The Gospel of Jesus' Wife

[seagal]

The fragment is,said to probably be a copy of an earlier time, probably in the second century. We’ll know more soon. It being mentioned in the Harvard Theological Review sometime this month.That should tell us whether or only it’s a modern forgery, which is doubtful.

There’s no real doubt that the papyrus and the writing on it are ancient, probably 4th century. What’s in question is whether it is an authentic gospel.

 

[seagal]

I guess because I’d been away from the Church for YEARS and came back about 8 years ago. In the years when I was away I was agnostic, atheist, dabbled in New Age, and Protestantism. I want to be sure that what we’re being taught is the truth.

You have the 4 gospels, the epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, and 2000 years of tradition telling you that Jesus didn’t have a wife. On the other side of the scale you have a tiny fragment of a 4th century document with scarcely 2 dozen words, one of which happens to be “wife” with no context whatsoever. I don’t see how both sides of the scale are equally balanced.

 

[smichhertz]

I guess because I’d been away from the Church for YEARS and came back about 8 years ago. In the years when I was away I was agnostic, atheist, dabbled in New Age, and Protestantism. I want to be sure that what we’re being taught is the truth.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying Faith1960 and welcome back to the faith! = )

You’re right to question. If you have areas you aren’t so sure about, coming on this site and posting a question is a great way to gain deeper understanding. You should also pray about it! The Holy Spirit will help guide you in the right direction.

In regards to your specific question. Do you see the irrelevance that this particular document holds? The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife is really just a couple of broken sentences. There’s not really enough context there for us to say anything definitively about it. It can’t be used as evidence for really anything. Does that part make sense?

 

[Faith1960]

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying Faith1960 and welcome back to the faith! = )

You’re right to question. If you have areas you aren’t so sure about, coming on this site and posting a question is a great way to gain deeper understanding. You should also pray about it! The Holy Spirit will help guide you in the right direction.

In regards to your specific question. Do you see the irrelevance that this particular document holds? The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife is really just a couple of broken sentences. There’s not really enough context there for us to say anything definitively about it. It can’t be used as evidence for really anything. Does that part make sense?

Yes, it does, but at the same time it unsettled me.

 

[smichhertz]

Yes, it does, but at the same time it unsettled me.

Pope Francis recommended that we carry a pocket Gospel around with us to read. I think it’s excellent advice and a great way to understand Scripture. Spend some time reading the gospels and gaining a better understanding. I’m sure questions will arise, and feel free to ask them!

Unfortunately, many are not well catechized in the faith and it can be difficult to find good resources to learn more. Try to find a good adult education class that you could attend regularly and bring your questions there. You can also read Straight Answers which is that article series I keep referencing.

Be at peace. Accept the fact that you’re not going to have the answers to everything all at once. Understanding the faith is a lot like understanding science. You can’t just expect to immediately get it all at once. Start with the more pressing questions and seek answers to those. Don’t be troubled if you don’t get an answer right away, keep studying and praying, the answers will come in time!

You’ll be amazed what you can learn when you have humility, patience and obedience.

 

[Faith1960]

Pope Francis recommended that we carry a pocket Gospel around with us to read. I think it’s excellent advice and a great way to understand Scripture. Spend some time reading the gospels and gaining a better understanding. I’m sure questions will arise, and feel free to ask them!

Unfortunately, many are not well catechized in the faith and it can be difficult to find good resources to learn more. Try to find a good adult education class that you could attend regularly and bring your questions there. You can also read Straight Answers which is that article series I keep referencing.

Be at peace. Accept the fact that you’re not going to have the answers to everything all at once. Understanding the faith is a lot like understanding science. You can’t just expect to immediately get it all at once. Start with the more pressing questions and seek answers to those. Don’t be troubled if you don’t get an answer right away, keep studying and praying, the answers will come in time!

You’ll be amazed what you can learn when you have humility, patience and obedience.

Thank you!

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Here’s what is said…

The text, which is cut off at both ends, reads as follows:

1. … not me, my mother gave to me li …
2. The disciples said to Jesus, "…
3. … deny. Mary is worthy of it … (or, alternatively, Mary is not worth of it …)

4) …" Jesus said to them, "My wife …

1. … she will be able to be my disciple …
2. Let wicked people swell up …
3. As for me, I dwell with her in order to …
4. … an image …

This is the line in question? A mere fragment of a sentence with no surrounding context and little more than the words “my wife”?

