I loved the headlines as the Vatican declared that a fragment of papyrus was a fraud: There's a nagging feeling that Jesus had a wife ... Vatican Says Papyrus Mentioning Jesus' Wife is 'Fake' ... So Jesus WAS Married -- Oy Vey!
Laurie Goodstein, New York Times religion writer, provides the most informative account about the remnant of an ancient papyrus text, wherein Jesus refers to his wife and says she is worthy to be a disciple. The fragment was given to Dr. Karen King by a donor who remains anonymous to avoid the ecclesiastical and media fray that such documents inevitably engender.
This is not the first time the possibility of Jesus being married has created a stir. In 1970, William Phipps wrote a book, "Was Jesus Married?: The Distortion of Sexuality in Christian Tradition." Phipps argues that marriage was assumed for males in Jesus' time, so when Peter's mother-in-law shows up in Scripture, the wife is assumed to be in the picture and there is no need to explain where. Paul later recommends celibacy but never once points to Jesus as a model for this way of life.
In the case of this recent discovery, the first explicit reference to Jesus' wife, Vatican officials were quick to call it a fake. But according to papyrus and linguistics experts consulted by Professor King, who herself is a renowned Harvard scholar, if the fragment is fake, it was created by an expert in Coptic grammar, handwriting and ideas. King's goal is to mobilize biblical scholars to study and examine the text to learn more.
In TIME Magazine, Professor King suggests that it appears to be a second century, early Christian snippet that was almost certainly part of a bigger text. She calls it a Gospel but does not thereby imply that it should be part of the Bible, or even that it is authentic. It is simply an ancient text that appears to be an account of Jesus' sayings, which are typically called "Gospels."
Is it true? Is it a fake? Should we care? If Jesus was married, would it overturn the patriarchy that for 2,000 years kept women out of ordained leadership (and still does in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions)? Would it allow men to be married and ordained in the Catholic Church? The Orthodox and Protestant traditions have long allowed marriage for clergy.
Early church texts that did not make it into the Bible, as well as those that comprise our ancient Bible, are intriguing. Churches have the privilege and responsibility of reading and interpreting these ancient and sacred texts responsibly. They are a window into the lives of ancient peoples who were trying to understand their own lives and to participate in that which is divine.
Sadly, I don't think this text -- whether authentic or not -- will change the patriarchal, anti-woman, anti-sexual body beliefs that continue to plague the church.
The Bible already shows women being valued and in leadership. Jesus announced his divine role to the woman at the well, who immediately became an evangelist. It was Martha who declared that Jesus was the son of God. It was his Mother who encouraged his first miracle. It was Martha's sister Mary who was taught by Jesus. It was women who supported Jesus' ministry with their means, who stood by him at his crucifixion, and who first witnessed and announced his resurrection.
After Jesus died, women like Lydia, Junea, Priscilla and so many others rose to the surface in a time when there was no shared leadership with women. Manhood and class status was determined by whom you could dominate. But there they were -- their stories are in our sacred text. Jesus didn't need to get married to give women status. He was constantly affirming women and declaring women in full relationship with God and full persons in their own right.
But in spite of these liberating accounts, the early church turned against women, against sexuality and even against pleasure itself. To be generous, this rejection of embodiment emerged in part out of more than a century of persecution. Martyrdom became a sure path to heaven for Christians, and many longed to make the ultimate sacrifice. Women were lifted up as paragons of virtue in the gruesome sacrifice of their bodies to torture and death. When the age of persecution ended, Christians replaced martyrdom with self-denial.
All pleasures from life were viewed as detriments to the holy life. Bodily self-denial became the ideal; asceticism and celibacy became equated with true Christianity. Marriage was viewed as a weakness that should be avoided, as Paul had taught. And we wonder why we have problems with accepting the sexual and gender diversity among us. The Metropolitan Community Churches across the world pick up the pieces from this heritage of body-rejecting, woman-rejecting, sex-rejecting, pleasure-rejecting theology. It doesn't just hurt women and sexual minorities. It hurts all of us.
Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people know what it is to be told that you are categorically immoral -- just as women have been blamed for sin itself. Blaming others is not empowering. Men are forced to think of their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and all women as categorically inferior and, according to ancient church teaching, the source of sin. Straight people have long been told to reject their loved ones and anyone else who loves someone of the same gender.
Today, as the world struggles to open the door to LGBT people and to allow marriage for all loving couples, the rejection of bodies, love and pleasure taught by churches haunts us because we have focused almost totally on Jesus' divinity when it was actually Jesus' humanity that made him unique -- God embodied. Jesus affirmed bodies through healing and touching. At the last supper, he took bread and wine and said that this is my flesh and blood; remember me in these elements that feed our bodies; that make us human. We would do well to spend the next thousand years reflecting on the humanity of Jesus.
Will a little snippet of ancient writing change the Christian world? It is possible, and I am hopeful. Scholars who raise tough issues for the church and do not apologize for evidence that contradicts doctrines or tradition can change us. They are a bit like Jesus who treasured tradition enough to look for the values beneath the rituals, rules and words. This is a path we can all follow, in this complicated and embodied world!
Follow Rev. Dr. Nancy Wilson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@RevNancyWilson
Bernard Starr: Jesus Married? Not Surprising For a Dedicated Jew
Remember, those were ideas of two worlds: pure ideas, (the better one world), and impure body (mater), this was the Platonic split between body and soul.
As Christianity was illegal religion, women played huge role, as people met in houses. When Christianity became legal, men got their "right" role in the public. Get glimpses into those parts of history. We admire Greeks and Romans as so very civilized, but there were so bad for women. And its cultural influence on Christianity was huge, don't forget that.
As the previous poster (Susan) pointed out there is also a part in Christianity which is not totally hetero-normative. We want today to see it it as such. Catharism for example didn't see gay lifestyle as sinful, and it seems that early Christians had less problems with single people than we have today. Today Jesus needs to be married, because this makes him "more human," as some say, and this view is repeated. Don't people see the bigotry of this statement? What, asexual or gay people are less human? you see the culture which is behind it? We can not blame the Vatican all the time.
Paul was talking about people who were often on dangerous mission as his was. Than it wasn't good idea to get married, but he also said that if someone has strong passion it is better to get married. In Catholicism marriage is a sacrament, which means the idea of sacredness is connected to it. Nor Eastern Orthodox have problem with marriage. It seems Protestantism having great idea to allow marriage of clergy also was generally prudish. And it is from this view the older part of Christianity are interpreted. Also giving people an option, a choice if to get married/procreate or not wasn't such a bad idea, no one was forced into marriage.
The bad legacy of Antiquity was that women in Greece and Rome, and Jewish society were not considered fully human. Jesus was truly a revolutionary, as he proposed equality in the world which saw women as lower species, had "evolutionary " idea about gender, a woman was between an animals and a man. In old Greece women lived in "female' part of the household, were not supposed to leave the house. Slave women did shopping.When there was a party at home, women were excluded, for entertainment courtesans were hired. Plus Rome: women were not even citizens.
Thank you for the intriguing article. I do however have one contention: that assertions should not be made about the Catholic Church by one who has not experienced it fully, namely by weekly participation in the Mass. I can attest that the Church does indeed remember and teach the humanity of Jesus which is, as you stated, His most distinguishing quality. False and incomplete assertions about the faith of others, especially that from which all Christian faiths came, are what divide the larger Christian community. This is a shame, because Christian unity could cure numerous issues in the wider world.
Sincerely,
Ms. Weich