Atlantic: The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife

Atlantic reporter digs into the provenance of the "Jesus' Wife" fragment, and, well, beside absolutely demolishing it, is a fantastic, fantastic read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-tale-of-jes...

The most telling, and sad, part is as follows:

But King wasn’t interested in talking. “I haven’t engaged the provenance questions at all,” she said. What she did know, she’d already reported in her 2014 Harvard Theological Review article. “It’s all out there,” she said. “I don’t see the point of a conversation.” I told her I’d spent months reporting in Germany and the United States. Didn’t she want to know what I’d found? “Not particularly,” she said. She would read my piece once it was published. What interested her more were the results of new ink tests being done at Columbia.

Atlantic: Karen King Responds to ‘The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife’
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/karen-king-responds-to-the-u...

She concedes it is "probably a forgery." Also:

Although she had exchanged numerous emails with the owner and had met him in December 2011, she realized after reading the article that she knew next to nothing about him, she said. Walter Fritz had never mentioned his years at the Free University’s Egyptology institute, his formal study of Coptic, or his work as a pornographer whose star actress was his own wife—a woman who’d written a book of “universal truths” and claimed to channel the voices of angels. He had presented himself to her as a “family man” who enjoyed trips to Disney World and was independently wealthy.

“I had no idea about this guy, obviously,” she said. “He lied to me.”

I asked why she hadn’t undertaken an investigation of the papyrus’s origins and the owner’s background. “Your article has helped me see that provenance can be investigated,” she said.

As someone on Twitter said "'Your article has helped me see that provenance can be investigated.' A Harvard professor said that."

>1 timspalding: ...is a fantastic, fantastic read.

Yeah, that was fun.

You can feel the reporter thinking "holy shit, this is GREAT!" It could have been SO much more boring. It's cinematic. Indeed, I hope they make a movie of it.

^

It's extremely doubtful that Jesus was married since there was no legal gay marriage 2K years ago in Palestine. lol.

https://davidgmcafee.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/the-forgotten-gospels-of-the-bible...

Ah yes, not forged at all, that one!

The Secret Gospel of Mark is cute; it was made by a better forger than this Coptic text, but one who didn't bother trying as much for provenance. His story is pretty undisprovable.

If Jesus didn't really walk on water then the bible itself is a forgery - or at least that story is a forgery - calling the entire narrative of the alleged life of Jesus into question.

The same situation holds regarding Jesus changing the water into wine, driving demons from a guy's head into some pigs, healing a blind man with mud made from spittle/dirt, replacing Peter's ear, raising Lazarus from the dead, coming back from the dead himself, and various and sundry other magical activities reported during the last three years of his reported life. - No reports on whether he was a magician during the first 30 years of his life, though (except for the prior sex-free birth, that is.)

But, for many curious christian minds, whether Jesus was married or not or gay or whatever - those facts need to be documented, i.e., as being from "reliable" sources?

lol.

>9 prosfilaes: Yes, that's a good point. King seems to be rather naive. Still, while whatshisname is very sketchy, it's good to remember that the fragment hasn't actually been proven to be fraudulent yet.

>11 librorumamans:

It had already been showed to be so beyond any reasonable standard before these new revelations. The replication of typos and linebreaks from modern online coptic versions of the Gospel of Thomas is fairly conclusive.

Nothing is ever completely certain in these matters, but the collection of evidence on offer here is very strong.

Jesus's wife papyrus probably fake, say experts (Guardian)

If Jesus didn't really walk on water then the bible itself is a forgery - or at least that story is a forgery - calling the entire narrative of the alleged life of Jesus into question.

The same situation holds regarding Jesus changing the water into wine, driving demons from a guy's head into some pigs, healing a blind man with mud made from spittle/dirt, replacing Peter's ear, raising Lazarus from the dead, coming back from the dead himself, and various and sundry other magical activities reported during the last three years of his reported life.

I don't have much - any - truck with those stories either, but I'd debate the use of the word "forgery"? I think there's a massive difference between "untrue" and "forged" - the former is self-explanatory, while the latter implies someone produced a document meant to masquerade as a real document produced elsewhere elsewhen by a different source.

