Active Users:827 Time:18/02/2026 12:07:50 PM
The distinction is important for preserving the newlywed condition, but not for this fragment. Joel Send a noteboard - 20/09/2012 11:21:52 PM
As I said:
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.

Right, but not in terms of the fragments meaning, because the canonical use of "bride" requires her to be a wife as well. The distinction is only relevant to the newfound passage as a further indication it is inauthentic, since it replaces the consistent and frequent canonical use of "bride" with "wife."

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..."

So it could mean anything or nothing even if is authentic (which there are several good reasons to doubt.) Not that that will prevent those convinced a smoking gun exists claiming this passage qualifies.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
So, about this silly "Jesus' wife" story making the rounds... - 19/09/2012 10:55:55 PM 1423 Views
That's right! Jesus' position on marriage was "One man, no woman." *NM* - 19/09/2012 11:05:55 PM 694 Views
What is the context? The canonical bible says Christ has a wife: The Church. - 19/09/2012 11:25:19 PM 1052 Views
Oh please...don't confuse "wife" with "bride" - 19/09/2012 11:35:09 PM 1015 Views
What word do the Prophets use for Israels relationship to God? - 20/09/2012 12:38:20 AM 996 Views
BRIDE - 20/09/2012 03:39:30 PM 969 Views
That makes sense for an eternal God, but sounds like a wife who remains a bride. - 20/09/2012 08:56:07 PM 1061 Views
It's "bride" in the Old Testament as well. - 20/09/2012 09:48:37 PM 1016 Views
The distinction is important for preserving the newlywed condition, but not for this fragment. - 20/09/2012 11:21:52 PM 1038 Views
No, the fragment is either Gnostic or a forgery. - 20/09/2012 11:28:53 PM 992 Views
Fair enough; for my money it could easily be both. - 21/09/2012 12:10:57 AM 921 Views
Two things why it is important - 20/09/2012 04:24:37 AM 970 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 927 Views
The Gospel of Thomas was written before 180 AD. - 20/09/2012 09:33:44 PM 926 Views
What is the oldest extant text of or reference to it? - 20/09/2012 11:11:03 PM 1009 Views
The Oxyrhynchus fragments were dated to c. 200 AD, and they are copies - 21/09/2012 12:18:33 AM 952 Views
I would buy 200 AD, of course. - 21/09/2012 12:58:32 AM 980 Views
It's not about "buying" it - it's essentially proven at that point. - 21/09/2012 03:26:50 AM 973 Views
Yes; all I meant was that I never disputed a date around 200 AD. - 22/09/2012 12:25:41 AM 962 Views
I don't think any of the gospels were written by their purported authors. - 22/09/2012 03:36:32 AM 887 Views
Not even Mark or Luke? - 22/09/2012 01:21:24 PM 959 Views
Well, but everyone knew Peter didn't speak Greek - 22/09/2012 09:46:57 PM 875 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 928 Views
Some people did "lie big". - 24/09/2012 02:11:58 PM 950 Views
I forgot about (or possibly repressed memories of) the Gnostics "Gospel" of Peter. - 24/09/2012 11:26:43 PM 1051 Views
I'm not trying to defend Gnosticism doctrinally, but... - 24/09/2012 11:51:40 PM 991 Views
I am not relying SOLELY (or chiefly) on popularity though. - 25/09/2012 02:21:01 AM 995 Views
The Gnostic response would be: - 25/09/2012 06:01:58 AM 897 Views
What about those who postulate a mid-to-late 1st century composition? - 22/09/2012 02:21:18 AM 985 Views
Elaine Pagels ceased to be an impartial academic a long time ago. - 22/09/2012 03:41:41 AM 946 Views
Suspected as much, but wanted to see if you thought so as well - 22/09/2012 03:47:05 AM 1095 Views
Let's not get started on Funk - 22/09/2012 09:48:05 PM 895 Views
So true - 22/09/2012 10:23:08 PM 979 Views
don't these people have anything better to do? - 20/09/2012 11:39:35 PM 981 Views
Clearly not. - 22/09/2012 12:27:29 AM 830 Views
then i'll escape this thread before anyone twigs - 22/09/2012 08:12:37 PM 1061 Views
Too late, I have already twigged, branched and treed. - 22/09/2012 08:58:39 PM 967 Views
I know! - 21/09/2012 06:48:33 AM 1191 Views
See, Tom, you made a mistake. - 22/09/2012 10:25:22 AM 960 Views

Reply to Message