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that this papyrus is not only sufficiently old but also comes from an authentic orthodox document. What’s left in the papyrus to lead us to believe that this “wife” is an actual human being and not an anthropomorph for the Church or some other non-human entity?

Even assuming that this papyrus is sufficiently old and authentic, I’d think it would be more parsimonious to assume that this “wife” of Jesus is not an actual human wife given that all other contemporaneous accounts of Jesus are not only entirely silent on his being married, but positively identify the Church as his bride.

 

[Faith1960]

This is the line in question? A mere fragment of a sentence with no surrounding context and little more than the words “my wife”?

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that this papyrus is not only sufficiently old but also comes from an authentic orthodox document. What’s left in the papyrus to lead us to believe that this “wife” is an actual human being and not an anthropomorph for the Church or some other non-human entity?

Even assuming that this papyrus is sufficiently old and authentic, I’d think it would be more parsimonious to assume that this “wife” of Jesus is not an actual human wife given that all other contemporaneous accounts of Jesus are not only entirely silent on his being married, but positively identify the Church as his bride.

I’ve read so much about this I can’t remember where I read it or what the reason was but it was but it was most certainly thought to not mean the Church.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I’ve read so much about this I can’t remember where I read or what the reason was but it was but it was most certainly thought to not mean the Church.

OK, but that doesn’t help us advance the conversation here. Please let us know when you remember the reason given, or when you find the source again.

 

[Faith1960]

OK, but that doesn’t help us advance the conversation here. Please let us know when you remember the reason given, or when you find the source again.

I still don’t remember but it may have been in its context, the following line.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I still don’t remember but it may have been in its context, the following line.

There is no context in the following line! We have no way of knowing how much is missing between the lines, and thus cannot conclude one way or the other how relevant each line is to its preceding and subsequent lines.

 

[Faith1960]

There is no context in the following line! We have no way of knowing how much is missing between the lines, and thus cannot conclude one way or the other how relevant each line is to its preceding and subsequent lines.

Well the Harvard Theological Review is coming out sometime this month. I’m sure more people will be talking about it a lot.

 

[FCEGM]

I’ve read so much about this I can’t remember where I read it or what the reason was but it was but it was most certainly thought to not mean the Church.

Along with the scriptural support for our Lord remaining unmarried (except to the Church) this, from the book,*Teach Us to Pray by Dom Andre Louf, might help you better understand the theological reason for the Church’s teaching:

Jesusnot only became a human being, but also a man, a person of the male sex. That is not something either accidental or arbitrary. The possibility that God could become a human being was latent only in the male sex. The man, after all, is a symbol of God’s mighty Love, the Love that redeems and saves. Whereas woman represents the humanity that God has chosen for redemption and bliss [the Church]. That is whyJesuswas bound to become a man. In the male sex the profound mystery of His being was prefigured:Jesusis the very image of the Father, His Love, faithful and strong, for human beings.

But there the symbolic value ofJesus’ masculinity stops. Or rather, it is already as complete as it could be. To take one step further and enter upon marriage here on earth with a concrete woman, that forJesuswould have been a nonsense. In the mystery of His proper nature, He, The God-Man, has received more than marriage with just one woman could give. For it is He Himself who give purpose and meaning to every marriege between human beings.

On the one hand the fulness of God’s Love was in Him, God’s tenderness as well as His toughness, for He was Himself God. On the other hand in His twofold nature, as God and man, He was the peerless marriage, the perfect conjunction, in His own person, between the redeeming God and redeemed humanity. In His divine nature He is the gift beyond measure, and in His humanity He is receptiveness par excellence. Thus in His emotional and sexual life as a man all tension was resolved. For His love was already satisfied and sated, was deeper and wider than He could have experience in a marriage. His physical status as man-and-celibate is the token of this.*

"ThereforeJesusqua*man had also to remain virginal. In that virginity of His, the conscious and unconscious sexual dynamic, the masculine and the feminine pole in Him, are put wholly at the service of the spiritual reality which He is and to which He comes to bear witness: He is the Son of His Father and His image; among human beings He is the firstborn from the dead, the new man, or rather: the Man, simply the Man,Ecce Homo!