There could be several suggestions about those (to me, obviously fictional) stories:
1. the stories were invented to establish a mythology around Jesus (which has actually come about)
2. they are exaggerated versions of half-told half-believed oral tales that began to spread - unwritten - after Jesus's death
3. they are parables never meant to be taken literally, whose real meaning has now been lost as the "context" is now missing
4. those stories themselves are later insertions by 'interested parties' (why? we'll never know for certain, but see 1.)

So while I share your absolute disbelief in the literal truth of those stories, I don't think their existence proves anything one way or another about the pot-pourri of history, genealogy, poetry, mythology, proverbs, spirituality, religious exposition, that the bible is.

> 14

Point taken - or, rather, points taken. You know what's going on. And I also. So, that's two of us. In a world of 7.4 billion people, how actually numerous IS our cohort? LOL.

- - My basic focus is and has always been the critique of those mentalities who accept any ontological claim whatsoever if 1. some respected authority or authorities all just vouches for it and 2. the claim seems to give them what they want, e.g., eternal life, a meaningful earthly life, a view of themselves as "special", assuage from mental anguish, ultimate revenge against "the other", etc.

And let's not sugar-coat the truth, as johnthefireman and many other nominal christians do. If not most christians in the world then some truly sizable plurality of them are believers - literally - in most if not every "miraculous" event described in the bible. This majority/plurality believe events like the miracle of jesus's bodily resurrection from the dead and the miracle of his "ascension" into heaven were historical events, similar to any historical event documented in any run-of-the-mill history book used to teach children in school. They believe such miracles should be included in any world history book used in our secular schools. Truth is truth, is it not? LOL.

Historically a VAST majority of christians were literalists. Only in recent centuries has so-called liberal, modern, higher criticism christianity even existed in noticeable amounts - and "mystics" are so rare they hold no real influence in world society, practically at all. Liberals and mystics are marginal to the body politic and most people think such people are fools at best and satan's knowing agents at worse.

Many liberals (read progressive thinking "christians") are just head-in-the-clouds ivory tower academic types who are ultimately not listened to by anyone other than by each other. LOL.

That is all I am pointing out. Am I wrong? Well, OK - let us all hear of the various studies that demonstrate the fact that I am wrong. I will not hold my breath in the meantime. LOL.

>15 JGL53: And let's not sugar-coat the truth, as johnthefireman and many other nominal christians do

Ah, it's so nice to be remembered. Which truth are we talking about? The truths contained within Christianity (which are not necessarily literal or scientific truths), or the truth that many people (a sizable plurality?) have differing understandings of those truths?

I'm a little surprised to see myself described as a "nominal christian". Does that mean I don't fit your particular stereotype of what a Christian should be, or that my understanding of Christian truths may not fit the popular "sizable plurality"?

Historically a VAST majority of christians were literalists

That sweeping statement would certainly need unpacking. St Augustine clearly demonstrated a less than literal approach to Genesis (if Nathaniel were still posting he could give you the references). Many of our ancestors seemed more at home with different classes of truth than modern society does. It's more likely that the strict literalism came in with modern protestantism.

> 16

A whole lot of misdirection and obfuscation there to work with, as usual, so let's give john his credit due. If this were dodge ball rather than intellectual debate then john would be The Man.

My point was that the majority/a sizeable plurality of christians have a certain understanding of what is meant by christian "truth" and that their view is the politically-important one. What some minority of christians think is of little matter. So what if on some higher plane it will be seen that they were right all along? So what if the jehovah witnesses or the mormons have got it 100 per cent right and it all will be revealed one day? They both seem next to insane now - to atheists and to most christians and most others - and that is what matters NOW.

Anyone can define christianity as they see fit and apply the label to themselves and deny it to those with different views. But some liberals seem to think that the whole of christianity is the golden rule. It makes me wonder what the purpose of the label 'christian' is supposed to imply. They should just call themselves the Religion of the Golden Rule and avoid all appearance of sectarianism.

But a huge plurality if not most christians ARE sectarians - big time. They spit on the "social gospel" as being anything other than a minor add-on to "real" or robust christianity. By their definition john is not a christian. By his definition he is. Whatever.

By john's definition all of us - with the possible exception of criminals and psychopaths - are christians. The word thus becomes practically meaningless - just as literalist christians charge - the one thing I agree with them on.

john paints a picture of a time prior to modern days when most if not all christians were hip cats and rather sophisticated in understanding of the claims of religion.

Bull feathers.

