Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Regarding the "Gospel of Jesus' wife"

The little scrap of papyrus that "threatens" to undermine Christianity. NOT!
The whole internet is abuzz with new revelation that Jesus may of had a wife. This is not based Dan Brown's latest novel but on a small 1.5" x 3" fragment of papyrus. The fragment, apparently from some 4th century book, has a line that says: "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...' " I guess that must prove that Christ was married then right? Well, let's take a look at some historical Christian facts in light of this new "evidence."

300 years after the death of Christ we have St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-387), who's writings demonstrate that he fought stridently against heresies during his time. One of these heresies, Arianism - which denied that Jesus was divine and not of one substance with the Father - was officially condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., a council that St. Cyril himself attended. Cyril also denounced two forms of Gnosticism, Marcionism and Manichaeism, both of which he addressed in his 18th Catechetical Lecture entitled On the Words, And in One Holy Catholic Church, and in the Resurrection of the Flesh, and the Life Everlasting. Of particular interest is Section 26 of this writing in which we read the following (with my emphasis):

"...I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, "And in one Holy Catholic Church;" that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Catholic Church in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God..."

Notice what St. Cyril does, he cuts down other Christian sects and uplifts the One True Church, the Catholic Church, whom he refers to as "the spouse of our Lord." But, where did St. Cyril get such and idea from? In The Letter to the Ephesians, chapter 5 verse 25 we read the following:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her...

Indeed, the New Testament is peppered with references to Jesus as a bridegroom. Bear in mind that NONE of these writings were yet canonized as Scripture, it would take almost 100 years from the time of St. Cyril before they would be part of established Scripture:

John 3:29 - John the Baptist refers to himself as a friend of the Bridegroom.

2 Cor. 11:1-3 - St. Paul likens himself as a father of the bride for he introduced the Corinthians to Christ.

Rev. 19:5-8 - Depict the marriage supper of the Lamb and his bride dressed in white.

Mark 2:19 - Jesus refers to Himself as the bridegroom as the reason why His guests weren't fasting.

Matthew 25:1-13 - Jesus tells of the parable of the 10 virgins waiting for the coming of the bridegroom.

Easily seen is a comparison between Jesus and a husband, that is, Jesus is "married" to the Church. This analogy was not lost on yet another one of the Early Church Fathers; St. Cyprian of Carthage writing over 100 years before St. Cyril in his The Unity of the Catholic Church (251 A.D.), writes the following in the sixth paragraph of his treatise:

The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous, she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty and the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ.

So, if we were to take this little, itty-bitty piece of papyrus at face value we can easily justify that - if it is in fact Jesus Christ speaking in this fragment - the "wife" that He is referring to could competently be assumed to His Church. If no other reasoning is used and we simply look at what the Early Church Fathers thought and wrote about at the time this fragment was allegedly written, this conclusion not only becomes feasible but in fact, probable. Now, let's analyze what this fragment says and see if my theory pans out.

The Harvard Divinity School has dedicated a web page to the fragment and, if nothing else, it could be argued that Christ could be talking about His Church. The fragment lines read thusly (brackets indicate sections missing form fragment):

Not [to] me. My mother gave me li[fe]...The disciples said to Jesus'[]...deny. Mary is [not] worthy of it []...Jesus said to them, "My wife []...she will be able to be my disciple []...Let wicked people swell up []...as for me, I dwell with her in order to []...an image []...

If we are to take these words at face value and place them within the already established view of the Church being the one and only Bride of Christ, then we can extrapolate the following translation:

My mother gave me life = Mary is very important, she gave life to me

The disciples said to Jesus = If Mary is so important, will she lead your Church?

deny. Mary is [not] worthy of it = No. Mary will not lead my Church

Jesus said to them, "My wife = Jesus told them, "My Church...

she will be able to be my disciple = She will be my pilgrim here on Earth (See Eucharistic Prayer III, Intercessions para. 2)

Let wicked people swell up = Let those who do not believe, continue to not be part of my Church

as for me, I dwell with her in order to = I will be with the Church always (See Matthew 28:20)

an image = My Church will be physical for all to see

So, in speaking within the context of the Early Church, we could loosely translate it into following:

Mary, the mother of Jesus is very important, after all she not only saw her son give Himself up for us but, she was born without Original Sin and is our mother as well. The disciples ask Jesus, therefore, is she to lead them as they spread His Word as commanded, after all Mary too was in the upper room when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles. Jesus tells them, "No. Even though she magnifies my presence, she will not lead my Church," Mary's role as a spiritual intercessor will be much more important then anything she does here on Earth. Jesus continued to tell them, "My Church, my devout pilgrim here on Earth will be the ultimate disciple, as my Bride she will dispense all forms of knowledge without ever faltering. Therefore, those who do not believe in my Bride that is, My Church, do not believe in me, for I dwell with her and she with me, bounded together for eternity. She will be my physical presence for all to see here on Earth."

