Today (Tuesday, September 18, 2012) an announce was made. A new fragment from a previously unknown Gospel has been “discovered.” I put discovered in quotes because with this sort of thing it is usually the case that a fragment or such will be discovered decades earlier but won’t be translated or get attention until later. The Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 30s and published in their full form in the 90s because of legal and governmental issues. It is claimed that this fragment lends support to idea of Jesus having been married.
I am unaware of the location the fragment was discovered but because it is Written in Coptic (the language of the native people of Egypt during the later half of the Roman period, spoken by the lower social class of people like Athanasius of Alexandria) we will assume it was located in Egypt where documents have a greater chance of surviving because of the humid climate. Though the scholar making the claims Karen King admits in her presentation today at the Vatican conference for Coptic studies, “nothing is known about the circumstances of its original discovery or early ownership.” It is possible that this document may turn out to be a forgery, one remembers the James ossuary controversy of 2004 where a Jewish coffin supposedly belonging to James the Just (Brother of the Lord) was uncovered and was later exposed as a forgery. Putting aside any doubts about authenticity for a moment let us consider what the reality is.
The fragment only contains 8 lines on one side and 6 on the other. The only quotation anyone is talking about from the document is “Jesus said to them ‘my wife’…” and then the rest of the text is cut off. And another quotation “she can be a disciple.” That’s it that’s all that’s being said. So what we have here is a document written under a fake name like the rest of the non-conical gospels (IE, Thomas, Philip, Mary, proto-James, proto-Matthew etc. none of which written by any disciples). This forgery was dated to the fourth century, 300 years after the life of Jesus written in a foreign language to the events and times it describes, though King supposes the document like Thomas was written in Greek originally and what was found is a later Coptic translation, we have yet to see evidence for this claim. Given the short length of the document, and a lack of context, what can we really say about it? I don’t speak Greek but I’m told ‘wife’ can also mean simply ‘woman’ in some cases. This reminds me of Gabriel’s vision where it is said that there was prophecy about the messiah being resurrected, when in fact the line being translated by anti-christian scholars could also read as just “get up.” I submit to you that it is possible that Ms. King is simply letting a post Da Vinci Code perspective color her translation of the text.
In a quote made by the Washington Post King says “Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was not married, even though no reliable historical evidence exists to support that claim,” this quote would seem to spell out a biased against the Gospels as being reliable history about the life of Jesus. The fact is that the 4 canonical Gospels are our best sources of information about the life of Jesus as even noted by the radically liberal and anti-Christian Bart Ehrman in his 2006 debate with William Lane Craig. Folks our best sources are totally silent on Jesus having a wife.
In the earliest years of the Church it is James the Just (the brother of the Lord) who takes over as leader of the movement after Jesus and after James is put to death, Simeon another of their relatives takes over. You never hear of a wife or son taking the family business and continuing the message of Jesus. There was no wife and no children. The fact of the matter is that there is NO good source that says that Jesus did have a wife. The definitive argument against this is in 1 Cor 9:3-6 aswhen Paul is speaking about taking his wife with him on missionary journeys. Paul in effects says “Peter brings his wife along and so does James the brother of the Lord, why can’t I do it.” Would it have not been better for Paul to say “Jesus took his wife” if Jesus was in fact married? NO ONE AT ALL SAYS JESUS HAD A WIFE! We don’t get these kind of crazy claims until long after the death of Jesus in far off lands and you can find every crazy theory under the sun from it was actually Simon of Cyrene who was crucified on the cross like Islam teaches from the Gnostic documents to Jesus had a secret twin brother named Thomas AKA “the Twin.” Trying to put these stories back into the real life of Jesus is like saying Abraham Lincoln was actually a vampire hunter based on the recent movie by the title Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
What we actually have here is more of the media in an anti-Christian world seeing a new way to cash in on the old and already refuted lies of people like Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code and Michael Baigent and the Jesus Papers. The first page of Da Vinci Code straight up tells you that there is little historical fact in the book at all and in fact it is all fiction if not straight up lies! But people take it as undercutting the truth of the Gospel and latch on to it like it is itself gospel because they don’t want to look at the facts.
The conclusion simple, it wouldn’t matter if Jesus was married it would not have been a big deal or even a sin the fact is that people think it is a way of undercutting the Christian worldview so they latch on to straws to try to support the claims of fringe scholars and this fragment is no more proof than that there were crazy people 1600 years ago just like there are today. There is no evidence anywhere in history that Jesus had a wife and that’s a fact.
