Jesus'S Wife: Referred To In Coptic Papyrus Fragment

[JAHS]

http://www.msnbc.msn..._utmk=178492836

[BCSpace]

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 an international meeting of Coptic scholars by the historian Karen L. King, 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.

............................

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,” Dr. King 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.

The owner, who has a collection of Greek, Coptic and Arabic papyri, is not willing to be identified by name, nationality or location, because, Dr. King said, “He doesn’t want to be hounded by people who want to buy this.”

When, where or how the fragment was discovered is unknown. The collector acquired it in a batch of papyri in 1997 from the previous owner, a German. It came with a handwritten note in German that names a professor of Egyptology in Berlin, now deceased, and cited him calling the fragment “the sole example” of a text in which Jesus claims a wife.

The owner carried the fragment to the Divinity School in December 2011 and left it with Dr. King. She said she was initially suspicious, but it looked promising enough to explore. Three months later, she carried the fragment in her red handbag to New York to show it to two colleagues, both papyrologists: Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, at New York University, and AnneMarie Luijendijk, an associate professor of religion at Princeton University.

............................

What convinced them it was probably genuine was the fading of the ink on the papyrus fibers, and traces of ink adhered to the bent fibers at the torn edges. The back side is so faint that only five words are visible, one only partly: “my moth[er],” “three,” “forth which.”

“It would be impossible to forge,” said Dr. Luijendijk, who contributed to Dr. King’s paper.

Dr. Bagnall reasoned that a forger would have had to be expert in Coptic grammar, handwriting and ideas. Most forgeries he has seen were nothing more than gibberish. And if it were a forgery intended to cause a sensation or make someone rich, why would it have lain in obscurity for so many years?

“It’s hard to construct a scenario that is at all plausible in which somebody fakes something like this. The world is not really crawling with crooked papyrologists,” Dr. Bagnall said.

http://www.nytimes.c...-wife.html?_r=1

Dang. Someone please fix the title from Jesus'S to Jesus'.

Thanks

Edited September 18, 2012 by BCSpace

[shalamabobbi]

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.

Now there's a quandary. Such a church better be missionary oriented..

[KevinG]

The Danites planted that evidence to justify Brigham's musings on the matter.

[Duncan]

I guess that means he wasn't in a midsingles ward then

[Calm]

What is the issue with Jesus having a female disciple? Aren't there female disciples mentioned in the NT already, such as (going off memory here) Dorcas and Junia? Or are they using disciple differently, more like one of the 12?

[The Nehor]

What is the issue with Jesus having a female disciple? Aren't there female disciples mentioned in the NT already, such as (going off memory here) Dorcas and Junia? Or are they using disciple differently, more like one of the 12?

So was Junia a female apostle? Let the games begin.

[JAHS]

"The fragment, which has been preliminarily authenticated but still must undergo further testing, portrays Jesus as referring to a woman as his legitimate disciple -- most likely his wife, whom the text’s author probably believed to be Mary Magdalene"" (Acts 9:36)

"Legitimate disciple"? Is there such thing as an illigitimate disciple?

"Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did." (Acts 9:36)

No reason to thnk they were female apostles; just close followers of Christ.

[Calm]

"close followers of Christ". I've assumed this is what disciples generally means. Or is there evidence that for the NT disciple is equivalent to apostle?

[The Nehor]

Is there such thing as an illigitimate disciple?

Yes but the most prominent one got a sudden windfall of 30 pieces of silver and despite this good fortune went out and hung himself so I cannot recommend the lifestyle.

[JAHS]

"close followers of Christ". I've assumed this is what disciples generally means. Or is there evidence that for the NT disciple is equivalent to apostle?

It looks like Apostles could also be called disciples, but a disciple was not an Apostle unless called to be such by Jesus:

"And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he ^achose ^btwelve, whom also he named ^capostles" (Luke 6:13)

The Book of Mormon always used the word "disciples" for the twelve chosen there because there was already a quorum of twelve Apostles in the old world.

