The News Cycle of Jesus' Wife

I don't know if Jesus had a wife. I don't know if the early Christians who wrote the Coptic papyrus fragment recently publicized by Harvard Divinity School scholar Karen King thought he had a wife. And even if he did, I don't know if or what that would really change in terms of religious belief: I am neither a Christian nor a theologian. What I do know is that whenever a scientific discovery having to do with religious texts, sites, or history becomes public, it goes through a a news cycle that's becoming familiar: giddy excitement, intense skepticism, and cynical acceptance.

Some "scientific" discoveries are counted out by virtue of the unlikeliness of their claims. In 2007 Biblical archaeologist Eric Cline wrote in an editorial: "When most archeologists and biblical scholars hear that someone has (yet again) discovered Noah's Ark, they roll their eyes and get on with their business." (But the lack of acknowledgement from legitimate archaeology in no way stems the tide of these discoveries and their announcements. Next month there's another "scientific" account of Noah's Ark being published.)

But how do I as a non-specialist know when to roll my eyes?

The so-called "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" is now joining a storied lineup of Jesus-related relics suspected of being fraudulent. Remember the "Jesus Box? It's still on trial. Or the Shroud of Turin? It's enough to make one discount anything that turns up as "evidence" of anything religious at all.

Isn't it possible that there's some untranslated scroll, some still-buried tablet, which really does have significant implications for how we practice religion? The same paper reporting on the Jesus's Wife controversy recently reported on a global team of scholars in the Sinai using new technology to read never-before-readable ancient documents.

The question of "is this a legitimate, non-fraudulent scientific discovery" is of course different from the question of "does this new piece of information change what I believe?" Take the case of Jesus's wife (please). The mention of a wife for Jesus may make worldwide headlines, because, among other surprises, it seems to contradict the established belief in Jesus's celibacy. But the existence of other ancient Christian documents which have not made it into the official canon of scripture, and which posit all kinds of non-scriptural things, doesn't make a ripple in the news.

To acknowledge the existence of other Gnostic Gospels means acknowledging that the text of the Old and New Testaments is not all that is in existence; it is a curated, translated, and heavily revised selection of older texts. And that begs the question of who is doing the curating and translating, and that brings us into the question of the institution of church.

Perhaps that's why the news cycle on the papyrus scroll went so quickly from heady headline-grabbing excitement to cynical skepticism. Declaring it a fraud might be easier for some than admitting there's room to question our assumptions about how the Bible was formed. But, much as we might wish otherwise, religious belief does not run in a straight line from text to believer. It's more complicated than that.

 

 

 

Follow Brook Wilensky-Lanford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/modmyth

Comments

[knowsmorethanyou]

01:57 AM on 09/29/2012

Well, Brook, I guess it really doesn't matter what you believe about Christ if you are not Christian! Not knowing if you have any religious beliefs, this becomes just an article which is a "hot topic" and easy for you to attract readers. You can easily do a little research and find out "how" the Bible was canonized or put together. And, you state that religious belief is more complicated than going directly from text to believer seems to be in incomplete assessment on your part. Seeing, that as a reader I have no background on which texts influence your beliefs if you have any.

[Bones Rhodes]

11:27 PM on 09/28/2012

Dear Brook,

As a writer, you should research what the expression "begs the question" actually entails.

Sincerely,

Bones.

[Chandraprakash]

02:51 AM on 09/27/2012

The consciousness is one and same for all

The formless creator is without attribute and character, he is not involved in the good or bad actions of an individual. The individual is himself responsible for his actions, his actions in the nature is his identity. He has to face the consequences of his deeds, under the cycle of rebirth and death. The Creator God is beyond faith and belief, whether one ans faith in it or not, it is immaterial, he is one and the same for all.

To worship the God is inherent mental human quest, he is free to choose the name of deity and form, as per his inherent mentality. The idol worship is its advance form to pay respect to natural components.

It reveal a scientific truth that the idol do not eat or accept your offerings nor they give reward for it, it means the creator God is devoid of any attribute or character. You can worship with any name or form, he can bestow the blessings, but he will not share your sins or actions.

Hence In India no body has checked the worship of God in any name or form, and we have millions of God and Goddesses. It is the freedom of mental worship, because a individual is himself responsible for his actions.

The monotheism is to force the individual to accept one God or creator is to cut short the individual freedom of worship. No body can share his sins,

[Schevalirae]

12:51 PM on 09/29/2012

Chandraprakash, I enjoyed reading this post. The overall thought that we can worship any name or form and that are all responsible for their own sins (in my eyes aka karma or "what goes around comes around") is in line with the idea that "the monotheism is to force the individual to accept one God or creator..."

However, your next post immediately following loses me when you start talking about Deva & Devta as I suppose these must obviously relate to the Indian Hindu and a specific thought and believe pattern, hence negating the idea of an individual's relationship with belief and worship or lack thereof.

