously so close to the bone on other occasions, either way it's usually not so precisely discernible to us. Thus myth may be how the purely divine speaks to us through us. In this regard although organized religions contain some fine characteristics why do they wish to overlap their myths with history which ironically would demythologize them right then and there, emptying them of their purely divine messages and import. Since it stands the test of reason the only one not created is the Creator then we and the world are partly divine and in the hierarchy that's reasonably why we intuit that which is more divine all the way up to the Creator. While we are growing up here in this incarnation to whatever level of divinity we may achieve or have been created for. As rational beings, which mankind is or has become or both, are we required to embrace so-called revelation prior to the limits of reason? Again wouldn't that strip revelation of its meaning if it's not about something that actually passses our understanding?
Thanks for the highly enthusiastic responses. I was really worried about entering improper territory here.
What you all have said might be food for thought for some time.
My interest in this topic was ignited by reading some of Pierre Antoine Bernheim's book on James the Just (a copy found from a friend), and I was rather impressed by his claim that early Christians did not really consider themselves a religion distinct from Judaism and really believed themselves to be continuation of mainline Judaism. Have been doing lots of searches on the matter since.
The virgin birth question comes from Catholic scholar Raymond Brown's claim that Isaiah 7:14 refers to "the sign offered by the prophet was the imminent birth of a child, probably Davidic, but naturally conceived, who would illustrate God’s providential care for his people", and that the passage refers to prophecy of the Israelite king Hezekiah.
In the end, I understand there is probably nothing but a big question mark on everything that is more than 100 years old, let alone thousands of years. Still, I can see from this discussion that some educated guesses rather than hasty assumptions are the basis for why there is belief in the Virgin Mary, the abolition of Jewish rituals, and Christ's divinity.
Mr. Sanjay,
I would like to suggest that part of the problem you’re facing is Raymond Brown. Although he was, technically, a Catholic priest his later work seemed to be almost entirely devoted to trying to invalidate Scripture and destroy long-held Catholic doctrine, albeit in a mealy-mouth, non-committal type of way (his work is filled with “may’s” and “could’s” and “does not appear’s”). I wish I could say he was not part of the “mainstream”, but since he was actually head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission that would be stretching the truth a little too far. Thank God the PBC was stripped of all teaching authority shortly before he took the reins and serves only as one of countless “advisory” committees in the Vatican.
Fr. Brown is an apt example of the theological problems swamping the Church around the time of Vatican II. A detailed discussion of him and his work is likely beyond the limits of a website comment and certainly beyond my competency. I will just say that he is exactly the type of person who simply discounts whatever evidence he considers contrary to his pre-conceived notions. The Virgin Birth is a classic case of his “logic” – in the name of “Science” he automatically discounts all extra-biblical testimony regarding the Bible (i.e. the very long and well documented tradition that says Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke based on eyewitness accounts, one of which was the Blessed Virgin Mary herself). Having discounted this evidence, he then looks for the clues he needs within the text itself. He comes across the verse I quoted previously and concludes that there is no way the “Luke” who compiled the so-called “Gospel of Luke” could possibly have known what the Virgin Mary said, therefore he must have either made it up wholecloth or cobbled together other Biblical stories and prophecies and mixed them with extra-Biblical pagan traditions to come up with his own “story.” All this despite the many textual indicators that “Luke” was trying very hard to indicate that he was writing a history, not a myth, and even took pains to specify geography and time period for his audience.
It’s not that the methods of historical criticism and inter-textual analysis are completely worthless. They just have severe limitations as to what valuable information they can provide, especially in the cases where conjecture is at their foundation. Their proponents, such as Fr. Brown, pushed them far beyond those limitations and refused to recognize the imaginary basis of their conclusions. My suspicion is that much of this was motivated with the desire to cover “theology” with some thin veneer of “natural science” in order to earn more street cred in the Academic world. A fruitless endeavor if there ever was one.
Regardless, traditional Biblical Criticism is on the rise, and there are many good books, both before and after Vatican II by both Catholics and Protestants, available today. As a decent overview I have read Soulen’s “Handbook of Biblical Criticism”. The work of John E. Steinmueller is out of print, but I have had them highly recommended as that of a solid example of traditional Biblical Criticism. The decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission pre-Vatican II, when it was still an arm of the Magisterium, are also worth examining although they, too, are hard to come by. And some of the classic works are finally being reprinted, such as the Cornelius A Lapide’s and St. Thomas Aquinas’ commentaries.
I hope that helps. Alas, since the Vatican is now so mild in censuring wayward theologians (not to mention politicians), and, in some cases, even rewards them, it is a very confusing time for everyone. Just because you run across a Catholic theologian does not necessarily mean he is representing an authentic Catholic position. Again, little can be taken for granted nowadays, and if one really wants to get to the bottom of anything one can’t avoid having to not only do research but then having to do research about the sources he researched.
Prateek,
St. Augustine's "How to Teach the Christian Faith" answers several of your questions and of course St. Jerome is another when it comes to knowing how to translate with something other than a pitch fork.. I heard Father Raymond Brown in the early eighties give several lectures. He was at times interesting but I did not like the way he treated simpletons in the question and answer period. Augustine, echoing Cicero, says this is sometimes a more reliable feature of a scholar's character than his scholarship. Pope Benedict addresses this popular method in his two books on Jesus of Nazareth. Blessed Cardinal Newman is of course the best becaue he understands the philosphical basis of empiricism and its limitations.
Now, feel free to give me your own reading recommendations as well.
I am angry with George Schmidt. Taking a postprandial walk, Henny Youngman's gag popped into my mind. I rushed to my computer to use the joke, only to find he has beaten me to it. By the way, is this George Schmidt the artist I lost track of after Katrina?
No, Jesus said 'take my wives, please.'
Then the Sanhedrin accused him of being gay.
But Jesus replied 'no, I have wives you know not of.'
Then the Romans stepped in and said: 'release Jesus for he has done no harm.'
That's when as a reader at least, I moved on to the Upanishads.
(please delete this pronto, for I have sinned.)