Foot notes
Info Ehrman’s view of Jesus and marriage provided by Robert in the comments.
11 Responses to Christian Responds to “the Gospel of Jesus Wife”
Robert September 18, 2012
I don’t think Ehrman is either radically liberal or anti-Christian. His views seem right in line with mainstream scholarship for the most part, he’s never said that Christianity is a bad thing or should be eliminated (as far as I know), and he’s debated WLC. We can’t say the same about people like Richard Dawkins. But anyway, this page has some good Ehrman quotes about whether Jesus was married: http://www.religionfacts.com/da_vinci_code/jesus_married.htm
In other news, there are some people who insist that the world is flat.
P.X. Chirho September 18, 2012
Thanks for the link, I added it to the footnotes section of the post.
I say Ehrman is
liberalradical because while he uses facts, he twists his words in such a way as to say something about how Christianity is false when that’s really not what scholars hold to. In example he tells you there are something like 80,000 word differences in manuscript families and acts like everyone should reject the bible because of it. What he doesn’t tell you is that more than 95 % of those variances are spelling errors and that in no way do any of them contradict classically held teaching of Christianity.He is clearly anti-christian. Anyone who says otherwise has not listened to him speak or read some of his more theological works like “God’s Problem.” It seems at least to me there a clear subtext of animosity for his former faith.
Lerrrr September 18, 2012
I say Ehrman is liberal because while he uses facts, he twists his words in such a way as to say something about how Christianity is false when that’s really not what scholars hold to.
I’m not sure how this makes him liberal, unless you mean liberal in some sense other than the political?
P.X. Chirho September 18, 2012
Sorry I meant “radical and anti-Christian.” Wrong el words-o.
torres September 19, 2012
Sorry to inform you that many Muslims in India and Pakistan have traditions about Jesus having a family, and even moving to the region after surviving the crucifixion.
As a matter of fact, there are many writings by Jewish authorities at the time that imply Jesus could not even be a Teacher if he wasn’t marry (see http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm#Relationship ) .
I wonder why this is such a big thing and no one mentions Luke 8, where it mentions Mary “and the woman who served … ” Do you realize that the term “serve” in the first century meant you were a slave?
Gio September 19, 2012
“Sorry to inform you that many Muslims in India and Pakistan have traditions about Jesus having a family, and even moving to the region after surviving the crucifixion.”
Sorry, Muslim traditions are not reliable, except for fringe scholars and “politically correct” whiners (all of whose arguments have been rebutted). The burden is on you to defend these claims, simply noting it comes from a Muslim source is if anything shooting yourself in the foot.
“As a matter of fact, there are many writings by Jewish authorities at the time that imply Jesus could not even be a Teacher if he wasn’t marry (see http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm#Relationship ) .”
First of all rabbinic traits listed in the Talmud could easily be developments after Jesus’ death. Second even if this was the case when Jesus was alive, being married was a *preference* for rabbi’s, not an *obligation*. At least one rabbi was unmarried and many prophets were. See http://christianthinktank.com/singlejesus.html
“I wonder why this is such a big thing”
I agree. It’s people like King who make a big deal out of it, more often than not to whine about a political point or make a quick buck.
“Do you realize that the term “serve” in the first century meant you were a slave?”
Source? Also, why is this significant?
Nicole September 19, 2012
Thank you so much for this post! I am sharing it on my FB and appreciate the thought and intelligence you put into this issue.
walter morel September 19, 2012
Why is it so difficult for many to consider the possibility that Jesus was married??
Regardless of what the bible reads, the 4 gospels are still in contention as to whom and when they were written and many forget, the Bible was “built” to read a specific way and by a very bias group who had reason for things to read and be understood as being as they wanted others to see them. Mysterious and unclear, so they could control the populace and an order be created to their benefit. Recall that the bible gospels were Chosen and the other gospels were not included as they did not “fit” with the bibles reason for being published by these people with an agenda
Further, why is it so unbelievable that Jesus was married?.
He was a man, he was Jewish and it was a major part of a Jewish mans life to be married and raise a family. Yes i saw that it has been suggested that not all rabbis were married but so what does that mean? does this suggest that there were two rabbis who did not get married? Hardly. Priest and nuns are supposed to be celibate, is that 100% true? Again hardly.
While there are exceptions to every rule, it may be possible/probable and definitely true that Jesus was married.