Most christians five hundred years ago - or a thousand years ago - or fifteen hundred years ago - were ignorant illiterate peasants and serfs - not only the opposite of sophisticated but superstitious on average as your average hunter/gatherer tribesman in South America, the Caribbean, Africa, or Asia who is completely isolated from any advanced civilization or society.

1. Some christians take christianity seriously - it is the one or unique path to god, understanding who god is, and what we must do to please god. They believe John 3:16 is literally true and not just poetic expression.

2. Some christians do not take christianity seriously - they do not believe accepting the shedding of god's son's blood as literally necessary for salvation - making the train to heaven at death rather than the other (bad) train.

john refuses to accept that the 1. christians are the overwhelming majority and they are the ones who matter on the world stage. Either they will win - OR the rest of us will prevent their dream of a christian theocracy.

john thinks most christians are 2. christians - wouldn't harm a fly, great people, the type you would love to invite to your backyard bar-b-que or private cocktail party.

Maybe he is right. But I remain unconvinced - by the evidence I am familiar with.

>17 JGL53: My point was that the majority/a sizeable plurality of christians have a certain understanding of what is meant by christian "truth" and that their view is the politically-important one. What some minority of christians think is of little matter

Well, perhaps that's where we diverge. I think everybody's opinion matters, whether they are a majority or a minority.

Anyone can define christianity as they see fit and apply the label to themselves and deny it to those with different views. But some liberals seem to think that the whole of christianity is the golden rule. It makes me wonder what the purpose of the label 'christian' is supposed to imply

Labels are not very important to me, are usually misleading and incomplete, and, as you say, are often used simply to deny a voice to others. Note I have never claimed that my understanding of Christianity is the only one, but I do reject the notion that it is "nominal".

By john's definition all of us - with the possible exception of criminals and psychopaths - are christians. The word thus becomes practically meaningless

Well, no. I don't think you are a Christian, because as far as I understand it you do not claim it, but in any case you do not view reality through the lens of the Christian narrative. You may live your life very similarly to many Christians, and you may actually hold many of the same values, which is fine, but you don't do it as part of the Christian narrative.

john paints a picture of a time prior to modern days when most if not all christians were hip cats and rather sophisticated in understanding of the claims of religion

No I don't. But literalism only became a meaningful possibility in the last couple of hundred years in the post-enlightenment scientific era, so it would be difficult to accuse one of your "ignorant illiterate peasants and serfs" of literalism since they had no other narrative. It was only once one had a scientific narrative by which to measure it that one could usefully use the term "literalist". So someone from a pre-scientific society who believed literally in the biblical account of creation was not a literalist in the modern sense as she had no other account as an alternative. Incidentally St Augustine was from such a pre-scientific society and he said very clearly that it would be foolish to believe literally in Genesis when common sense proved it to be wrong.

1. Some christians take christianity seriously... 2. Some christians do not take christianity seriously

You set up a false dichotomy. I won't say all Christians take Christianity seriously as I'm sure there are some who don't, but within the Christians who take Christanity seriously there are many different and legitimate interpretations.

john refuses to accept that the 1. christians are the overwhelming majority and they are the ones who matter on the world stage

I don't explicitly refuse. They are probably a majority in the USA. Maybe they are in the world. They are also certainly very visible and vocal.

But you'd need to explain what you mean by "matter". Do only the powerful, visible and vocal "matter"? Are they the only ones who are movers and shakers? Have we never seen marginalised viewpoints prevail aganist entrenched majorities? Have there not been individuals and movements which have been catalysts for society-wide change? To use a biblical theme, the small seed that grows into a great tree...

But I am not necessarily challenging your political view. If you want to see it through the lens of power politics, fine - I have no great interest in that. You might be right. But when you define Christianity by your perceptions of power and majorities, and define those Christians who don't fit your definition as "nominal", you will certainly get some clarification from Christians explaining that there is more to it than power and politics, and that Christianity is a much broader Church than you appear to acknowledge, even if not all the strands within it are equally powerful in political or numerical terms.

Either they will win - OR the rest of us will prevent their dream of a christian theocracy.

I spend much of my professional life as a peacebuilder trying to change the attitude that everything must be a zero-sum win-lose dynamic, and that finding a win-win scenario is usually a better option. That's as true within Christianity as it is anywhere else. But for the record, many Christians are also working hard to dissuade those who think that a Christian theocracy is the solution to anything. You might be better off trying to forge alliances with those Christians who agree with you on the theocracy issue rather than dismissing them.

