The Gospel of Jesus' Wife

[commenter]

Ok, I think we’re using the word “authentic” differently. I meant authentic as in it was a genuine text from the 4th century or a copy of a genuine text from the 2nd century.

OK there are 2 different senses of “authentic” or “genuine” on this thread.
You can say a book is authenticated by the Magisterium, as genuinely inspired by God.
that’s either a Yes or No, inspired and part of the NT canon - or not; no more or less.
It’s a permanent decision. The canon is closed.
or -
Harvard, or whoever, “authenticates” a book based on some criteria they choose. It can be more or less genuine. For that matter, many ancient books once considered mostly genuine are now considered not very genuine, and vice versa. Every decision is changeable. The problem is that the History Channel or whoever will ignore ignore 19 scholarly works that support the traditional understanding, and jump on one that startles; then they say authentic or genuine in Harvard’s sense means it is, or should have been, scripture, and the Church is wrong.

The reality is that even if they found a Gospel of Melvin next week, with signatures of all 12 disciples, dated to 40 AD, that would not make it authentic, in the sense of being canonical. It would be read and respected, but not as scripture. Even if the media declared the gospel of John was actually written in 200 AD by someone who never even met anyone who lived in Middle East, that would not change its canonical status. Keep in mind Harvard or the History Channel could easily reverse their own determination of those books in time for the new Fall season.

It is the Magisterium, as a way of communicating God’s will, that made books canonical, not their age, authorship, or any external or internal content analysis.

 

[Faith1960]

OK there are 2 different senses of “authentic” or “genuine” on this thread.
You can say a book is authenticated by the Magisterium, as genuinely inspired by God.
that’s either a Yes or No, inspired and part of the NT canon - or not; no more or less.
It’s a permanent decision. The canon is closed.
or -
Harvard, or whoever, “authenticates” a book based on some criteria they choose. It can be more or less genuine. For that matter, many ancient books once considered mostly genuine are now considered not very genuine, and vice versa. Every decision is changeable. The problem is that the History Channel or whoever will ignore ignore 19 scholarly works that support the traditional understanding, and jump on one that startles; then they say authentic or genuine in Harvard’s sense means it is, or should have been, scripture, and the Church is wrong.

The reality is that even if they found a Gospel of Melvin next week, with signatures of all 12 disciples, dated to 40 AD, that would not make it authentic, in the sense of being canonical. It would be read and respected, but not as scripture. Even if the media declared the gospel of John was actually written in 200 AD by someone who never even met anyone who lived in Middle East, that would not change its canonical status. Keep in mind Harvard or the History Channel could easily reverse their own determination of those books in time for the new Fall season.

It is the Magisterium, as a way of communicating God’s will, that made books canonical, not their age, authorship, or any external or internal content analysis.

Ok. That’s not what I mean by genuine or authentic. I mean genuine or authentic as in a real writing from that time period.

 

[Faith1960]

Does anyone know when the April edition of the Harvard Theological Review will come out? I contacted them by email and they only said it comes out in April, no date given.

 

[Darryl_B]

Another ancient papyrus was found…

http://alma-geddon.com/JeezNSatan.jpg

-Tim-

Good time to renew my subscription to Harvard Theological Review as well.

 

[patrick457]

Breaking news: it’s finally out. In short: the fragment’s likely not a modern forgery, probably dates to around the 8th century (instead of the 4th-century date suggested earlier), still doesn’t make the text a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus. (Very good of Karen King to emphasize that amid storms of sensationalism.)

And here’s some preliminary thoughts about this by Larry Hurtado and Robert Cargill.

Choat also notes the curious nature of the hand and the way the ink was applied to the item. He judges the hand to be that of a copyist of very limited abilities (noting, e.g., the irregularities in letter-formation), and that the writer seems to have used a brush (anomalous for the putative period in question) or (as Bagnall suggested) a poorly trimmed reed-pen. As King now grants, the nature of the hand (and other factors) make it unlikely that the fragment comes from a codex and unlikely that the text functioned as a “gospel” liturgically. Instead, as she notes, it may be some kind of school exercise or perhaps even some kind of amulet-type item. So, can we all please desist from references to a “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife”? There is no reason to suppose that the fragment comes from any such text. We have a “Jesus’ Wife” fragment. Let’s stay with what we have/know.

