What Does the Coptic Fragment Entitled the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife Tell Us?
Two newspaper articles published on
September 18, 2012, one by
Laurie Goodstein in the New York Times and one by Lisa Wangsness in the BostonGlobe,
broke a story that has prompted a lot of buzz in the media. Karen King, the
Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School and a specialist in
Gnosticism, shared evidence with both the general public and scholars about a
small fragment of papyrus, dated to the 4th century A.D. and measuring about
1.5 inches by 3 inches, that has a Coptic text on it which includes a supposed
statement of Jesus to His disciples that reads (when translated): “Jesus said
to them, ‘My wife . . . .’” The fragment, which King provocatively titled the Gospel
of Jesus’ Wife, has set off some speculation that Jesus was indeed married
(e.g., Simcha Jacobovici of The Lost Tomb of Jesus fame) or at least
some “early Christians” taught so. Before jumping to such conclusions, it is
important to evaluate the authenticity of this fragment and what it does or
does not tell us.
To her credit and unlike the shroud
of secrecy surrounding the announcement of the Gospel of Judas just a
few years ago, King has released a high-resolution photograph of the fragment and the pre-publication version of an extensive article detailing her research
that is scheduled to be published in Harvard Theological Review 106:1 (January 2013). It is noteworthy that the third sentence of her article
addresses speculation head-on: “It [this fragment] does not, however,
provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married, given the late date of
the fragment and the probable date of original composition only in the second
half of the second century” (p. 1; emphasis original). The release of this
information to the general public coincided with her announcement of the find
to the Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies that was meeting in Rome.
Based upon the information that has been released, what can we reliably know?
First, although the dating of this
papyrus fragment to the 4th century A.D. has been confirmed by two
papyrologists, the ink has not been tested to confirm that it is consistent
with ink used in documents of a similar age and hardly anything is known about
the history of this fragment. With some finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls or the
Nag Hammadi Codices, the manuscripts that came to the attention of scholars
could be traced back to where they were actually discovered. What is known
about this fragment’s history prior to an antiquities dealer delivering it to
King for evaluation in December 2011 is that its previous owner apparently had
it examined by a German scholar in the early 1980s. That information is not of
much help in understanding the history of this fragment, except that it does
not appear to be a forgery done in the past three decades. It is noteworthy
that some of the scholars of Coptic at the international congress who examined
the fragment had serious doubts about its authenticity; even a non-specialist
like me is suspicious when the Coptic proclitic pronoun translated “my” in “my
wife” appears darker than the rest of the text. It is surprising that more has
not yet been done to confirm its authenticity. If the ink can be dated to the
age of the papyrus on which it is written, however, the logical conclusion
would be that it was originally from Egypt
where Coptic, which is a language that developed from Greek and Middle
Egyptian, was widely used on papyrus.
Second, it is important to
emphasize that it is very difficult to interpret this small amount of text
without a context. All we have is eight partial lines of Coptic that have been
cut off on both sides, which means that it is even difficult to see how the
eight lines are related. From the few phrases that we have, we can gather that
the text contains a supposed conversation between Jesus and His disciples about
“Mary” (Mary Magdalene or his mother?) and “my wife” being worthy to be among
His disciples. This text does not match the text of any extant biblical or
extra-biblical writing. Because the fragment contains a supposed conversation
of Jesus, it has been theorized that it is from an unknown Gospel, yet King
herself states: “With a fragment this small, it is impossible to claim too firm
a conclusion regarding the question of genre” (p. 20). The limited amount of
text without any context prevents firm conclusions from being drawn on the
meaning of the few lines that we do have, including the meaning of the phrase
“Jesus’ wife.”
Third, even with this limited
amount of text, it is certainly appropriate to theorize about the source of the
ideas set forth in this fragment and to conclude, as King does, that this
fragment may have been part of a Gnostic document. Gnosticism is a broad label
given to the teaching of various sectarian “Christians” who denied central
truths of Christianity such as Jesus’ death for the atonement of sins and in
its place taught, among other things, salvation through esoteric knowledge
(“gnosis”) supposedly given by Jesus but often drawn in part from Platonic
philosophy. The teachings and writings of various Gnostic groups posed a
significant challenge in the 2nd to the 4th century and were regularly
condemned as heretical by Christian leaders familiar with their teachings, such
as Irenaeus who wrote primarily in the last three decades of the 2nd century.
The discussion concerning the worthiness of “Mary” to be a disciple of Jesus in
the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife does seem similar to texts found in some
Gnostic documents also written in Coptic, like the Gospel of Thomas,
the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Philip. King
demonstrates a probable relationship between the ideas expressed in this
fragment with the ideas expressed in these Gnostic Gospels. This fragment,
therefore, may assist us in understanding the teaching of a Gnostic group
concerning Jesus and His marital status, but it does not help us to understand
the teaching of the historical Jesus or His actual marital status.
Then where should we look for
reliable historical evidence about Jesus, including His marital status? There
are four first century Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—whose testimony was
proclaimed and written while eyewitnesses were still alive and whose Greek text
is widely attested by many 2nd-7th century papyri manuscripts as well as some
4th-5th century parchment manuscripts that contain the complete text or most of
the text of these books. These Gospels testify prominently to many aspects of
Jesus’ humanity, including that He was known as Joseph’s son, had a mother, had
brothers, attended weddings, supported life-long marriage and had several women
who were among His wider group of disciples but not one of the 12 apostles (see
especially Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in
the Gospels, Eerdmans, 2002). There is no historical evidence in these
Gospels, however, that Jesus was married to a woman. If He would have been, the
result would have been a wife and children who would have attracted significant
attention after His resurrection and ascension. Instead, it appears
historically probable that the only “bride” Jesus has ever had is the church
(Ephesians 5:25-32).
Dr. Charles A. Gieschen is
Academic Dean and Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Theological
Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
His Ph.D. is from the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University
of Michigan
(1995) where his studies included the Coptic language and Gnostic writings.
This article was found on the web page of Concordia Theological Seminary.
No comments:
Post a Comment