I remain unconvinced - by the evidence I am familiar with

That's your prerogative. Of course it's very subjective - the evidence you are familiar with. I am familiar with a different set of evidence. Somewhere (was it this thread or one of the other tedious clones?) I gave you at your request a small list of legitimate (not "nominal") Christian authors from ancient to modern who present some of the strands of Christian understanding which do not match the literalism onto which you have latched. I may not be part of the "sizable plurality", but I am not alone!

Edited to add: A couple of hours after posting this I read Richard Rohr's meditation for the day. It begins:

What some now call creation spirituality, deep salvation, or the holistic Gospel, was voiced long ago by some Eastern fathers, in the spirituality of the ancient Celts, by many of the Rhineland mystics, and surely by Francis of Assisi. Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179) communicated creation spirituality through music, art, poetry, medicine, gardening, and reflections on nature. She wrote in her famous book, Scivias: "You understand so little of what is around you because you do not use what is within you." This is key to understanding Hildegard and is very similar to Teresa of Ávila's understanding of the soul.

Now there's a collection of non-literalist Christian thinkers across time and space!

Historically a VAST majority of christians were literalists. Only in recent centuries has so-called liberal, modern, higher criticism christianity even existed in noticeable amounts - and "mystics" are so rare they hold no real influence in world society, practically at all. Liberals and mystics are marginal to the body politic and most people think such people are fools at best and satan's knowing agents at worse

I think John's reply to this is interesting and pertinent - that in a pre-scientific, pre-Enlightenment era, people were 'literalists by default' as they had no other world view or platform to stand on. I believe your "most people think" statement clearly does apply in the US, but in a far more secular Europe there seems to be much more room for liberals, and fundamentalism is not the norm. Besides, I think - from what I see happening on the world stage - that Islam is the 'coming force' and that Christianity is probably already in second place of the Abrahamic faiths (I'm afraid I don't have figures to back that up, it's just an intuition).

John's quote is interesting:

"What some now call creation spirituality, deep salvation, or the holistic Gospel, was voiced long ago by some Eastern fathers, in the spirituality of the ancient Celts, by many of the Rhineland mystics, and surely by Francis of Assisi. Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179) communicated creation spirituality through music, art, poetry, medicine, gardening, and reflections on nature. She wrote in her famous book, Scivias: "You understand so little of what is around you because you do not use what is within you." This is key to understanding Hildegard and is very similar to Teresa of Ávila's understanding of the soul."

I do think this is something that has been swept under the carpet by fundamentalists who are actually a modern phenomenon, only existing by that name since WW1. Since 'literalism' wasn't a cogent and defined position within Christianity until post-Enlightenment times, there was perhaps more room for mystics to live and breathe and find means of expression in medieval times. I do accept - as JGL says - that they are rare and have little impact on the body politic, but considering their rarity, they do seem to have an influence - albeit comparatively minor - out of all proportion to their numbers.

Historically a VAST majority of christians were literalists.

This sort of ignorance deserves no better than

> 18 and 19

1. Literalist by default = literalist. IOW, I did not specify WHY someone may or may not be a literalist, just that one WAS or WASNT. Nearly all self-identified christians WERE literalists, up until the last couple hundred years or so.

Why is this fact so hard for some to grok?

The point is that most people got the message wrong for nearly two thousand years. How the fuck did that happen? And it matters not? Really? It does not mean crap to god, thus it should not mean crap to modern humans? Really?

2. By something "matters" I would have thought it obvious what I meant - matter in the political and cultural arenas. Surely each of us believe our individual convictions matter. That is not the question. If millions of parents assure their children that hell awaits all the unsaved, then that does not matter? I think parents - by the millions - fucking with their - millions of - children's minds DOES matter.

Again, are certain people just indulging in disingenuous obfuscation or is there really some difficulty in groking the obvious?

3. No one here has ever averred that there is only one true interpretation of the meaning of christianity but just that majorities tend to influence everyone's lives and the minority view is just an also-ran - in the culture and in the form of government and what powers be or not be. That is all I have said.

Why is it difficult to understand what I am saying? Why must words be put in my mouth - and for what motivation? Why must the clear meaning of my statements here be restated in such a distorted form I myself can't even recognize what your point is - other than to obfuscate and make it appear you "win the debate"?

