As I said:
The authors of the various Biblical books were wise enough to know what most everyone else does: after the honeymoon is over, the marriage is a mixed bag. Some things are good, some aren't, and a lasting marriage has far more of the good things and far fewer of the bad, but there's never a "perfect" one.
By keeping the phraseology as "bride", the authors uniformly keep the relationship in its pristine and most joyous condition.
The distinction is a very important one, not a trivial one.
As for what Jesus says in the fragment that supposedly says, "My wife...", we don't know, because the fragment conveniently ends after that. The two letters that are present, "mn" with a line over them indicating a shewa-like vowel quantity, could be several things: (1) "with" (by itself), (2) "not" (as a prefix), (3) the first letters of words like mnout, "doorkeeper" or (more likely) mntre "witness" (or, in the Christian sense, martyr).
I have problems with the text, though, because the word for "wife" uses a non-standard spelling, the "my" part is darker and almost looks like it was added later, and more importantly the particle that usually sets off direct speech is missing. I just think that it might be:
peje IC nau je hime mn
Jesus said to them, "A woman with..."
or
peje IC je shime mn
Jesus said "A woman with..."
			
		
	
	There is a very good reason, too - the relationship between Christ and His Church is ever fresh and new, always a celebration and a feast; he is forever the bridegroom and the Church is forever the bride.  The "honeymoon" never ends.
The authors of the various Biblical books were wise enough to know what most everyone else does: after the honeymoon is over, the marriage is a mixed bag. Some things are good, some aren't, and a lasting marriage has far more of the good things and far fewer of the bad, but there's never a "perfect" one.
By keeping the phraseology as "bride", the authors uniformly keep the relationship in its pristine and most joyous condition.
The distinction is a very important one, not a trivial one.
As for what Jesus says in the fragment that supposedly says, "My wife...", we don't know, because the fragment conveniently ends after that. The two letters that are present, "mn" with a line over them indicating a shewa-like vowel quantity, could be several things: (1) "with" (by itself), (2) "not" (as a prefix), (3) the first letters of words like mnout, "doorkeeper" or (more likely) mntre "witness" (or, in the Christian sense, martyr).
I have problems with the text, though, because the word for "wife" uses a non-standard spelling, the "my" part is darker and almost looks like it was added later, and more importantly the particle that usually sets off direct speech is missing. I just think that it might be:
peje IC nau je hime mn
Jesus said to them, "A woman with..."
or
peje IC je shime mn
Jesus said "A woman with..."
		Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
	
	
	
	
	ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
	
	
		This message last edited by Tom on 20/09/2012 at 09:49:05 PM
		
	
	
	
	
			So, about this silly "Jesus' wife" story making the rounds...
	    
	         - 19/09/2012 10:55:55 PM
	        1382 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
			That's right! Jesus' position on marriage was "One man, no woman." *NM*
	    
	         - 19/09/2012 11:05:55 PM
	        678 Views
	        
	    
	
		
	    
			What is the context?  The canonical bible says Christ has a wife:  The Church.
	    
	         - 19/09/2012 11:25:19 PM
	        1005 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
			Oh please...don't confuse "wife" with "bride"
	    
	         - 19/09/2012 11:35:09 PM
	        974 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			What word do the Prophets use for Israels relationship to God?
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 12:38:20 AM
	        950 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			BRIDE
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 03:39:30 PM
	        938 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			I love your last two sentences. They're a really nice description.  *NM*
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 07:58:19 PM
	        459 Views
 *NM*
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 07:58:19 PM
	        459 Views
	        
	    
	
		
	     *NM*
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 07:58:19 PM
	        459 Views
 *NM*
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 07:58:19 PM
	        459 Views
	        
	    
			That makes sense for an eternal God, but sounds like a wife who remains a bride.
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 08:56:07 PM
	        1013 Views
	        
	
		
		
	
	    		
			It's "bride" in the Old Testament as well.
		
