I don't read the bible very much, it's true, but I have just been extremely surprised to hear that Jesus had a brother

The film Dogma is based on Joseph and Mary continuing to have kids and that some of the power of G0d passed through there ancestory

I think Catholic doctrine holds that the koine Greek word for brother also means friend or cousin or someone other than your brother.

"Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? are are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

An alternative theory developed in order to square the existence of siblings with the virgin birth fantasy is that these were Joseph's kids from a previous marriage.

And that's the thing about Catholicism, which even Catholics tend to forget: "the Bible doesn't say" doesn't matter. Church doctrine, as inspired by divine providence etc., is as sacred as the original texts. That's the main difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.

(I had a long conversation w/ a Catholic friend about this the other day, when I was bitching about a scene in the Left Behind books where the Pope-to-be is supposedly made a fool out of when he can't come up with a Biblical verse to support his beliefs.)

The brothers-doesn't-mean-brothers theory is fine for preserving Catholic belief, but it's one of those things -- like the attempts to date the Exodus or figure out where the Ark landed -- where the theory would never occur to anyone if they weren't trying to preserve that belief. It's not an intuitive reading, it's an awkward one (but the Gospels are full of awkward readings, so that doesn't mean anything by itself). The contet is wonky. Yeah, you can use "brother" to mean things other than that, but how often do you do so in the same breath as "mother"?

Religion is what you believe in. You can believe in whatever the hell you like, as far as I'm concerned.

No, I know it's not: it's the Catholic doctrine on the matter. My point is simply that even though the word can be used figuratively -- in Greek as well as English -- doesn't mean it's natural to read it that way in all instances. There are other, less ambiguous words to use. When Jesus is told, "your mother and brothers are outside," i.e. the people in question aren't where he can see them, isn't it odd to use "brothers" when you mean "your mother and your buddies"? Especially when he counters it by denying that he has a family?

You CAN read it that way, but it's not a reading that would occur to you if you weren't looking for it.

(I know, the prophecies probably say something like "from the house of David" or whatever. I still think it's a bit twisted.)

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." - Matthew 1:18-21

(You can find the entire Bible online.. crazy)

Two gospels (Matthew and Luke) provide genealogies, which happen to be completely different. These gospels are the only ones (in the new testament) to bother with Jesus' birth, and they come up with two completely seperate fictions showing how this guy who was not known to be from Bethlehem (David's city) was in fact born there.

I mean, really, one of my greataunts often believed angels and saints came to speak to her. SHE WAS PUT IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION. Are we imprisoning our saviours or were our saviours bonkers? You be the judge!

(And in another sense, I think you're exactly right about the nativity scene being a big cause for the lack of mention, really. It's just less dramatic for Jesus to have siblings.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-11906,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-11906,00.html

the genealogy thing mentioned above was part of the deal to "prove" that Jesus was of the House of David by birth (and was thus born in Bethlehem) thus agreeing with the OT prophecies. The other, bigger, more well-known way is the literary device of the decree from Caasar that all the world was to be taxed and the need for everyone to return to their birthplace for some sort of census. 2 big problems with this:

a census for tax purposes would be interested in *where you live now* not where you were born

there are no other documents known that mention this event at all - isn't this a bit odd considering the Roman Empire stretched all round the Med?

With regard to Mary's virginity, it is of Catholic faith, declared by the 5th Ecumenical Council (A.D. 553) that she was virgin all her life and had no other children.

From my second link above.

I love the smell of burned heretics in the morning. It smells like...orthodoxy.

Flame wars, A.D. 383 stylee!

I like that:-)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html

A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …'”

Having trouble reading this w/o hearing Borat in my head, tbh.

Unfortunately the scarps of papyrus to either side, that read "Take" and "please..." are lost to the sands of time.

... my wife, my wife, lemme tell ya 'bout my wife

We were happy for twenty years. Then we met.

Somewhere, squirreled away amidst centuries of arcania is a slip of papyrus advertising Jesus' set at the Chuckle Hut Jerusalem.

the other night she put a mirror over our bed. She says she likes to watch herself laugh.

Cana? I barely touched 'er

And then Jesus said, "Give unto me police protection, give unto me a bodyguard, for verily, my wife is coming after me."

Interesting, but reminds me of other dubious fragments that have appeared in the past, such as the "Secret Gospel of Mark", given the lack of details about its provenance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0iA_rOcn9Y

dubious fragments...