WITH SO LITTLE THAT WAS PUT INTO context about his life, and fter all he lived a life of 30 odd years, why is there so little written about ones daily life?? Was it deliberately left out or was it just edited for space??
But, at end of day, married or not, does this diminish who or what he was or supposedly did?
Again HARDLY.
As the other Gospels suggest and the Gospel of Thomas is one that is poignant.
Jesus had a simple message. God is to be loved and he is everywhere.
Its a simple message but one that was decided by others, by HUMANS who had uses for the memory of Jesus.
those who have not read the Gospel of Thomas, perhaps you should.
Gio September 20, 2012
“Why is it so difficult for many to consider the possibility that Jesus was married??”
Because the evidence doesn’t support it.
“the 4 gospels are still in contention as to whom and when they were written”
Actually the internal attestation as to by whom they were written is pretty clear, when you look at the manuscript evidence. The only real debate is internal evidence from content.
“the Bible was “built” to read a specific way and by a very bias group who had reason for things to read and be understood as being as they wanted others to see them. Mysterious and unclear, so they could control the populace and an order be created to their benefit. Recall that the bible gospels were Chosen and the other gospels were not included as they did not “fit” with the bibles reason for being published by these people with an agenda”
Sorry, the Canon was not built based around bias but by legitimate historical and theological criteria. Back to the books with you. Also, even if the Canon was built to fit a particular worldview, the burden is still on you to defend any books that should be added in, and the books that are in pass numerous criteria for reliability.
“Further, why is it so unbelievable that Jesus was married?.”
Why do you even care?
“He was a man, he was Jewish and it was a major part of a Jewish mans life to be married and raise a family.”
And not every Jew (not even every Rabbi) had to be married. It was simply a preference.
“Yes i saw that it has been suggested that not all rabbis were married but so what does that mean?”
It means the argument that Jesus had to be married because he was a Rabbi is moot.
“does this suggest that there were two rabbis who did not get married? Hardly.”
Do you give any reason to suppose that being married was an obligation, even though the evidence is clear it was an unnecessary preference? Hardly.
“Priest and nuns are supposed to be celibate, is that 100% true? Again hardly.”
This is a giant, incoherent non-sequitur. Maybe you should read less neo-gnostic theology and more grammar books.
“While there are exceptions to every rule, it may be possible/probable and definitely true that Jesus was married.”
There is no reason to believe that in light of the evidence.
“Was it deliberately left out or was it just edited for space??”
It was edited for space, moron. The space one had to write on was very limited and even ignoring that people at the time by their nature focused on the major events. The burden is on you to show they are hiding something, and question-begging appeals to what barely qualifies as circumstantial evidence such as the above paragraph do not fulfill it.
“But, at end of day, married or not, does this diminish who or what he was or supposedly did?”
You’re the one making a big deal out of it.
“As the other Gospels suggest and the Gospel of Thomas is one that is poignant.”
LOL The Gospel of Thomas is completely non-reliable. Every argument for it being early or independent (not that you offer any) has been completely blown out of the water, and even if those arguments are sound, they only prove a small handful of sayings that are either identical in content to the Canonical Gospels or completely irrelevant theologically are authentic. The notion that the Gospel of Thomas can actually tell us something significant about the Historical Jesus – especially in the Neo-Gnostic direction you are taking it – is not taken seriously by any scholar except for coverage.
Mariano September 19, 2012
For the New Testament there are circa 24,000 manuscripts (about 7,000 in Greek and the rest in other languages). For the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” there is ONE. But do not concern yourself with that as that ONE is thought to successfully discredit the 24,000.
Also, why is it that for New Testaments the demand is that we must have the earliest possible ones. However, for anything that appears to contradict it (“Gospel of Judas,” etc.) one, two, three, four centuries from Jesus’ time is perfectly acceptable, the later the better.
We are dealing with a substandard double standard.
Colleen September 20, 2012
Great discussion! This discovery and analysis only indicates 2 things. (if argued from a viewpoint that this is a valid discovery) 1. The timing is amazing with all the talk of Gay marriage in light of what would Jesus do. 2. There is insufficient content to dispute Christ’s life as a single man. Jewish law had an engagement period for at least a year and the fiance was considered a full spouse even though the marriage was not consummated. Perhaps when his ministry began He forsook the taking of His “arranged” wife until His mission and ministry was established and completed. His life was ultimately sacrificed and having a wife would have made that sacrifice even greater.