…]

To come to Prof. King’s article (the main piece in the issue), I think she takes a careful line, seeking to defend her view that the item on balance seems authentic, but trying to take account of data that require some modification of her earlier judgements, and granting in the end that complete certainty is not possible. **Prominent in the modifications of her earlier view is the intriguing statement in the appended note at the end of the article that the carbon-dating (taking the dating by Tuross) now seems to demand a date sometime in the 8th century CE (not the 4th/5th century CE dating in her earlier paper). As she notes, this takes us well into the Islamic period of Egypt, and so raises the question of whether, in fact, the fragment might reflect in some way the influence of Islamic ideas about Jesus.

Certainly, as Prof. King has rather consistently emphasized all along, whatever the date and provenance of the item, it has absolutely no significance whatsoever for “historical Jesus” studies. Contrary to some of the sensationalized news stories, that is, the fragment has no import for the question of whether Jesus was married.**

Instead, she continues to propose that the fragment may reflect tensions and questions about marriage, celibacy, child-bearing, and gender that emerged in early Christianity in the early centuries (indeed, to judge from NT texts such as 1 Tim. 4:1-5; and even 1 Cor 7:1-7, questions of this nature emerged quite early). But, to repeat a point, the revised date for the papyrus (mid-8th century CE) introduces other factors to consider as well.

 

[Faith1960]

Breaking news: it’s finally out. In short: the fragment’s likely not a modern forgery, probably dates to around the 8th century (instead of the 4th-century date suggested earlier), still doesn’t make the text a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus. (Very good of Karen King to emphasize that amid storms of sensationalism.)

And here’s some preliminary thoughts about this by Larry Hurtado and Robert Cargill.

Choat also notes the curious nature of the hand and the way the ink was applied to the item. He judges the hand to be that of a copyist of very limited abilities (noting, e.g., the irregularities in letter-formation), and that the writer seems to have used a brush (anomalous for the putative period in question) or (as Bagnall suggested) a poorly trimmed reed-pen. As King now grants, the nature of the hand (and other factors) make it unlikely that the fragment comes from a codex and unlikely that the text functioned as a “gospel” liturgically. Instead, as she notes, it may be some kind of school exercise or perhaps even some kind of amulet-type item. So, can we all please desist from references to a “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife”? There is no reason to suppose that the fragment comes from any such text. We have a “Jesus’ Wife” fragment. Let’s stay with what we have/know.

…]

To come to Prof. King’s article (the main piece in the issue), I think she takes a careful line, seeking to defend her view that the item on balance seems authentic, but trying to take account of data that require some modification of her earlier judgements, and granting in the end that complete certainty is not possible. **Prominent in the modifications of her earlier view is the intriguing statement in the appended note at the end of the article that the carbon-dating (taking the dating by Tuross) now seems to demand a date sometime in the 8th century CE (not the 4th/5th century CE dating in her earlier paper). As she notes, this takes us well into the Islamic period of Egypt, and so raises the question of whether, in fact, the fragment might reflect in some way the influence of Islamic ideas about Jesus.

Certainly, as Prof. King has rather consistently emphasized all along, whatever the date and provenance of the item, it has absolutely no significance whatsoever for “historical Jesus” studies. Contrary to some of the sensationalized news stories, that is, the fragment has no import for the question of whether Jesus was married.**

Instead, she continues to propose that the fragment may reflect tensions and questions about marriage, celibacy, child-bearing, and gender that emerged in early Christianity in the early centuries (indeed, to judge from NT texts such as 1 Tim. 4:1-5; and even 1 Cor 7:1-7, questions of this nature emerged quite early). But, to repeat a point, the revised date for the papyrus (mid-8th century CE) introduces other factors to consider as well.

I think it was irresponsible for the Vatican and other sources to say it was a forgery before tests were run.

 

[commenter]

I think it was irresponsible for the Vatican and other sources to say it was a forgery before tests were run.

No matter what the Vatican does, the media will label it as oppressive; rigid; premature; “too little-too late”; patriarchal; authoritarian; hypocritical; intimidating; weak; etc, etc. That media
campaign affects us all, and colors our responses.

 

[Faith1960]

No matter what the Vatican does, the media will label it as oppressive; rigid; premature; “too little-too late”; patriarchal; authoritarian; hypocritical; intimidating; weak; etc, etc. That media
campaign affects us all, and colors our responses.

The article said that it might be from the 8th century, making it possibly 400 years younger than originally thought. Did anyone read anything saying if they still think it was copied from a 2nd century text or not?

 

[commenter]

The article said that it might be from the 8th century, making it possibly 400 years younger than originally thought. Did anyone read anything saying if they still think it was copied from a 2nd century text or not?