[Calm]

That's why I specified "NT" and not "BoM".

[Duncan]

Can you imagine the way they fought?! jesus would know exactley what she was thinking!

[Ahab]

If the scrap is geniune it only proves it was written a long time ago. Not everything people write is true. How does this help in any way whatsoever?

[Calm]

It is an indication of what people were likely talking about.

[Ahab]

It is an indication of what people were likely talking about.

And that helps how? Is this something some people have supposed people in the past never questioned?

It doesn't help us to know whether or not he was, so I don't see how that scrap of paper makes any difference.

I can see how it might make some difference if there was some way to prove Jesus said what that paper suggests he was saying, but that supposed quote could be false testimony. Or then again, he might have said that.

Just more fodder for speculation, I think. Do you think it helps us to know whether or not he was married?

[Damien the Leper]

And that helps how? Is this something some people have supposed people in the past never questioned?

It doesn't help us to know whether or not he was, so I don't see how that scrap of paper makes any difference.

I can see how it might make some difference if there was some way to prove Jesus said what that paper suggests he was saying, but that supposed quote could be false testimony. Or then again, he might have said that.

Just more fodder for speculation, I think. Do you think it helps us to know whether or not he was married?

Jesus' marital status is irrelevant to the Gospel as it is provided in Biblical and BoM scripture. I, in no way believe Jesus was or is married. There is not enough sufficient evidence outside of the unreliable Coptic and Gnostic writings.

The fragment is an interesting find but hardly worth any deeper speculation.

[Damien the Leper]

If the scrap is geniune it only proves it was written a long time ago. Not everything people write is true. How does this help in any way whatsoever?

It doesn't.

[Ron Beron]

Given that it was Coptic and in the fourth century it is more than likely a reflection of Gnosticism that permeated the beliefs of the Egyptians at the time and coincides with the Nicean Council.

[Damien the Leper]

Given that it was Coptic and in the fourth century it is more than likely a reflection of Gnosticism that permeated the beliefs of the Egyptians at the time and coincides with the Nicean Council.

I alluded to this in post #8.

[BCSpace]

It doesn't help us to know whether or not he was, so I don't see how that scrap of paper makes any difference.

The Bible itself is merely a scrap of paper with science having essentially no hope of proving it's major claims; the Divinity of Jesus, that He is the Son of God, that he Atoned for our sins, that he rose on the third day, that he even existed in mortality, etc. Scientifically at best, the Bible is merely a work of historical fiction. And yet, here we are......

Edited September 19, 2012 by BCSpace

[Damien the Leper]

The Bible itself is merely a scrap of paper with science having essentially no hope of proving it's major claims; the Divinity of Jesus, that He is the Son of God, that he Atoned for our sins, that he rose on the third day, that he even existed in mortality, etc. Scientifically at best, the Bible is merely a work of historical fiction. And yet, here we are......

Now you're getting it!!

[sunstoned]

And that helps how? Is this something some people have supposed people in the past never questioned?

It doesn't help us to know whether or not he was, so I don't see how that scrap of paper makes any difference.

I can see how it might make some difference if there was some way to prove Jesus said what that paper suggests he was saying, but that supposed quote could be false testimony. Or then again, he might have said that.

Just more fodder for speculation, I think. Do you think it helps us to know whether or not he was married?

The questions and comments that you have presented are very valid. They also could be applied to the entire New Testament. It was so long ago, and we have so little go on. We have no documents that can be dated to the time of Christ. I guess this is where faith comes in.

[Damien the Leper]

The questions and comments that you have presented are very valid. They also could be applied to the entire New Testament. It was so long ago, and we have so little go on. We have no documents that can be dated to the time of Christ. I guess this is where faith comes in.

But is faith actually an appropriate or logical response? What does faith explain if anything at all?

[altersteve]

But is faith actually an appropriate or logical response? What does faith explain if anything at all?

That's something only you can answer for yourself.