Cyril Malka skrev:
> (25/04-2008) - Filmdirektør Paul Verhoeven har lige skrevet en bog, der
> modsiger det, der står i de græske skrifter om, at Jesus skulle være
> født af en jomfru. Han foreslår, at Jesus er blevet til, efter at en
> soldat har voldtaget Maria ... Læs resten her:
> <
http://www.nytestamente.org/tekst/Paul_Verhoeven:_Jesus_var_et_u%E6gte_b
> arn>
Der findes ingen evidens, der understøtter en sådan
udlægning. Bart Ehrman, der selv er ateist, har i
forbindelse med filmen 'The Da Vinci' code skrevet
en artikel, der beskriver forholdene omkring Jesus'
tid, de forhold, der sandsynligvis får Paul Verhoeven
til at drage de konklusioner, han åbenbart gør.
Jeg har fået lov til at gengive artiklen her og
selv om fokus ikke lige netop er det samme, synes
jeg, det giver en god baggrund.
--------------
http://www.religionfacts.com/da_vinci_code/jesus_married.htm
Arguments Against Jesus as Married
In Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, Bart Ehrman
(a professor of early Christian history) writes:
...it is wrong to say that when the Gospel of Philip
calls Mary Jesus' "companion" that the Aramaic word means
"spouse." For one thing, the word that is used is not
Aramaic. The Gospel of Philip is in Coptic. And even
though the word used there for "companion" is actually
a loan word from another language, the language, again
is not Aramaic but Greek. In other words, Aramaic has
nothing to do with the saying. And to cap it all off,
the Greek word that is used (koinonos) in fact means not
"spouse" (or "lover") but "companion" (it is commonly
used of friends and associates). (p. 143)
It is true that there have occasionally been historical
scholars (as opposed to novelists or "independent
researchers") who have claimed that is likely that Jesus
was married. But the vast majority of scholars of the
New Testament and early Christianity have reached just
the opposite conclusion. This is for a variety of
compelling reasons.
Most significant is a fact that cannot be overlooked or
underestimated: in none of our early Christian sources
is there any reference to Jesus' marriage or to his wife....
List every ancient source we have for the historical Jesus,
and in none of them is there mention of Jesus being married.
And just think of all the occasions each of the authors of
these books would have had to mention Jesus' marriage or
his wife, had he been married.
Jesus' mother is mentioned in these books, as are his
"father" (Joseph), brothers, and sisters. Why would his
wife never be mentioned? ...
And in one passage there is a reference to the wives of
the apostles and to the wives of Jesus' earthly brothers
(1 Cor. 9:5). Why not to the wife of Jesus? More
specifically with reference to Mary Magdalene, if Jesus
was actually married to her, why would there be no reference
to it? (pp. 153-54)
But if in fact Jesus was not married, how can we explain
that he was not? Is Robert Langdon right to say that
Jewish men were expected to be married and that celibacy
was "condemned"? Unfortunately, this again is simply part
of the narrative fiction of The Da Vinci Code; it has no
basis in historical reality (or, perhaps, is based on a
tendentious reading of much later Jewish sources). For
we do know of Jewish men from the time and place of Jesus
who were single, and it is quite clear that they were not
"condemned" for it. And what is striking is that this tradition
of remaining single and celibate can be found in precisely the
same ideological circles as Jesus himself, among Jewish
apocalypticists of the first century who expected that the
world they lived in soon was to come to a crashing
halt when God intervened in history in order to overthrow
the forces of evil and bring in his good kingdom.
We know about one group of Jewish apocalypticists in particular
from this time and place, as we have already seen. This is
the group of Essenes who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. As it
turns out, according to ancient records of these Essenes, they
were predominantly single, celibate men. This is the testimony
of Jewish sources from the time, such as the first-century
philosopher Philo, who indicates that "no Essene takes a wife,"
and the historian Josepheus, who indicates that the Essenes
shunned marriage...
Scholars today do not think that Jesus himself was an Essene.
But he did have a strikingly similar apocalyptic worldview.
That he too would have been unmarried is therefore far from
surprising. (pp. 155-56)
In view of Jesus' apocalyptic message, then, it is not at
all surprising that he remained unmarried and celibate.
That was explicitly the stand taken by the apocalyptically
minded Essenes in his own day, and by his apocalyptically
minded follower Paul after his death. Given the fact that
there is no record at all of Jesus' being married, let alone
being married to Mary Magdalene, it seems reasonably clear
that Jesus the apocalypticist remained single. (p. 158)
....it is wrong to say that when the Gospel of Philip calls
Mary Jesus' "companion" that the Aramaic word means "spouse."
For one thing, the word that is used is not Aramaic. The
Gospel of Philip is in Coptic.
And even though the word used there for "companion" is
actually a loan word from another language, the language,
again is not Aramaic but Greek. In other words, Aramaic
has nothing to do with the saying.
And to cap it all off, the Greek word that is used (koinonos)
in fact means not "spouse" (or "lover") but "companion" (it
is commonly used of friends and associates). (p. 143)
It is true that there have occasionally been historical scholars
(as opposed to novelists or "independent researchers") who have
claimed that is likely that Jesus was married. But the vast
majority of scholars of the New Testament and early Christianity
have reached just the opposite conclusion. This is for a variety
of compelling reasons.