How much money do you think people will make off this? It could mean an edge towards academic promotion, paid appearances on the History Channel and other outlets, and book and article sales. Whenever someone makes outrageous claims that supposedly “disturb the establishment” and “question the traditional belief” they boost their income opportunities for years to come, even if they are totally debunked, because they now have an established “name”.

Keep in mind there are countless other researchers doing solid work on ancient documents, including the Bible. You won’t see them on CNN.

 

[patrick457]

How much money do you think people will make off this? It could mean an edge towards academic promotion, paid appearances on the History Channel and other outlets, and book and article sales. Whenever someone makes outrageous claims that supposedly “disturb the establishment” and “question the traditional belief” they boost their income opportunities for years to come, even if they are totally debunked, because they now have an established “name”.

Keep in mind there are countless other researchers doing solid work on ancient documents, including the Bible. You won’t see them on CNN.

Just a word of moderation. Karen King is a well-respected scholar in her field and herself admits that this fragment (which was only given to her - she only publicized the fragment) does not tell us anything about the historical Jesus and doesn’t give us anything new. The only ones who claim that the fragment will ‘question the traditional belief’ are the media who is giving their own spin into the story.

Here are more people giving their opinions on the update:

Francis Watson (one of the people who argued that GoJW was a pastiche of the Gospel of Thomas)
Jim Davila
Christopher Rollson
Bob Cargill
James McGrath
Kushana Torumekia
John Byron
Michael Heiser
Larry Hurtado giving further observations
Christian Askeland

 

[Faith1960]

Just a word of moderation. Karen King is a well-respected scholar in her field and herself admits that this fragment (which was only given to her - she only publicized the fragment) does not tell us anything about the historical Jesus and doesn’t give us anything new. The only ones who claim that the fragment will ‘question the traditional belief’ are the media who is giving their own spin into the story.

Here are more people giving their opinions on the update:

Francis Watson (one of the people who argued that GoJW was a pastiche of the Gospel of Thomas)
Jim Davila
Christopher Rollson
Bob Cargill
James McGrath
Kushana Torumekia
John Byron
Michael Heiser
Larry Hurtado giving further observations
Christian Askeland

Thanks for mentioning that King is very well respected. I can’t believe how quickly some people want to bash her for just doing her job. She never said anything about Jesus being married and went out of her was a number of times saying that this fragment tells us NOTHING new about Jesus or His marital status.

 

[commenter]

Thanks for mentioning that King is very well respected. I can’t believe how quickly some people want to bash her for just doing her job. She never said anything about Jesus being married and went out of her was a number of times saying that this fragment tells us NOTHING new about Jesus or His marital status.

King is promoting a heavy politicized agenda. Good scholars objectively seek data, and follow the data to logical conclusions, regardless of whether or not it fits their own opinions, regardless of whether it will win applause.
Here is a quote from an article she wrote in Frontline.

“Until recently the texts that survived have shown only the side that won. The new texts are therefore crucial in constructing a fuller and more accurate portrait”. In other words, she has decided her conclusion, and data that fit her agenda are deemed “crucial”. Data that don’t fit her agenda she casts aside. She got printed in Frontline because her agenda is identical to PBS, and the great majority of the media, all of which have applauded her.

She promotes books that were rejected from the Scriptures uncritically, as if they were perfect. Not only was Mary of Magdala an apostle, other women were leaders in the early church until the men put them down. She trusts the non-biblical books, but distrusts the canonical books, since the wording was all twisted and distorted to eliminate the role of women.

Would she have gotten this job at Harvard if she were a prolifer? Would a woman scholar faithful to Christianity get so favorably quoted by the secular media? When she is attacking the “side that won”, she is attacking the New Testament, the Catholic Church, as well as Eastern Orthodox and most Protestant Christianity. Does that make her respectable?

 

[Faith1960]

King is promoting a heavy politicized agenda. Good scholars objectively seek data, and follow the data to logical conclusions, regardless of whether or not it fits their own opinions, regardless of whether it will win applause.
Here is a quote from an article she wrote in Frontline.

“Until recently the texts that survived have shown only the side that won. The new texts are therefore crucial in constructing a fuller and more accurate portrait”. In other words, she has decided her conclusion, and data that fit her agenda are deemed “crucial”. Data that don’t fit her agenda she casts aside. She got printed in Frontline because her agenda is identical to PBS, and the great majority of the media, all of which have applauded her.