The above is just a simple and personal translation from all the information that I've been able to attain since this story broke yesterday. Indeed, if this is the case, how beautiful a picture that Christ paints by explicitly describing his Church as such. However, in the process of researching this new-fangled attack against the established teachings of the Catholic Church, I found one thing that struck me as rather suspicious when it came to the scholar who first deciphered this apparent 1,700 year old piece of paper.

The scholar in question is Karen L. King, a Harvard Divinity School professor. I did a bit of research on her and what I found was a bit telling as to how she determined what the translation of the papyrus scrap says. Turns out that Professor King is the author of such essential Gnostic literature as: 
In other words, the person who translated this fragment may have an embedded interest in manifesting a so-called "Gospel of Jesus' Wife." I can truly see that she is without a doubt an expert in early Gnosticism but, for her to automatically assume that this is a Gnostic Gospel of Christ, may be a bit far fetched; how does she know it's a gospel and not some epistle? Honestly, how easy would it be to take 8 non-consecutive lines from any of the epistles of the New Testament and say that they must be a "gospel?"

Her motive for objective truth also comes into question when her past dealings in feminism come to light. She wrote a response for a 2006 feminist movie entitled Period Piece, which was a short film about the attitudes, experiences and the images about menstruation. The movie was done by Emily Culpepper who, according to her profile at the University of Redlands, has academic expertise in:

- Women and Gender in Western Religions
- Contemporary Goddess Spiritualities
- Women Reproductive Health and Medical Issues
- Lesbian and Gay Issues in Religion
- Feminist Ethics
- Menstrual Attitudes

But wait, there's more! Turns out that the Co-author of Professor King's 2007 book, Reading Judas: the Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity, is Elaine Pagels who authored a 1998 book called Women and Goddess Traditions (Studies in Antiquity & Christianity) as well as the Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, written in 2003.

To re-cap: We have a feminist friendly scholar who has gone so far as to state that piece of faded papyrus is a gospel in which Jesus Christ has a wife whom apparently is one of his most trusted disciples. Among the company that this scholar keeps are feminists who are well versed  and drawn to Gnosticism - a heresy in it's own right. So now we come to the million dollar question: Why are these women so drawn to Gnostic thought? The answer is simple: Gnosticism is awash in male and female egalitarianism, in fact, one could argue that Gnosticism tends to treat the feminine as superior. Simple proof of this attitude is seen in the  last page of Dan Brown's, The Da Vinci Code:

Like murmurs of spirits in the darkness, forgotten words echoed. The quest for the Holy Grail is the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary Magdalene. A journey to pray at the feet of the outcast one.

With a sudden upwelling of reverence, Robert Langdon fell to his knees.

For a moment, he thought he heard a woman's voice...the wisdom of the ages...whispering up from the chasms of the Earth.

This "woman's voice that brings wisdom" is what is referred to the Sophia Myth in Gnosticism. Most if not all of the Gnostic works tend to have this in common, so much so that one could make a substantial claim in saying that the modern day view of the Gnostic works amount to feminism in Christianity. And therein lies the issue, what we are seeing with all of these Gnostic books is not an objective view of a wrongfully thought out form of Christianity but, AN ALTERNATE view of what Christianity is and, in essence, a heresy.

At this point I'm going to make three predictions: 1) Professor King will come out with a book that takes 8 lines of ancient Coptic writing and proceeds to flesh out an unsubstantiated theory about Jesus "wife," who better to write such a book with her scholarly background and feminist ideal? She will therefore win the accolades of all forms of feminist theologians, female "pastors," and schismatic nuns; This just might be the reason for her interpretation of this little piece of dated paper as being a "gospel" of Christ's wife. 2) The fragment will be proven to be authentic and will be relegated to a 4th century Gnostic writing. Since the Early Catholic Church was already in the process of determining what books would be canonized as Scripture by the late 4th century, it is especially telling that the Early Church Fathers did not see this as being inspired nor of relevance for it to take a place among the 27 books of the New Testament; therefore, if the Councils of Rome (382 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.), and Carthage (397 A.D.) - who all agreed on the 73 books of the bible - were privy to this Gnostic writing, it is patently obvious they didn't view it as authentically Christian. Lastly, 3) This fragment will be proven to be fake. Time will only tell if any of these possibilities pan out.

Mark you DVR's for Sunday September 30th in which the Smithsonian - purveyors of such fine art as the "Ant covered Jesus" video in a gay-friendly exhibit - is set to do a special on the tiny little fragment.


!!! UPDATE - 10/5/2012 !!!

Well, well, well. Turns out that the little scrap piece of papyrus was a hoax! Gee, who would've ever thought that this would've been a forgery? Too many news outlets have already deemed it so that to list them would only take up more of your precious time, instead Google it and see for yourself.