Jesus’ unique situation did not preclude a bond with woman. He counted women among His acquaintances, intimate friends, fellow-workers. In particular He had a mother; for like all human beings He was born of a woman. What is most remarkable is that this bond with His mother soon expanded into something much broader and universal. For from the very start every woman was more to Him that she was in her concrete and limited femininity. And all that she could be for HimJesushad already been provided with in His own person. Thus Mary was not only His mother, but still more His sister, His bride, His daughter, and eventually His most intimate companion and the mother of all people.*

We see inJesushow sexual abstinence can bring out the profound spiritual reality of a person. It helps to lift man’s whole sexual potential on to another plane, where it can develop and be fulfilled without ceasing to be male or female. This fulfilment of human sexuality far transcends the gratification of its transient and constricted eroticism - a fact that will surprise no one who realizes how closely the whole of sex is interwoven with the image of God in man,*Teach Us to Pray

, by Andre Louf, Paulist Press, 1975.

 

[Faith1960]

Along with the scriptural support for our Lord remaining unmarried (except to the Church) this, from the book,*Teach Us to Pray by Dom Andre Louf, might help you better understand the theological reason for the Church’s teaching:

Thanks. But what happens to Church teaching if we find out that He was married after all?

 

[FCEGM]

Thanks. But what happens to Church teaching if we find out that He was married after all?

Faith, that’s rather like asking “what will happen to Church teaching if we found out He didn’t rise from the dead, or wasn’t God, or God isn’t a Trinity of three divine Persons, or there never really was a Jesus?”. One’s belief is built on the sold rock of the God-given authority of the Church to conserve and teach the apostolic Faith through the ages.

 

[patrick457]

Remember a couple of years ago there was all that hoopla about a fragment of papyrus that some thought meant Jesus might’ve been married?
Does anyone have any new information on it that points it to be false?

From what I read, it’s unlikely to be a forgery.

Are there any non-Biblical sources that support Jesus being single?

This pretty much sums up what we know. Long story short, several scholars raised serious questions about the fragment, then the whole thing just dropped out of public view.

 

[Faith1960]

Along with the scriptural support for our Lord remaining unmarried (except to the Church) this, from the book,*Teach Us to Pray by Dom Andre Louf, might help you better understand the theological reason for the Church’s teaching:

This pretty much sums up what we know. Long story short, several scholars raised serious questions about the fragment, then the whole thing just dropped out of public view.

They were doing tests on it and the findings will be in the April edition of Harvard Theological Review. Rumor has it that the tests indicate it’s authentic.

 

[Faith1960]

I’d also like to say that all these “experts” that deemed GJW a forgery are going to be mighty embarrassed if test results say the papyrus and ink are authentic. No, they’ll probably insist the tests were somehow flawed.

 

[Faith1960]

You have the 4 gospels, the epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, and 2000 years of tradition telling you that Jesus didn’t have a wife. On the other side of the scale you have a tiny fragment of a 4th century document with scarcely 2 dozen words, one of which happens to be “wife” with no context whatsoever. I don’t see how both sides of the scale are equally balanced.

Really, none of those mentioned say Jesus was single, except tradition. What if that’s wrong? What if this, or other sources, seriously undermine what we’ve been taught?

 

[St_Redemption]

Faith, if something so baseless as a single piece of questionable paper unsettles your faith, then how much do other problems which have a WAY MORE SOLID base then this unsettle your faith? Of all the things that could unsettle ones faith, this is a very weak one.

Just because somebody wrote something on a piece of paper, it means nothing, even assuming that they were even saying that Jesus had a wife, which we don’t even know… People probably wrote all sorts of false things about Jesus. We have Church tradition, and the entire New Testament, and we have a questionable piece of paper with a questionable fragment of a statement with no context. I don’t see the reason for concern here. You are concerned that the New Testament doesn’t say that Jesus did not have a wife??? Don’t you find it FAR more telling that nowhere does it mention that He HAD a wife?