She promotes books that were rejected from the Scriptures uncritically, as if they were perfect. Not only was Mary of Magdala an apostle, other women were leaders in the early church until the men put them down. She trusts the non-biblical books, but distrusts the canonical books, since the wording was all twisted and distorted to eliminate the role of women.

Would she have gotten this job at Harvard if she were a prolifer? Would a woman scholar faithful to Christianity get so favorably quoted by the secular media? When she is attacking the “side that won”, she is attacking the New Testament, the Catholic Church, as well as Eastern Orthodox and most Protestant Christianity. Does that make her respectable?

Hmmm…

 

[commenter]

Whether Ms. King is a “respected scholar” depends on who is doing the respecting. She is part of the “A New New Testament” in which several scholars voted on which ancient books should be added to the traditional 27 books chosen originally by the Magisterium. I don’t mean added like in an appendix, but inserted among the other books, as equal to books such as Mathew for instance, treated with equal authority. This group (including King) voted in certain books, but of course another group of scholars would add in other books. A New New Testament has not - yet - deleted any of the familiar books, such as Luke or Romans, but they so deeply criticized certain books that they will likely be dropped in a future edition.

King’s group not only criticized the traditional epistles and gospels for their alleged anti-woman bias, but for the excessive attention to Christ’s crucifixion, and His role as Savior. They like the Gospel of Thomas, which presents Him as only a moral teacher.

So…is King respected by the secular media and educational establishment, yes! A better question to ask is, does this person respect Scripture? I would say no.

 

[seagal]

Whether Ms. King is a “respected scholar” depends on who is doing the respecting. She is part of the “A New New Testament” in which several scholars voted on which ancient books should be added to the traditional 27 books chosen originally by the Magisterium. I don’t mean added like in an appendix, but inserted among the other books, as equal to books such as Mathew for instance, treated with equal authority. This group (including King) voted in certain books, but of course another group of scholars would add in other books. A New New Testament has not - yet - deleted any of the familiar books, such as Luke or Romans, but they so deeply criticized certain books that they will likely be dropped in a future edition.

King’s group not only criticized the traditional epistles and gospels for their alleged anti-woman bias, but for the excessive attention to Christ’s crucifixion, and His role as Savior. They like the Gospel of Thomas, which presents Him as only a moral teacher.

So…is King respected by the secular media and educational establishment, yes! A better question to ask is, does this person respect Scripture? I would say no.

Sounds like Ms King and her group would like to re-write scripture in their image, rather than let God reveal himself.

 

[Faith1960]

I still haven’t read much about the theory GJW was copied from th Gospel of Thomas. Anyone else know about that?

 

[patrick457]

I still haven’t read much about the theory GJW was copied from th Gospel of Thomas. Anyone else know about that?

I wrote about it a few posts ago, but if you have the time to read in-depth, line-by-line analyses, I’ll give these two links again.

markgoodacre.org/Watson.pdf
gospels.net/gjw/notesonforgery.pdf

There’s als more chiming in by Anthony LeDonne (King refers to him twice in her essay) and Candida Moss. Moss I think sums the whole thing up pretty nicely:

Since Harvard published the results of the scientific studies media outlets have been quick to reassert the manuscript’s authenticity. “The Gospel of Jesus Wife is Real” read The Atlantic; “Not a forgery” proclaimed NPR; and National Geographic led with “No Forgery Evidence.”

Yet, once again, the broader scholarly community has been less enthusiastic about the discovery. The question, for many, is neither the date of the papyrus (forgers often use scraps old manuscripts), nor the composition of the ink (a forger could quite simply make a carbon-based ink using soot). The issue is the date of the ink. Unfortunately, the papyrus was too fragile to allow for carbon testing of the ink. The single test that would definitively prove whether or not GJW is a forgery would also destroy it. Awkward if it turns out to be the real deal. I’ll leave that one to the ethicists.

In the absence of clear evidence, the debate is still where it was over a year ago. On the one hand, tests designed to prove that the text is a forgery failed to establish its inauthenticity. On the other hand, the grammatical errors and similarities to the Gospel of Thomas are still a problem. A modern forger with the right materials could still have made this text.

In some ways GJW is actually more interesting if it is a modern forgery. As an authentic text it offers late evidence of a debate about the role of women in the church. That’s something that scholars already knew about. As tantalizing as the potential reference to Jesus’s wife is, the phrase ‘my wife’ doesn’t tell us anything about Jesus himself.