	         - 20/09/2012 09:48:37 PM
	        965 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			The distinction is important for preserving the newlywed condition, but not for this fragment.
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 11:21:52 PM
	        991 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
	
	    
			Two things why it is important
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 04:24:37 AM
	        928 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
			Did someone hit you over the head?  "Two things why it is important"?  Really?
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 03:50:02 PM
	        1019 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
			Something I forgot to ask you about last night: What is your take on Daniels messianic prophecy?
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 09:21:32 PM
	        929 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			I don't get that at all.  "And will be no more", or "And will have nothing" is better.
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 10:13:20 PM
	        885 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			It is the King James text, which I have never heard anyone call heretical.
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 11:15:54 PM
	        966 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			The King James Bible is aesthetically pleasing but a bad translation.
	    
	         - 21/09/2012 12:03:00 AM
	        900 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			I like the NKJV because it tries to include all ambiguities.
	    
	         - 21/09/2012 12:47:38 AM
	        974 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
	
	    
			There is a very good reason no one dismissed the illegitmate gospels as illegitimate until 180 AD:
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 09:15:05 PM
	        893 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			The Gospel of Thomas was written before 180 AD.
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 09:33:44 PM
	        883 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			What is the oldest extant text of or reference to it?
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 11:11:03 PM
	        964 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			The Oxyrhynchus fragments were dated to c. 200 AD, and they are copies
	    
	         - 21/09/2012 12:18:33 AM
	        898 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			I would buy 200 AD, of course.
	    
	         - 21/09/2012 12:58:32 AM
	        937 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			It's not about "buying" it - it's essentially proven at that point.
	    
	         - 21/09/2012 03:26:50 AM
	        925 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Yes; all I meant was that I never disputed a date around 200 AD.
	    
	         - 22/09/2012 12:25:41 AM
	        928 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
			I don't think any of the gospels were written by their purported authors.
	    
	         - 22/09/2012 03:36:32 AM
	        846 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Not even Mark or Luke?
	    
	         - 22/09/2012 01:21:24 PM
	        913 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Well, but everyone knew Peter didn't speak Greek
	    
	         - 22/09/2012 09:46:57 PM
	        832 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			True, but everyone also knew Paul spoke it fluently, and he would have been an ideal choice.
	    
	         - 24/09/2012 06:20:22 AM
	        887 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Some people did "lie big".
	    
	         - 24/09/2012 02:11:58 PM
	        910 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			I forgot about (or possibly repressed memories of) the Gnostics "Gospel" of Peter.
	    
	         - 24/09/2012 11:26:43 PM
	        1009 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			I'm not trying to defend Gnosticism doctrinally, but...
	    
	         - 24/09/2012 11:51:40 PM
	        954 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			I am not relying SOLELY (or chiefly) on popularity though.
	    
	         - 25/09/2012 02:21:01 AM
	        946 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			The Gnostic response would be:
	    
	         - 25/09/2012 06:01:58 AM
	        853 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			That just sounds like more conspiracy allegations based on desire rather than evidence.
	    
	         - 25/09/2012 07:15:06 AM
	        1015 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			The issue of evidence for Gnosticism would make this thread unnecessarily long.
	    
	         - 25/09/2012 07:28:22 PM
	        847 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
	
	    
			What about those who postulate a mid-to-late 1st century composition?
	    
	         - 22/09/2012 02:21:18 AM
	        953 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Elaine Pagels ceased to be an impartial academic a long time ago.
	    
	         - 22/09/2012 03:41:41 AM
	        909 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Suspected as much, but wanted to see if you thought so as well
	    
	         - 22/09/2012 03:47:05 AM
	        1053 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Let's not get started on Funk
	    
	         - 22/09/2012 09:48:05 PM
	        853 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
	
	    
			don't these people have anything better to do?
	    
	         - 20/09/2012 11:39:35 PM
	        947 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Clearly not.
	    
	         - 22/09/2012 12:27:29 AM
	        784 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
	
	    
 
  
  
  
  
  
 