I will, however, briefly mention this article which was published yesterday as the last and final "nail in the coffin" for this poor attempt to circumvent Christian Tradition and Teaching. The article states the following:

Next time Professor Karen King receives an oblong scrap of papyrus with an explosive text and an owner wanting to remain in the shadows, she will probably pass. It is now more than likely that the "Jesus had a wife" manuscript, which she sensationally unveiled in Rome a couple of weeks ago, is a fake. There is little point in repeating the arguments for forgery. Far more puzzling is how an intelligent woman like Professor King could possibly have fallen for it...

...As for poor Professor King, it is likely that her publication record of feminist readings of early Christianity made her susceptible to being duped. It is even possible that a hoaxer crated the "Jesus had a wife" manuscript with her in mind so that she could act as the "convincer" for a buyer deciding whether to part with hard cash... 

This is what happens when a person views Christianity through a biased lens, Professor King - in all of her scholarly glory and aptitude - miserably failed in the common sense department! If she had only read the so-called papyrus scrap within the context of Church History and not a feminist ideal, then perhaps she could've saved face. As it stands, take note of all of the female scholars I've listed in this post; I have no doubt that we will eventually hear from them again.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Dissident nun at the Democrat National Convention speaks [volumes about herself and her beliefs].


How fitting that the leader of the schismatic troupe, "Nuns on the Bus," would speak at a political convention that disavowed the existence of God only to later on, due in part by political national pressure, reluctantly accept God as part of their political platform. While I will not concentrate on the political aspects, there were certain things that happened in Charlotte that not only caught my attention but, as a devout and practicing Catholic, demand further explanation from this nun.

First, there is the topic of GOP VP nominee Paul Ryan's budget. It is true that the USCCB issued several statements that were none too favorable to Ryan's budget; the bishops basically mentioned that cutting social programs for the poor was not a justifiable solution. It never once, however, mentioned how Congress' lack of a budget for the pass 3 years has effected our national deficit - the very thing that Ryan's budget is attempting to tackle. Indeed, to massively accumulate so much debt towards our children and grandchildren is an issue unto itself, one that the USCCB did not (sadly) address. Additionally, it could also be argued that, since Ryan is attempting to minimized governmental reach and influence, this could technically allude to the Catholic social principle of subsidiarity in which smaller and more localized solutions are heavily favored instead of larger or more complex ones.

Secondly, Sister Simone states that she agrees with the Bishops! How odd, since it was the LCWR who fully rejected the Vatican's assessment of the group's collective ecumenical and evangelization efforts! That's right, they agree with the U.S. bishops but, the bishops and priests of Rome who audited your ministry? Nah, not them and especially not "him!" Well how about the fact that it was the USCCB who published the Vatican's review of the LCWR? To accept the God-given authority of one set of bishops but not others is not only hypocritical but very questionable. I guess the good Sister agrees with the bishops when they both have a common enemy.

Thirdly, while I agree with Sister Simone in that "I am my brother's keeper," the real question with regards to President Obama's healthcare reform act is whether the individual is allowed to be charitable - out of their own free will - or whether the state has the right to compel a citizen to become his "brother's keeper" under penalty of law. Additionally, Sister Simone fails to mention exactly how she reconciles the healthcare reform act's funneling of tax payer monies to help assist in murder, er, excuse me, abortions now that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment of the Affordable Care Act has been stripped away? Furthermore Sister, how can you look at the evils of contraception and accept a political party that mandated, the very religious institution that you claim to be fighting  for, to go against established Tradition and teaching and provide contraceptives and abortifacients to its employees?

Could it be that Sister Simone is for abortion and the culture of contraception? Well, let's see what she told The Weekly Standard in an interview yesterday before her big speech:

TWS: On the legal question, do you think there should be penalties against abortion doctors? I mean, should it be illegal to perform abortions?

CAMPBELL: That's beyond my pay grade. I don't know. 

How telling and how unoriginal:


The very same words used by Sister Campbell were used by the very same man who has provoked the Catholic Church to be part of the one of the biggest lawsuits against the federal government solely based upon Her teachings about contraception. How duplicitous of Sister Campbell, on the one hand she is ready to destroy a fellow Catholic's political capital because she disagrees with proposed legislation but, she can't comment on whether or not murdering an innocent child should be outlawed? Well Sister, this is where Rep. Ryan can show you a thing or two about his political beliefs in light of his Catholic faith, you see, Ryan has - in the course of his political career - co-sponsored 38 anti-abortion measures; how is it that a lay Catholic can, without question, apply pro-life views into his political life and yet a consecrated "c"atholic nun cannot state that the intrinsic evil that is abortion must be done away with??? What a pity that a woman religious who belongs to the One True Church and has an active public and vocal life, can't answer such a simple question, I think a quote from St. John Chrysostom could best describe Sister Campbell:

"We know that salvation itself is a property of the One Church, and that no one can be outside of the Catholic Church and yet share the Faith of Christ, or be saved...Neither do we offer any part of that hope to the ungodly heretics, but we place them entirely outside of that hope; indeed, they have not the least participation in Christ, but vainly assume for themselves that saving Name."