But if this is a modern forgery, then it raises lots of interesting questions about how forgeries are made, by whom, and for what purposes. Someone would have gone to great lengths to place this shocking manuscript in the hands of one of the foremost scholars of Early Christianity alive today. Did they do it for the money, in the hopes of bringing down established Christianity, or just for fun? Now that’s a conspiracy worth looking into. Dibs on the film rights, you guys.

 

[commenter]

Since Harvard published the results of the scientific studies media outlets have been quick to reassert the manuscript’s authenticity. “The Gospel of Jesus Wife is Real” read The Atlantic; “Not a forgery” proclaimed NPR; and National Geographic led with “No Forgery Evidence.”

Yet, once again, the broader scholarly community has been less enthusiastic about the discovery. The question, for many, is neither the date of the papyrus (forgers often use scraps old manuscripts), nor the composition of the ink (a forger could quite simply make a carbon-based ink using soot). The issue is the date of the ink. Unfortunately, the papyrus was too fragile to allow for carbon testing of the ink. The single test that would definitively prove whether or not GJW is a forgery would also destroy it. Awkward if it turns out to be the real deal. I’ll leave that one to the ethicists.

In the absence of clear evidence, the debate is still where it was over a year ago. On the one hand, tests designed to prove that the text is a forgery failed to establish its inauthenticity. On the other hand, the grammatical errors and similarities to the Gospel of Thomas are still a problem. A modern forger with the right materials could still have made this text.

In some ways GJW is actually more interesting if it is a modern forgery. As an authentic text it offers late evidence of a debate about the role of women in the church. That’s something that scholars already knew about. As tantalizing as the potential reference to Jesus’s wife is, the phrase ‘my wife’ doesn’t tell us anything about Jesus himself.

But if this is a modern forgery, then it raises lots of interesting questions about how forgeries are made, by whom, and for what purposes. Someone would have gone to great lengths to place this shocking manuscript in the hands of one of the foremost scholars of Early Christianity alive today. Did they do it for the money, in the hopes of bringing down established Christianity, or just for fun? Now that’s a conspiracy worth looking into. Dibs on the film rights, you guys.[/INDENT]

Keep in mind that King is part of a group that claims the right to add books to the New Testament, based on contemporary needs (!). For instance, her group added the Gospel of Thomas to the NT, bumping Mathew out of first position. If you believe you have the power to add to Scripture, nothing is really “forgery” then. We have moved beyond the traditional model, where a scholar was supposed to pursue Truth. In the current model, whatever the scholar decides to pursue, becomes “true”. King decided we needed the Gospel of Mary, so she added that to Scripture. In 10 years, someone will decide certain books interfere with contemporary needs; so they will get dropped from scripture.

A future New Testament will likely drop portions of the New Testament that refer to husbands in authority over wives; it also will likely drop Mathew, because of its references to church authority, and emphasis on the Crucifixion, which King’s group considers a distraction from Christ’s role as teacher. The Catholic Church won’t accept those changes, but Harvard and National Geographic will.

 

[patrick457]

Keep in mind that King is part of a group that claims the right to add books to the New Testament, based on contemporary needs (!). For instance, her group added the Gospel of Thomas to the NT, bumping Mathew out of first position. If you believe you have the power to add to Scripture, nothing is really “forgery” then. We have moved beyond the traditional model, where a scholar was supposed to pursue Truth. In the current model, whatever the scholar decides to pursue, becomes “true”. King decided we needed the Gospel of Mary, so she added that to Scripture. In 10 years, someone will decide certain books interfere with contemporary needs; so they will get dropped from scripture.

A future New Testament will likely drop portions of the New Testament that refer to husbands in authority over wives; it also will likely drop Mathew, because of its references to church authority, and emphasis on the Crucifixion, which King’s group considers a distraction from Christ’s role as teacher. The Catholic Church won’t accept those changes, but Harvard and National Geographic will.

Do you have any first-hand references from King in this regard?

 

[SPH1]

How are we to know for certain that it’s not true, that Jesus was never married?

Because if Christ were married he would be a radically different Christ than which we now know.

Christ - God - having relations with a human woman just sounds too pagan.

It also means that Christ could not live up to his own words in Matt 19:29 about those forsaking everything, including wives, for his (Christ’s) sake. Christ then couldn’t even do that.

It just sounds wrong, and everyone here knows it. But then I once read that that was a benefit of Sacred Tradition: an oddity stands out like s sore thumb.