But what is the debate here? Is it the commitment to an objective a search as is possible for the truth of the matters which are of human concern - or is it to defend some manner of speaking which makes you feel the most comfortable in a confusing world?

So then - christianity is this great big confusing ball of wax - just like any other great big confusing ball of wax - and many will get it wrong but then many will get it right. We all just do the best we can and hope for the best? christianity is just one among many philosophies that one can get wrong or right, comes in umpteen different flavors but it is all good - at least for those who are, at a minimum, "sincere"?

Seems to me jesus and god and the top ghost could have come up with something completely understandable to offer to the human race (the trinity being all-knowing and all) but they didn't? christians are at loggerheads to the same degree as any other group, Buddhists, muslims, atheists, etc., etc.

Why is that? Why are there twelve different interpretations of each verse of the bible, seemingly? What, god is too stupid to figure out a sure fire way to get the correct message to each human? WTF is wrong with omniscience that it falls down on the job so mightily hard?

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. It is utterly the fault of HUMANS. god did his (her, its) part but WE fell down.

Gee - the "omniscient" godhead obviously saw all this coming down the road and could have canceled it out. But they/he/it didn't. So here we are. Fighting over the truth. god's truth. Which he/it so PLAINLY laid out for anyone to completely grok. It is all OUR fault. Whoa is us who figure wrong. Wrong will be forever. god is blameless because he created humans with free will and we fucked everything up. It is all the fault of free will. god is as innocent as a new born lamb. You and ME and all other humans will either get it right or fucking go to hell.

Wow. Not much pressure there. (Assuming someone is warped enough to take it all seriously. LOL)

In a nutshell religion isn't about sense, common or otherwise - it's about feelings - like it is with, you know, the other species of apes.

Do you all feel the power, brothers and sisters? You know, the power of the holy spirit working in your pumpkin heads?

Well, good. All is well.

> 20

1. That young lady is smarter than you.

2. She wouldn't fuck you in a millions years.

LOL.

Like >14 Tid: , I give no credit to the facticity of Bible narratives--miraculous ones especially, but even "historical" ones.

However, >16 John5918: has an important point, although JGL53's pro-wrestling approach doesn't leave much room to appreciate it. The fact is, that among actual readers of the Bible (leaving to the side the presumed credulously-illiterate masses), the so-called "literalist" (which I suppose means both inerrantist and stubbornly exoteric*) is historically marginal, and doesn't achieve full cultural standing and social organization until the Reformation. Exegetical authority transmitted through sacerdotal tradition was replaced by an every-reader-for-himself sola scriptura approach, creating a massive opening for a marriage of basic textual competence to anti-intellectual ideology. The evangelical possibilities of this development were neither incidental nor trivial.

This phenomenon in Christianity is, sadly, paralleled (or perhaps followed) in Islam, where the Wahhabi orientation serves as a paragon.

E.T.A.
*I.e. "the book can't be wrong, and it interprets itself in the same obvious way for everyone."

> 23

Read my post # 21 - VERY SLOWLY.

You should be able to discern that your above post contains examples that verify nearly every one of my points.

So I suppose I should thank you for your positive illustration and illumination of the issues.

So - Thanks.

>21 JGL53: the obvious

What is obvious to you is obviously not obvious to everybody, which obviously doesn't automatically make one right and the other wrong. Let's celebrate the wonderful and obvious diversity of the human race.

> 25

It was obvious to Adolph Hitler that Jews are evil and must be destroyed as a race before the Aryan race can achieve its true and inevitable destiny, as prescribed by Providence.

Yes, such was obvious to Hitler. Millions agreed with him. But such is far from obvious to me. And millions agree with me.

So what is obvious to one is not necessarily to another. Yes.

Another genius insight on your part, john - your logic is impeccable - thank you for sharing.

You are a true gentleman and a scholar, john. Obviously. Let us celebrate the wonderful diversity of the human race.

>26 JGL53:

Why thank you, kind sir. It's nice to know that we are now in agreement.

>18 John5918: It was only once one had a scientific narrative by which to measure it that one could usefully use the term "literalist". So someone from a pre-scientific society who believed literally in the biblical account of creation was not a literalist in the modern sense as she had no other account as an alternative.