Most significant is a fact that cannot be overlooked or
underestimated: in none of our early Christian sources is there
any reference to Jesus' marriage or to his wife....
List every ancient source we have for the historical Jesus, and
in none of them is there mention of Jesus being married.
And just think of all the occasions each of the authors of these
books would have had to mention Jesus' marriage or his wife,
had he been married. Jesus' mother is mentioned in these books,
as are his "father" (Joseph), brothers, and sisters.
Why would his wife never be mentioned? ...
And in one passage there is a reference to the wives of the
apostles and to the wives of Jesus' earthly brothers (1 Cor. 9:5).
Why not to the wife of Jesus? More specifically with reference
to Mary Magdalene, if Jesus was actually married to her, why
would there be no reference to it? (pp. 153-54)
But if in fact Jesus was not married, how can we explain that
he was not? Is Robert Langdon right to say that Jewish men were
expected to be married and that celibacy was "condemned"?
Unfortunately, this again is simply partof the narrative fiction
of The Da Vinci Code; it has no basis in historical reality (or,
perhaps, is based on a tendentious reading of much later Jewish
sources).
For we do know of Jewish men from the time and place of Jesus
who were single, and it is quite clear that they were not
"condemned" for it. And what is striking is that this
tradition of remaining single and celibate can be found in
precisely the same ideological circles as Jesus himself,
among Jewish apocalypticists of the first century who expected
that the world they lived in soon was to come to a crashing
halt when God intervened in history in order to overthrow the
forces of evil and bring in his good kingdom.
We know about one group of Jewish apocalypticists in particular
from this time and place, as we have already seen. This is the
group of Essenes who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls.
As it turns out, according to ancient records of these Essenes,
they were predominantly single, celibate men.
This is the testimony of Jewish sources from the time, such
as the first-century philosopher Philo, who indicates that
"no Essene takes a wife," and the historian Josepheus, who
indicates that the Essenes shunned marriage...
Scholars today do not think that Jesus himself was an Essene.
But he did have a strikingly similar apocalyptic worldview.
That he too would have been unmarried is therefore far from
surprising. (pp. 155-56)
In view of Jesus' apocalyptic message, then, it is not at all
surprising that he remained unmarried and celibate. That was
explicitly the stand taken by the apocalyptically minded
Essenes in his own day, and by his apocalyptically minded
follower Paul after his death.
Given the fact that there is no record at all of Jesus'
being married, let alone being married to Mary Magdalene,
it seems reasonably clear that Jesus the apocalypticist
remained single. (p. 158)
In article for Beliefnet entitled "Was Jesus Married?,"
Darrell Bock writes:
We can contrast Jesus to the rest of the apostles, Peter,
and the brothers of the Lord, all of whom are said to
have had wives (1 Corinthians 9:5). This passage shows that
the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders
were married-or to suggest that they had the right to be.
The same would have been true of Jesus, if he had been
married.
It is often suggested that because Jesus was a teacher
and functioned like a rabbi that he would have been married
as well, since that was the Jewish custom. Sometimes it
is noted that the apostles called him 'rabbi' (Mark 11:21).
However, two factors make this argument weak. First, Jesus
was not technically a rabbi, nor did he portray himself as
one. The apostles addressed him as such to say he was their
teacher, not because he held any kind of official Jewish
office.
The Jews asked Jesus 'by what authority' he did certain
things because he did not hold any kind of formal office
within Judaism. He did not have an official position that
would have permitted him to do things like act within the
temple (Mark 11:28).
As far as the Jewish leaders were concerned, Jesus had
no recognized role within Judaism....
So why remain single? What advantage is there to this?
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul elaborated on Jesus' theme about
'eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom.' Paul expressed
his preference that people remain single. Paul explained
that the present time of distress, by which he meant the
difficulty of life until Jesus returns, made being single
better when it came to serving the kingdom.
The married person must worry about the affairs of earth:
how to care for his wife and, by implication, his family.
The unmarried person can serve the Lord without such
distraction (1 Cor. 7:27-35)....
Traditions encouraging a dedicated single life also existed
elsewhere in Judaism. Members of the ascetic Jewish sect
of the Essenes were known for their emphasis on celibacy
(Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.5.21; Jewish War 2.8.2.121-122;
Philo, Hypothetica 11.14-18).
At Qumran, most appear to have been celibate, although a
Dead Sea Scroll about the community suggests some possibility
(1QSa 1:4-10) of marriage, woman, and children in the
messianic times.
For those Essenes at Qumran, the point of remaining single
was also dedication to God.
So Jesus was single. His marital status was one dimension
of his dedication to God. At least, that is how many Jews
would have understood it. As Jesus faced rejection, it
was of benefit that he did not have a wife or children.
These are likely some of the concerns Paul alluded to
in speaking of "worry for earthly things."
Jesus had a singular focus on preaching the kingdom of
God, and his choice to be single underscored that calling.
Bart Ehrman.
------------------
Se også
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Truth-Fiction-Vinci-Code-Constantine/dp/0195181409
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b/202-3338519-2698209?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bart+ehrman&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go
--
Venlig hilsen,
Villy Dalsgaard