Yesterday on Twitter the New York Times tweeted this headline:
"Historian Says Piece of Papyrus refers to Jesus' Wife"
The historicity or otherwise of various legends relating to Jesus of Nazareth is rarely far from the public eye. This was proved in the first lesson of my Fresher New Testament module at university - we were asked what we had read about the historical Jesus. Most people had (fortunately, being theology students!) read the Gospels, but the next most read book on Jesus was the Da Vinci Code. This was/is infuriating to New Testament academics (secular and Christian alike) because it just is not historical. and yet contributes to many popular misconceptions and misunderstandings.
The NYT article rather unfortunately raves that "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". This assumes several things, that a quick pause can demonstrate otherwise. First of all, this piece of Papyrus is written in coptic, and is thought to have been written in the 4th century. The New Testament Canon was complete far before this - and these ideas are simply not seen in orthodox Christianity. The NYT article also claims that this archaeological discovery could lead to new ideas in the debate over female leadership. Regarding that issue, I'd point you to a great guest post that someone wrote for me: "Jesus The Feminist", and also my post on Jesus and women in the Gospel of John.
We can be grateful that Dr. King "repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married". The fact that it is, in her words "exciting" is also to be taken with a pinch of salt. The study of the history of early Christianity is a very technical discipline, and once we stray outside established principles (to stay safe, think of the Canonical NT, the Didache, and the Early Church Fathers) there are not very many good reasons to be sure of things that don't seem to register elsewhere. Frustratingly, and this is not noted in the NYT article, King is a member of "The Jesus Seminar", a very liberal (unfortunately in the bad sense) group of scholars, notorious for judging the sayings of Jesus using coloured beads, and generally going against the grain of critical evaluation of what is going on in Early Christianity and the New Testament. However, we can be grateful for Dr King's closing words about the Da Vinci Code, "at least, don't say this proves Dan Brown was right".
So what are we to say? Is the historical study of Jesus a doomed discipline in which we can know nothing? Is Early Christianity a maelstrom of chaos from which we cannot learn anything? I'm going to err on the side of no, it isn't. There are dozens of reputable scholars who can demonstrate using reliable historical methods that Jesus existed, did what the Gospels said he did, and was put to death. The resurrection is where it gets more complex. I've written a large page (link here, thought it needs updating) on the evidence for the Resurrection, and I'm going to be reading/reviewing/critiquing a book written against the Resurrection, Chris Komarnitsky's "Doubting Jesus' Resurrection". This is a vibrant and fascinating area of study, with libraries of comment and evidence for those who would seek the truth about Jesus.
And this brings me to my closing point. And it is this: Jesus does have a wife. But it is not some figure dead to history, or existing solely in the minds of hopeful niche scholars. No, Jesus, as the Son of God, has a wife, or rather, to be precise, a bride. In Paul's famous teaching on marriage in Ephesians 5, we see that marriage is a picture of something bigger than a human union of man and woman;
"For the husband is the head fo the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her... This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church"
Jesus does have a wife. And Jesus did exist. But, as is so often the case, the truth is so much better than unfounded or ill-thought out ideas. Rather than trusting a piece of papyrus whose providence is uncertain, I would rather side with Jesus. It's a weird image, the bride of Christ being the Church, but it is a powerful one. If you have thought about Jesus before, or watched the Da Vinci Code, or seen the aforementioned news story, is it not worth considering Jesus afresh? I'm going to be expanding on my 'Jesus' series, so stay tuned!
Comments and links/recommendations always welcome, thanks for reading!
I was having dinner with a college professor and his wife, an architect, who told me that Mary Magdalene was Jesus wife and the church decided later to make her a prostitute to suppress women. So my question was why would Jesus marry in the first place? He was here on a mission of global importance. And who is Dan Brown? He's not a Biblical scholar, he's a fictional writer who did the same damage Hollywood did to Salieri claiming he poisoned Mozart, a total lie. Anyway, she didn't like my commentary as the table got quiet and I was furious. I heard Bill Press say " Now it's official, Jesus was married so the church should allow priests to marry and women to have positions of prominence," all based on a fourth century piece of parchment the size of my grocery list. The sound byte mentality doesn't apply to matters of God and mankind...
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous, thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's awkward when we stand up for truth, and entirely agree that "the sound byte mentality doesn't apply to matters of God and mankind". Thanks for reading!