"The Lost Gospel"

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sigh.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/jesus-christ-wife-mary-magdalene-kids-book-claims/story?id=26805418

Given Jacobovici's previous work, I'm not expecting much beyond sensationalism.  Even assuming the translation has been accurately done, and that the source material is not a modern forgery, we're talking about a sixth century text here, so not particularly interesting.  For all we know, this could be an example of Sassanian anti-Christian propaganda.  (Actually, if it were, it would be far more interesting to me but I doubt it's history is such as to make such a possibility anything more than pure speculation.)

I'd probably read the book if someone lent me a copy, but I'm not going to waste my money buying it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not this sh**t again.

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that this is a significant issue is very odd to me (as is the obsessing about virginity). If he existed and he was a man, I don't understand why it's a problem that he so much as touched a woman or GASP! had a wife or girlfriend. I can understand objections on purely literary grounds (i.e., IT'S NOT IN THE TEXT!), but we know nothing about him and I suspect that there's more to it than that. What's of interest to me is that a la King Arthur, stories continued to persist well after the supposed fact, and indeed the Bible was not put together until a meeting was held long after the supposed crucifixion. The obsession over this both ways is weird to me, but more so the reaction against it - which boils down to NO!!!!!.  

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've been meaning to say for a while that it strikes me as a little antifeminist to attempt to shoehorn Mary Magdalene's theologico-historical significance into a possible romantic relationship with an important man, especially since it typically seems motivated by a particular sort of ideological axe to grind concerning primarily the man. She's already Apostle to the Apostles and first witness to the Resurrection. Attempting to use sixth-century texts to 'demonstrate' that SHE WAS ALSO [INKS]ING JESUS, GUYS strikes me as at best suspect in motive.

[The Mikado]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that this is a significant issue is very odd to me (as is the obsessing about virginity). If he existed and he was a man, I don't understand why it's a problem that he so much as touched a woman or GASP! had a wife or girlfriend. I can understand objections on purely literary grounds (i.e., IT'S NOT IN THE TEXT!), but we know nothing about him and I suspect that there's more to it than that. What's of interest to me is that a la King Arthur, stories continued to persist well after the supposed fact, and indeed the Bible was not put together until a meeting was held long after the supposed crucifixion. The obsession over this both ways is weird to me, but more so the reaction against it - which boils down to NO!!!!!. 

If someone wrote a book today that had King Arthur drinking cider out of the Holy Grail and secretly being Galahad's true father, I think you'd see a lot of the "That's not how it happened!" reaction even though everyone knows Arthur didn't exist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

King Arthur likely did exist, just not as the legends or Monty Python portrayed him. But its agreed he was likely based on a 5th or 6th century leader against the Saxon invasions.

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that this is a significant issue is very odd to me (as is the obsessing about virginity). If he existed and he was a man, I don't understand why it's a problem that he so much as touched a woman or GASP! had a wife or girlfriend. I can understand objections on purely literary grounds (i.e., IT'S NOT IN THE TEXT!), but we know nothing about him and I suspect that there's more to it than that. What's of interest to me is that a la King Arthur, stories continued to persist well after the supposed fact, and indeed the Bible was not put together until a meeting was held long after the supposed crucifixion. The obsession over this both ways is weird to me, but more so the reaction against it - which boils down to NO!!!!!. 

If someone wrote a book today that had King Arthur drinking cider out of the Holy Grail and secretly being Galahad's true father, I think you'd see a lot of the "That's not how it happened!" reaction even though everyone knows Arthur didn't exist.

Haha, probably! I'm sifting through a couple editions of Malory's Morte D'Arthur at the moment and it strikes me that it's like, this happened. It's really remarkable. Both Caxton and Malory appear to have felt that a definitive edition needed to be put down. Regardless of personal beliefs, which I don't know that we can say much about, it's nonetheless an illuminating study in the process of the mythologizing of someone. It's wonderful. For whatever reasons, I just always think of this issue when these kind of things up re: Jesus.