"Jesus loves you more than you will know (whoa, whoa, whoa)"
Jesus was in the news again this week. More specifically, Jesus' wife was in the news again this week. At least the idea that Jesus had a wife was in the news again this week.
We haven't heard much of this talk since The DaVinci Code was published in 2003 and made into a movie in 2006. The premise of the book, written by Dan Brown, is that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were husband and wife, had children, and that any one of us just might be their descendants and have the royal blood of the Christ in our veins. But after hearing about the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Mary, both non-canonical works that appear to support the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were more than just friends, here we are again: reading, wondering, and discussing the notion that Jesus the Christ was married.
Earlier this week, Dr. Karen L. King, the Hollis Chair of Divinity and Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard (yes, that "Harvard"), published a paper that will be featured in an upcoming issue of the Harvard Theological Review (January, 2013). The topic of the paper, even the very name of it, has sent shock waves across the field of Biblical Studies. It is entitled, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'": A New Coptic Gospel Papyrus."
(I would encourage you to read the read the entire article at http://hvrd.me/Tb2Hy8. I did and found it extremely fascinating. Since I am not fluent in Coptic--who is?!--it was tough to follow in places, but I got the overall tone of the article.)
As pictured in the photo above, the article details the text of a 4th century AD fragment of papyrus that is about 1-1/2" x 3" and written in ancient Coptic, a language that is mixture of Egyptian and Greek script that appeared in Egypt in the 2nd century AD and was used until the 17th century AD. It is only a fragment of a larger piece of papyrus, but the fragment is torn and/or worn away on all four sides. It only has portions of 7 lines, and even these lines are incomplete. Most of the attention has been focused on the fourth line, which translated into English reads, "...Jesus said to them 'My wife...'" The key phrase are the two Coptic words tahximay mai, or "my wife."
There it is. Finally. Written proof that Jesus had a wife.
A few thoughts about this new treatment of an old idea...
First, as several scholars have already done, I would caution Dr. King on her methodology. Early in the paper, in describing the origin of the fragment, she admits that "nothing is known about the circumstances of its discovery" (p. 2). She also writes that the owner of the papyrus wishes to remain anonymous (footnote 3). The paper further admits that Dr. King is "neither a papyrologist nor a Coptic linguist," and "sought expert
advice regarding the authenticity and date of the fragment" (p. 3). The paper gives a word of appreciation to three of these experts, "Roger Bagnall, Ariel Shisha-Halevy, and the third
reviewer whose identity remains unknown to us" (p. 5). This nameless, third reviewer was contacted by Ariel Shisha-Halevy, Professor of Linguistics at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is referred to as an expert in Coptic linguistics, and is quoted in an email as concluding, "I believe—on the basis of language and grammar—the text is authentic" (p. 4).
Okay. Reality check. We do not know how, where, when, or by whom this document was found. We are not told who presently owns it or how he/she came to possess it. We are told this (or not told this) by someone who, on her own, cannot date the papyrus or even read what is on it, and we are only given the names of two of the three experts that were contacted. Why are we not given the name of this mysterious Coptic linguist who guarantees its authenticity? How are scholars to question the authenticity of this fragment if we are not provided many of the most important details about it? Harvard University does not have to consult with me before it publishes its journal, but in my opinion, there are a few holes in the research that need to be filled in first.
On the other hand, I applaud Dr. King for her conclusions. These, unfortunately, are going to be lost among the blah-blah-blahing about Jesus having a wife. This is NOT what the media and Internet are going to focus upon, although they should. It might get a slight mention, but it deserves more than that. Near the end of the paper, she writes:
"In our opinion, the late date of the Coptic papyrus (c. fourth century), and even of the
possible date of composition in the second half of the second century, argues against its
value as evidence for the life of the historical Jesus. The earliest and most historically
reliable Christian literature is utterly silent on the issue, making the question impossible
to answer one way or the other." (p. 47)
She wrote that the 4th century AD date of the papyrus argues "against its value as evidence for the life of the historical Jesus" (emphasis mine). Against its value. Yes, that is, against its value. Even she realizes that this does NOT "prove" that Jesus was married, only that someone writing at least 150 years after Jesus' death considered him to be. She concludes that the fragment says more about attitudes toward sex and marriage in the 2nd-4th century AD than it does Jesus being married.
And what if Jesus HAD been married? What is the big deal? How would being married have diminished his divine nature? Is marriage sinful? Is sexual activity within marriage sinful? If anything, Scripture defends the sanctity of marriage and the beauty of the sexual union within its confines. Granted, if Jesus had been married, he might have been tempted into sinful behavior even more than he was (things like petty arguments with the Mrs., the implementation of the "silent treatment," slothful refusal of the "honey-do" list, and a hundred other possibilities). Yet Hebrews 4:15 reminds us that he was tempted in all ways as we are, yet was without sin. Marriage does not equal sinfulness.
Dr. King is also right when she concludes, "Although the
earliest witnesses are silent about whether Jesus married or not, that silence has proven
pregnant with possibility for other voices to enter in and fill up its empty void with
imagination—and controversy" (p. 51). In other words, in those places where the Bible is silent or vague, there is never a shortage of theories to fill in the gaps. This is abundantly clear in the discussion whether or not Jesus was married.
One more thing: those "earliest witnesses" to which Dr. King refers? Those would be the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were written at least 100-200 years before this little scrap of papyrus, and they do not say a word about Jesus being married. Until there is a document that is discovered that is comparable to their length, clarity, and antiquity, I am going to continue to believe that Jesus was, indeed, not married. As of yet, there is no viable proof to convince me otherwise.
