NYT: Jesus Married? Ancient Papyrus Says So

[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).

[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).

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 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.

[alexey]

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

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

I agree....

[techboy]

I'm just trying to explain where I am coming from...

Trust me. I am well aware of where you're coming from. We've been over this well-worn ground before, much as you and Peter have done the "unprovable assumptions/nature of science/etc." dance several times.

I'm starting to feel like every engagement of conversation is just an excuse to shift the topic to hammering away at the rationality of belief. In this case, for instance, you asked about contemporary Roman sources, and even suggested that you wouldn't ignore such reports should they exist. Of course, since you are not shy about expressing your opinion, I knew you actually would reject them, and I knew why, but I pointed out two (though I will admit that Paul is not traditionally thought of as Roman, he was), and you just used it as a springboard, again, to change the subject, again, to why you think the evidence for God sucks.

And so, you attempt to shift the topic from how historians attempt to draw historical data from sometimes poor and always biased ancient sources (relevant, since the document in the OP is an ancient source from which the idea that Jesus was married is a possible historical claim), to why you personally think that no intelligent person could rationally believe in God, so they must just "believe in belief", and if someone says otherwise, we must logically conclude, I assume, that he or she is stupid, deluded, or lying.

As far as I know, that wasn't and isn't the topic here.

I cannot take people at their word because I do not understand what the word "God" actually means.

Then you should ask the person using the term at the time what it means to him or her.

Personally, though, I think it's perhaps a bit presumptuous to tell others what they actually think.

You didn't answer the question, but that's okay. I already know you'd be offended if I told you you weren't actually an atheist, just in rebellion against God.

[alexey]

Trust me. I am well aware of where you're coming from. We've been over this well-worn ground before, much as you and Peter have done the "unprovable assumptions/nature of science/etc." dance several times.

I'm starting to feel like every engagement of conversation is just an excuse to shift the topic to hammering away at the rationality of belief.
…
As far as I know, that wasn't and isn't the topic here.
…
Then you should ask the person using the term at the time what it means to him or her.

Personally, though, I think it's perhaps a bit presumptuous to tell others what they actually think.

You didn't answer the question, but that's okay. I already know you'd be offended if I told you weren't actually an atheist, just in rebellion against God.

I know that a great number of people think that I am in rebellion against God and that I will be tortured for eternity (eternal punishment) for not believing (finite crime). I think that is wicked, but I am not offended by it. I try to get offended sparingly.

I find it difficult to discuss other things if we have an unsettled disagreement about something. Hopefully I am not the only one enjoying this discussion.

[techboy]

I know that a great number of people think that I am in rebellion against God and that I will be tortured for eternity (eternal punishment) for not believing (finite crime).

Except that's not the scenario. There are people that would tell you that despite your claims, you're not actually an atheist, just willfully denying what you deep down know to be true, that God exists. They might be kind enough to grant that you aren't consciously aware that this is what you are doing. Perhaps you're just deluded. (This isn't a hypothetical, either. There are really people that think this way).

You have practically gone to war more than once on this board for your absolute right to call yourself an atheist, so I know you would not be pleased with such a person telling you what you really think.

I find it difficult to discuss other things if we have an unsettled disagreement about something.

It is true that we have a fundamental philosophical difference about whether or not it is appropriate to reason from logic and naturally established facts to supernatural conclusions, but I fail to see how this disagreement prevents discussion of topics that don't touch on that disagreement. Recall that this discussion started with you making this statement:

I understand that collaboration of disinterested sources is a big thing for historians.

I objected to this, not as someone who believes that the supernatural is possible, but as someone that understands that this is an inaccurate and unreasonable imposition on the methodology of those that study ancient history.

Everything I have written from that point is wholly consistent with methodological naturalism, especially since the idea that Jesus might have been married is hardly supernatural, and neither is the idea that Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

There is no reason that any philosophical disagreement we have on issues of the supernatural need have any bearing here, other than it's what you really want to talk about, to the point that you seem to twist every comment in that direction.

It's feels like I've entered a thread to argue that Joe Gibbs is still worthy of being a Hall of Famer despite his less successful second run with the team, and you keep demanding I discuss his views on Young Earth Creationism.

Just for the record, though, if you really need that disagreement resolved before you can discuss anything else, you might as well give up the hope of discussion, because that particular difference is fundamental, foundational, and pretty much inarguable (which is the point Peter is trying to get you to see when he points out that science can't be proven either).

[PeterMP]

Just for the record, though, if you really need that disagreement resolved before you can discuss anything else, you might as well give up the hope of discussion, because that particular difference is fundamental, foundational, and pretty much inarguable (which is the point Peter is trying to get you to see when he points out that science can't be proven either).

I'm amazed by the faith people put into studies based on analyzing appearantly repeatable processes, when such studies are based on assumptions that can't be studied via a repeatable process as compared to their faith on things that are not directly repeatable.

Somehow that one degree of separation seems to make a HUGE difference in many people's minds.

---------- Post added September-20th-2012 at 05:51 AM ----------

I agree....

So in terms of you standing on something to doubt something else, what are you standing on?