Not being a big fan of organized religion, I still appreciate you sharing your thoughts and posting. Thank you. F&F.

[Chandraprakash]

03:25 AM on 10/02/2012

Schevalirae

Dear thanks for your comment.

The deities have been misinterpreted at length as polytheism, the creator God is present everywhere, he is not different from any natural component, one can worship monotheism or polytheism is one and the same. The name or form may be as per mentality of an individual.
With regards.
Cpt

[Chandraprakash]

02:49 AM on 09/27/2012

The Indian Hindu are tolerant, because they are not superstitious

The Idol worship reveal a scientific truth that the idol do not eat or accept your offerings nor they give reward for it, it means the creator God is devoid of any attribute or character. You can worship with any name or form, he can bestow the blessings, but he will not share your sins or actions.

Hence In India no body has checked the worship of God in any name or form, and we have millions of God and Goddesses. It is the freedom of mental worship, because a individual is himself responsible for his actions.

Deva and Devta,

The word Deva and Devta are the Vedic terms for the Elementary particles and natural forces respectively, which brought the creation into existence.The Deva elementary particles are the first in the series to brought forward the creation sacrifice with actions and interactions, accordingly the infinite nature came into the existence, under Devta natural forces. Whatever is present in the creation, and whatever will be is nature only.

The creator God has created the Deva - elementary particles and Devta natural forces with these, he is present everywhere. Every thing or component of the nature is due to the formless creator God, and he is present within them also as consciousness. Their existence through which they feel their existence in the nature is proof in the self.

The consciousness appears with birth and disappears with death.

[Tom Berndt]

07:08 AM on 09/27/2012

Interesting imaginative religion; total fantasy.

[Ted Bernhard]

07:40 PM on 09/26/2012

New evidence from Oxford-trained scholar Andrew Bernhard demonstrating that practically every decipherable word of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife could have been copied from the Gospel of Thomas. In fact, the Gospel of Jesus' Wife could arguably be nothing more than a “collage” of short excerpts from the Gospel of Thomas.
http://www.gospels.net/gjw/GJW-GThRelationship.pdf.

Other relevant scholarly works on the subject of Jesus' Wife
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-gospel-of-jesus-wife-latest-news.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/09/is-jesus-wife-turning-into-thomas.html
http://pejeiesous.com/2012/09/25/andrew-bernhard-on-the-relationship-between-the-gospel-of-thomas-the-gospel-of-jesus-wife/

[Dr Idris]

02:21 PM on 09/26/2012

This is not the same as a relic like "Noah's Ark". Connection with Nag Hammadi texts and if it can tell as anything more about the early Christian centuries-in context-is what is significant. True it is easily sensationalized-part of a game played by a certain Harvard-Princeton"axis" of purveyors of "Gnosticsm" and Heterdoxy, to an unorthodox but spiritually "hungry" reading public.
If it were new "proof" that Socrates never married , but Plato put Xanthippe into his Dialogues for dramatic effect, it would not cause a sensation-or only among Classicists, Philosophers and Historians

[MilesToGo]

01:17 PM on 09/26/2012

Good post, which illuminates what's going on with this reported papyrus scrap. Obviously, it would seem evidence of Jesus having a wife would have surfaced before, other than some arguments about it in the 2nd century which some scholars have noted. The Gospels presentation of a divine Jesus, coming from writers steeped in misogynistic cultural leanings that would later deprecate Mary Magdalene, ultimately cannot be used to be proof-positive that Jesus was celibate. Key theologians have long asserted that Jesus was both divine & human. It would seem that for Jesus to be both fully divine and fully human, he surely would have experienced the sexual reality of being a human being.

[Tom Berndt]

07:12 AM on 09/27/2012

The evidence for the celibacy of Jesus, not that it matters much, is that Jesus referred to himself, in all humility, as a eunuch. The Gospel writers worshiped Jesus as son of God, so they are not going to humiliate Jesus by writing a false story, referring to himself as a eunuch. So, doubtless, Jesus was celibate, going against the norm of day.

[MilesToGo]

11:47 AM on 09/27/2012

Thanks for your reply. As you know, the Gospel writers penned accounts several generations after the Resurrection. But, I'm somewhat perplexed...I never recall reading where Jesus refers to himself as being a eunuch. Sexuality though has always been a huge "hang-up" for religious folks. I suspect like you it matters little ultimately when plumbing the depths of meaning & significance.

[CassandraJones]

10:19 PM on 09/27/2012

It is a pleasure to read your informed comments. Some excellent books by Bart D Ehrman, including JESUS INTERRUPTED and MISQUOTING JESUS, might interest you. Also, you might like to read the myths of Sumer and of other ancient Mesopotamian cultures to see the common thread of the 'dying and rising god ' stories if you haven't already. I hope to read many more of your excellent posts.