NYT: Jesus Married? Ancient Papyrus Says So

[Dan T.]

A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife
By Laurie Goodstein
September 18, 2012

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife ...’ ”

The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”



The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at the International Congress of Coptic Studies by Karen L. King, a historian who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity.

The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions.

Even with many questions unsettled, the discovery could reignite the debate over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple. These debates date to the early centuries of Christianity, scholars say. But they are relevant today, when global Christianity is roiling over the place of women in ministry and the boundaries of marriage.

The discussion is particularly animated in the Roman Catholic Church, where despite calls for change, the Vatican has reiterated the teaching that the priesthood cannot be opened to women and married men because of the model set by Jesus.

Dr. King gave an interview and showed the papyrus fragment, encased in glass, to reporters from The New York Times, The Boston Globe and Harvard Magazine in her garret office in the tower at Harvard Divinity School last Thursday.

She repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said.

But the discovery is exciting, Dr. King said, because it is the first known statement from antiquity that refers to Jesus speaking of a wife. It provides further evidence that there was an active discussion among early Christians about whether Jesus was celibate or married, and which path his followers should choose.

“This fragment suggests that some early Christians had a tradition that Jesus was married,” she said. “There was, we already know, a controversy in the second century over whether Jesus was married, caught up with a debate about whether Christians should marry and have sex.”

Dr. King first learned about what she calls “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” when she received an e-mail in 2010 from a private collector who asked her to translate it. Dr. King, 58, specializes in Coptic literature, and has written books on the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, Gnosticism and women in antiquity.

Rest of article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us...pagewanted=all

[twa]

"debate about whether Christians should marry and have sex"

I know which side I'm arguing

[HogNose]

Over the years I have come to believe that Mary Magdalene was his wife and that they had children. Possibly twin daughters?


Did Jesus have descendants?
http://www.perillos.com/gimenez.html

[Jumbo]

The words "...my wife..." may just have been part of an ancient joke he was telling to a crowd...everyone stole from Dangerfield, but Dangerfield stole from the originals...

---------- Post added September-18th-2012 at 08:46 PM ----------

"debate about whether Christians should marry and have sex"

I know which side I'm arguing

Me too, even as a non-Christian, given how otherwise shrinks the pool dramatically (though I'm big on the "marry" part being totally optional).

[thebluefood]

I will say that, as a Christian, I have considered the possibility that Christ did marry while he was on Earth. While I'm still on the fence about it, I've come to the conclusion that it really wouldn't make much of a difference to me if he was. It doesn't really affect any major tenants of the Christian faith (as I understand it at least).

[Dan T.]

I will say that, as a Christian, I have considered the possibility that Christ did marry while he was on Earth. While I'm still on the fence about it, I've come to the conclusion that it really wouldn't make much of a difference to me if he was. It doesn't really affect any major tenants of the Christian faith (as I understand it at least).

It affects basic tenets of the Catholic Church regarding priesthood. Vatican strictures against priests marrying and women serving as priests are based on the belief that Jesus was unmarried and celibate.

[thebluefood]

Edit: never mind. No use in starting a Protestant/Catholic debate.

[Jumbo]

To be more serious this time, I think it would have huge implications if such were ever accepted. My default is to regard this as another one of 'those" stories that has little likelihood of being even half-way credible, of course. But if such were ever so, the impact would include calling much else into question, veracity-wise, if such a HUGE matter could be incorrectly held as so for so many centuries. I would expect, however, that most people would say it wouldn't change, or lessen, their belief in any other way (that's part of the nature of such beliefs).

[Kosher Ham]

I really don't get what the big deal is if he was married or not. I certainly don't believe that he was celibate.
I understand why some would be up in arms about it, but I don't understand why it ultimately matters. Perhaps some people can move forward into the brave new world that we live in today.

[elkabong82]

So that really is a woman sitting next to Jesus in "The Last Supper," and she's his wife.

This news will be difficult to prove given that seemingly no other disciple made reference to Jesus having a wife. Maybe, though, such was kept secret by them so as to avoid the Romans going after the wife, or children if she bore any. Or maybe it was Magdilan, and the churches back then simply omitted it when deciding what would and would not go in the NT b/c they didn't want their savior to be known as married to a woman of "ill-refute" or maybe it was to suit their desire of keeping women out of priesthood. But that's all just speculation on my part.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The scrap is from the 4th century, nearly 300 years after the New Testament was written, some other heretical Gnostic "gospels" have made similar and bogus claims, nothing to see here. I don't get to write whatever I want to write about George Washingon and have it taken seriously, and I'm closer in time to George than the author of this scrap was to Jesus. Let's get some perspective.

[10fttall]

The scrap is from the 4th century, nearly 300 years after the New Testament was written

Absolutely. The same way (even though it's pure fiction) I never got why DaVinci's painting would be evidence of anything. I mean Leo lived a mere FIFTEEN HUNDRED years after Christ. Which makes him practically an eyewitness, right?

While it's not impossible, a lot of believers would reject the assertion because it is not a fact that made it into the canon of Scripture. Heck, it even mentions Peter was married, so why wouldn't Jesus' marriage be mentioned. It would kind of put a damper on the priest thing, but then again, the total absence of New Testament modeling of priests/confession/penance; also makes it kind of superfluous in my opinion.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Absolutely. The same way (even though it's pure fiction) I never got why DaVinci's painting would be evidence of anything. I mean Leo lived a mere FIFTEEN HUNDRED years after Christ. Which makes him practically an eyewitness, right?

While it's not impossible, a lot of believers would reject the assertion because it is not a fact that made it into the canon of Scripture. Heck, it even mentions Peter was married, so why wouldn't Jesus' marriage be mentioned. It would kind of put a damper on the priest thing, but then again, the total absence of New Testament modeling of priests/confession/penance; also makes it kind of superfluous in my opinion.

All of which will be ignored because we love a scandal whether or not it has a shred of merit.

I think I'm going to write "George Bush was married to a man" on a piece of paper and put it in a time capsule to be opened 300 years from now and laugh as people freak out when they read it.

[endzone_dave]

We just recently found texts that show Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter.

[thebluefood]

The scrap is from the 4th century, nearly 300 years after the New Testament was written, some other heretical Gnostic "gospels" have made similar and bogus claims, nothing to see here. I don't get to write whatever I want to write about George Washingon and have it taken seriously, and I'm closer in time to George than the author of this scrap was to Jesus. Let's get some perspective.

This is where I stand on it, but you said it much better than I could, ASF. This was written well after Christ left this world.