There are all sorts of Apocrypha and no objective reason for canonical Gospels and non-canonical other than doctrinal preference

which seems like a pretty good reason?

genuine lol at jesus dangerfield

Secret Gospel of Mark is hardly the Nag Hammadi

ie there's legitimate apocrypha and then there's just forgeries

Is that Akin's position?

There are all sorts of Apocrypha and no objective reason for canonical Gospels and non-canonical other than doctrinal preference

Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "objective", but my point, as Shakey pointed out, was that there is a big difference between legit Apocrypha and latter-day forgeries. My suspicion is that this fragment may fall into the second camp. It's just too convenient that it contains one cryptic phrase which seems to upend conventional thinking and that it mysteriously appeared with little explanation of where it came from. That reminds me of the "Secret Gospel of Mark" episode.

Is that Akin's position?

that would be the missionary position

latter-day forgeries

Elucidate, please. Do you mean things made up of a whole cloth in the 4th century or before or more recently or just the whole thing? Xtian canons are largely the result of the 4th century though it took the Orthodox an extra hundred odd years to accept Revelations and the Antilegomena was even questioned as late as Luther's time.

Secret Gospel of Mark was basically made up in the 1970s

Inspired or not by God?

eh just read the wiki page

Don DeLillo wrote Mark iirc

Elucidate, please. Do you mean things made up of a whole cloth in the 4th century or before or more recently or just the whole thing?

I'm saying it may be a very recent forgery, as in, within the past few years - though it could have been done earlier. I realize there is a grey area that gets very grey as you get closer and closer to the 4th century. Even if it was written by a Coptic speaker in the 4th century, some might call it a forgery in the sense that it wasn't based on legitimate eye-witness accounts or wasn't inspired by God or whatever, but I would call that "legit Apocrypha". I realize that my terms are somewhat inconsistent.

This might add a bit more - she says quite clearly that this isn't proof that Jesus had a wife, it just shows that some early Christians believed Jesus had a wife; and that she and the other scholars she worked with started from assumptions it was a late forgery.

This article adds more - makes it explicit the biblical studies world hasn't forgotten the secret gospel of mark mess (i mean lol why would it), everyone super-paranoid about another recent fake getting through.

a draft of King's full article.

That Smithsonian does provide more details, but a lot of them only add to the suspicion:

- The anonymous collector who emailed King has an obvious financial motive. If he/she can get King to vouch for its authenticity, it suddenly becomes very valuable and can be sold for a high price.
- Then there's the back story of how the collector acquired the piece. Conveniently, all the people involved in that story are now deceased.
- Also according to that back story, the fragment was identified as genuine by prominent scholars of antiquity but who for some reason didn't feel it worthwhile to publish or even apparently tell anyone about it at the time.
- The type-written letter purported to be from one of the now-deceased scholars which dates the piece as having been discovered prior to 1982 - very convenient since by Egyptian law all antiquities discovered after 1983 are property of the Egyptian government.

yeah, there's clearly a lot of shadiness. Physical evidence seem pretty good, but I guess the fight over that stuff hasn't yet started.

Maybe there was some other dude named Jesus who had a wife.

Yeah, I was reading a French biblical scholar this morning who pointed out that Jesus (Yehosua) was a pretty common name in Judea at the time. Wiki says that Flavius Josephus mentions at least 20 in his works.

whole grip of jesi, no big

I'd guess the context makes it unlikely (but not impossible) that it's some other random Jesus - he's got disciples, he talks about conditions of discipleship, there's a mary and a mother - + idk how many other Jesuses there are coptic papyri about.

I always found myself swayed by the argument that a typical chap in patriarchal 1st century judaea would be married by the age of 32, and it would be remarkable enough to be mentioned in at least one of the gospel if he wasn't. but tbh I have no idea whether this is true of 1st century judaea. I suppose the conclusion we must draw is that I am easily swayed.

That's an interesting theory, but I guess you have to weigh which is less likely: that the accounts wouldn't mention the fact that he was single, or that the accounts wouldn't mention his wife if he was married. For instance why wasn't she among the women mentioned as being present at his crucifixion?

It doesn't say it was a happy marriage

i wonder about that. in families with property and means, marriage was probably a big enough deal to be managed like that, and these were the "typical chaps" as far as the historical record goes. but among the lower orders, maybe not.

it's not like i have any clue tho.

Jesus living the bachelor dream again – the serious coptic, papyri and early-christian ppl are saying it is most likely a modern fake. The paper won't now be published.