Stop the presses! Jesus was married! Oh no!

The Da Vinci Code may have come and gone, but the same dubious "scholarship", breathless "gotcha!" tactics, and general, sloppy silliness lives on—in the New York Times:

A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …'”

The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at an international meeting of Coptic scholars by the historian Karen L. King, who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity.

Let's be clear: I don't have a problem with a news story about this fourth-century scrap of gnostic text that has little or nothing to do with the historical Jesus described in the four Gospels and testified to by first-century Christian witnesses. I do have a problem with how the story is presented, as it is simply misleading. First, the headline: "...Refers to Jesus' Wife". Sure, it may refer to "Jesus' wife", but that is akin to me writing a note with reference to George Washington's harem or mention of Thomas Jefferson's homosexual lover. Saying it doesn't make it so, especially many decades, or even centuries, after the fact.

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

Comments

[Charles E Flynn]

If Jesus were married, then being a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:10-12) would be something in someone else's vocation description, but not Jesus'.

Chastity for the Sake of the Kingdom, General Audience, November 16, 1994.

[coach]

Story would have been much different if it was some Roman or Pharisee confirming miracles. Press would have never given it the light of day. But some obscure writing by people that were not his disciples, must be true! Dumb, but we are asleep so what does it matter. Awake oh sleeper the fields are ripe with harvest.

[Ed Peters]

Notwithstanding the highly shrouded provenance of the document, it is, as you say, an interesting story. What gets me, tho, is how, after 20 decades of experience with such things, so many folks still swallow pseudo-news about ancient forgeries as if the assertions made in such docs were actually true. The longevity of lies is truly amazing.

[Ed Peters]

CEF: Ka-ching!

[Charles E Flynn]

Dr. Peters,

Thank you. Coming from you, "Ka-ching!" is a most melodious sound.

[David K. Monroe]

I've read 3 or 4 different versions of this story, and none of them have the rest of the verse that is quoted as, "Jesus said, 'my wife...'" So, does it just cut off there or what?

Not that it detracts from the essential silliness of a fourth century fragment of a second century Gnostic "gospel" being poised to bring all Christianity tumbling down in ruins, but it would be nice to know what the context for the statement is.

[Peter L]

I agree with David,it is strange that only a credit card sized piece of papyrus has been offered for viewing and this piece happened to contain such earth shattering words.Where is the rest of it and why has it been hidden so long.?I think we all know the answer to that.

If you look at the piece,it is quite clear to me anyway,it has been "cut" out of a bigger piece,parchment would not separate so cleanly into a near perfect "card" sized piece on it's own.If it is an ancient text and not a sophisticated forgery,there have been plenty of those,the owner of the papyrus didn't want the rest of it to be viewed for obvious reasons.