Recently, social media
and news sites have been “buzzing” concerning the recent publication of an
ancient papyri (really old paper made from the Egyptian Papyrus plant) fragment
which contains a section of narrative in which Jesus says, “My wife. . .” When
I first read these articles, I became far more excited than I should have been,
but please understand, it is very rare that my field of study comes this close
to popular culture. This evening I have
been able to read the paper published on the fragment, written by Dr. Karen
King of Harvard who was asked to study the fragment by its owner, and would
like to give my response to the social media world. I have two purposes in doing this. First, I am a lover of history, and this
find gives us insight into a fascinating period in the history of our world.
Second, and more importantly, I am a Christian who believes that what the New
Testament says about Jesus is the most central truth to my life and is the
greatest message ever conveyed to humanity.
I am also a Christian who has been blessed to spend the past six years
studying the biblical text at the academic level and have done so in hopes that
my research and knowledge would be beneficial to others. After reading Dr. King’s paper, I would
submit that this find, while historically fascinating, presents no threat to
the historical accuracy of the Jesus depicted in the four Gospels of the
Christian New Testament.
A REQUEST OF READERS
Before I begin some
qualifiers: 1) To my Christian friends,
this will be a discussion drawing upon academic data, not religious
experience. I do, of course, believe in
the inspiration of the New Testament by the Holy Spirit, but I recognize that
not everyone who will read this essay, and certainly not everyone who will read
Dr. King’s paper will approach the New Testament in such a way. Therefore, I will attempt to briefly and
simply respond to this paper based on historical evidence, after all, is there
any reason that the inspiration of the New Testament would make it stand in
contradiction to sound, historical data?
To my non-believing or skeptical friends, please do not take my central
point—that the recent papyri fragment does not present a significant challenge
to the historical accuracy of the New Testament—as blind religious dogma. Read with an open mind.
THE PAPYRUS FRAGMENT
The papyrus fragment itself was
presented to Dr. King by a private owner.
Dr. King reports it to be part of a collection which contains, among
other fragments, a fragment of the Gospel of John in Coptic. The fragment is written in Coptic which was
the language of Northern Egypt written in the Greek alphabet using a few
additional letters. Coptic was used
colloquially from the 2nd-17th century A.D. and is
currently used for the liturgy of the Coptic Church. King dates the fragment as being from the 4th
century (300-400 AD). Her dating is
based upon paleography—that is the study of the handwriting found on the
fragment.
The fragment
measures 4cm tall by 8cm wide (1.5x3inches).
The size of the fragment should not cause one to question its historical
significance, however. P52 (papyrus 52)
which contains the earliest witness to the New Testament is only slightly
larger (3.5x2.5inches). The fragment
contains writing on both sides which indicates that it is likely a piece of a
codex (book) as opposed to a scroll.
Little is known concerning the origin of the fragment. King rightly observes that given the
condition of the scroll and the fact that it is in readable condition, Egypt is
a likely place for composition. (Papyri
fragments are most commonly found in Egypt because its dry climate helps
preserve the papyri)
CONTENT
Due
to the fact that Dr. King’s work is yet to be published and, therefore, cannot
be properly cited, I will not give the transcription of the fragment here. If you are interested, a link to the draft
copy of Dr. Kings paper which is pending publication in the Harvard
Theological Review will be posted with this essay. The transcription of the fragment can be
found in the article. What is of
note—and what has drawn media attention—is the fact that the fragment contains
a line which reads, “Jesus said to them, ‘my wife. . .’” A Woman named Mary is mentioned in the
preceding line and, based on similarities to the Gospel of Mary Magdalene(a
Gnostic gospel from the same time period) Mary Magdalene is probably the Mary
being spoken of. The surrounding
material is insufficient in length to place this context in any sort of direct
context, but King suggests that this line and the eight which accompany it
would be parallel to the discipleship and family material found in the Gnostic
Gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas.*
Because of the reference to Jesus’ wife, King is referring to the
fragment as The Gospel of Jesus Wife.
It should be understood that the title was given only for the sake of
clarity (and no doubt appeal to the media) and not a reference to Jesus’ wife
as the actual author of the work a fact which King states from the outset of
her work.
AUTHENTICITY
It is difficult to give any
critical analysis concerning the authenticity of the fragment. Dr. King chronicles in her paper the process
of verifying the manuscript as being one of initially mixed reaction among
scholars in the field of Coptic studies.
King and her research team ultimately conclude that the fragment appears
to be authentic and have the support of several prominent scholars. For the purpose of this review, Dr. King’s
conclusions will be accepted. Much of
the evidence she gives seems consistent with a work composed in the 4th
century. Readers should note that any
issues with authenticity will now have the chance to be worked out in the
broader field of scholarship in coming years.
Any issues with authenticity will be duly addressed given time.
IMPLICATIONS
The implications of this
manuscript are not as earth shattering as some might be led to believe based on
some recent reports in the media. King
says in both the introduction and conclusion of her paper that the fragment in
question is not sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was married. The reason that this find gives little
evidence for constructing a historical portrait of Jesus is that it is written
far too late to provide the same degree of historical reliability as the four
Gospels of the New Testament. (Of these
John is the latest, being written 80-120 AD)** King bluntly acknowledges this
fact in her conclusion. What this
fragment does show is the broad differences in the portrayal of Jesus in the
early Christian community. The papyri
fragment published by King does show that there were a group of ancient
Christians who were teaching that Jesus had been married. King suggests in her paper that such
teachings likely arose in a reaction against early church leaders advocating
celibacy and using the celibacy of Christ as evidence in their arguments.
CONCLUSIONS
While the papyri fragment under
examination by Dr. King gives fascinating insight into the early church, it
does not give any significant insight into the life of Christ as it was written
more than 100 years (at the earliest) after the four canonical gospels. The fragment is likely a piece of literature
which attempted to do what Christians have (wrongly) been doing for two
millennia and continue to do today—make Jesus say what they wish him to
say. The phenomena continues into the
present day, though rarely through the composition of pseudo-gospels. Rather, the modern church continues to follow
down the path of this ancient, Coptic text by reading false meaning into the
canonical text rather than composing new gospels of their own. Read the “Gospel of Jesus Wife” for
what it is, fascinating history and an insight into a present fallacy, not a
reason to doubt the historical reliability of the Jesus of the New Testament.
*The Gospel of Thomas is one of
several so called Gnostic Gospels written late in the second century.
**The date for John was once
thought to be as late as that of the Gnostic Gospels, but the above mentioned
P52 has ruled out such a possibility.