In fact "scientific" might not even be a meaningful opposite to "literalist" since it would imply that a rational (ei, not superstitious) outlook on life would be impossible before the scientific revolution, and that is clearly not the case. People were perfectly capable of being rational before the Age of Enlightenment made it fashionable. In fact, I would bet they were more inclined to be rational than not, which suggests that whatever their relationship to the religious beliefs they held, they were not naive or un-considered. There's plenty of evidence of people participating in what might be called "an intellectual life" for as long as there have been, well, people.

A propos to this question, I ran into the author of Paradise Lust over the weekend. Her book, inspired by her discovery of an obsession of her scientist father, is a collection of accounts of people who have all tried to find the physical location of The Garden of Eden. But what's interesting about it is that the book isn't filled with a lot of Bible-quoting fundamentalists searching for a promised land. It is peopled with scientists, engineers, businessmen, archaeologists and amateur archaeologists. In fact, most of the impetus for these people seems to be not some kind of religious fervor, but a, well, scientifically based faith that every myth contains a seed of truth. Like the man who was convinced Troy was a real place, and searched until he found it, these people were all convinced that Eden was a real place on the real earth that could be found. It doesn't get much more "literal" than that. Obviously our ideas of what is "rational" and what is not don't fit easily into the "science" and "religion" boxes.

Here's a review:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/books/review/paradise-lust-by-brook-wilensky-l...

scientifically based faith that every myth contains a seed of truth.

I'm sure for some this would be an article of faith, but it is by no means true generally. A reasonable supposition, maybe; "faith", no.

>29 LolaWalser: It was a common factor among the people who go searching for things like the physical location of the Garden of Eden, is what I was trying to say. I wasn't stating it as a general truth.

>30 southernbooklady:

Well, yeah, that's why they are crackpots, no matter how "rational".

>28 southernbooklady:

In fact "scientific" might not even be a meaningful opposite to "literalist" since it would imply that a rational (ei, not superstitious) outlook on life would be impossible before the scientific revolution, and that is clearly not the case. People were perfectly capable of being rational before the Age of Enlightenment made it fashionable. In fact, I would bet they were more inclined to be rational than not, which suggests that whatever their relationship to the religious beliefs they held, they were not naive or un-considered. There's plenty of evidence of people participating in what might be called "an intellectual life" for as long as there have been, well, people.

I'd cite the Ancient Greeks who, despite believing in a rather weird pantheon of semi-human semi-divine gods and goddesses, developed a rudimentary science based on the powers of observation and measurement, taking in medicine, plant and animal classifications, logic, astronomy and earth science (including the first attempts to calculate the diameter of the planet, and hypothesising the atom), liquids and gases, political theory, architecture, and probably quite a lot else besides. It seems that Ages of Enlightenment come round at irregular intervals, with darker periods of superstition and blind faith intervening - which, as you say, did not preclude the ability of some individuals to be rational and intellectual during them (for those I'd cite the period of cathedral building in 12th Century Europe - yes, the entire project was done for religious reasons, but the science required including architecture, masonry, and structural engineering must have been truly astonishing.)

>28 southernbooklady:, >32 Tid:

Yes. I've now found some of St Augustine's writings which I mentioned above, which show clearly that he did not hold to a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth, and I think it fits with what you are both saying:

But if I make such a statement, I fear I shall be laughed at both by those who have scientific knowledge of these matters and by those who can easily recognize the facts of the case... Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters {of faith}, when they think their pages are full of falsehood on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions...

See http://www.librarything.com/topic/142726#3616484

>33 John5918:

It seems rather strange (to me) that a man who could make an enlightened statement like that, should also in his lifetime have formulated the entire "original sin" doctrine.

>33 John5918:

I think Augustine had been heavily influenced by the dualism of his previous Manichaeism, and unfortunately he brought that into Christianity with him.

>34 Tid:, >35 John5918:

That's a mystery that Pagels does a good job of exploring in Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, the best book of hers I've read.

>36 paradoxosalpha:

Thanks for that. I'm not any kind of Christian these days, but find their early history endlessly fascinating. It's only about 10 years or so since I learned that a group of early Christians made it as far as China, where their theology was penetrated by Buddhist and Taoist concepts. Then the route East was closed (in Persia?) before the time of Augustine - as a result, that branch of the Christian church had no concept of original sin, but rather 'original goodness', from the few writings discovered.