Kevin's Watch

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 Karen L. King, a historian 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.

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. These debates date to the early centuries of Christianity, scholars say. But they are relevant today, when global Christianity is roiling over the place of women in ministry and the boundaries of marriage.

The discussion is particularly animated in the Roman Catholic Church, where despite calls for change, the Vatican has reiterated the teaching that the priesthood cannot be opened to women and married men because of the model set by Jesus.

Dr. King gave an interview and showed the papyrus fragment, encased in glass, to reporters from The New York Times, The Boston Globe and Harvard Magazine in her garret office in the tower at Harvard Divinity School last Thursday . She left the next day for Rome to deliver her paper on the find on Tuesday at the International Congress of Coptic Studies.

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.”

Iolanthe wrote:Gosh! Fourth century? What was this fragment a part of? Who wrote it and why? Rhetorical, Hashi, not expecting you to answer, but the answers, if found, could throw light on the context of these few words.

Must tell my husband. He is Roman Catholic and was rather taken aback when I mentioned to him that Jesus had siblings - they have been written out of his bible.

I don't think the debate will be about what the text says; the general consensus should arrive at that conclusion fairly quickly because there won't be much confusion about the linguistics. No, the debate will be whether he actually said "wife" as in "spouse" and what this may or may not mean. There will also be question as to whether he was speaking literally or figuratively--some will claim that "wife" should be translated as "bride", which could mean "Bride" as in "the Church". *shrug*

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Dr King should be decapitated and lit on fire.

Avatar wrote:What bible is that Iolanthe? It's in all the versions I have, as far as I remember. And yes...more than one brother.

--A

Cybrweez wrote: I'll be devil's advocate, and mention some people think mention of Christ's brothers isn't really brother, but cousins, though I've read arguments back and forth and that seems to be weak argument. Seems the argument hinges on wanting Mary to be always a virgin, so you can't have brothers/sisters for Jesus.

But as for celibacy, I've never heard Jesus being unmarried had anything to do w/that. I actually don't know what the real reasoning is, kinda always thought it was b/c Paul was never married (of course, Peter was, and isn't he the pope's first forebear? Not sure there).

Iolanthe wrote:Hashi - I read the Apocrypha once but cannot remember it at all. I must read it again. Wasn't it the Synod at Nicaea that brought about the split in the church between the Greek and Roman churches over the Trinity?. AD 325 according to Wikipedia.

Avatar wrote:IIRC, at the time it would have been almost unheard of for a Jewish man of that age to be unmarried.

I think that there is probably a good chance that he was.

hashi, I think HLT is just refering to typical Muslim reaction. I don't think you have these types of situations in Muslim world tho, b/c the guy who founded it, was the one everyone looked to for answers, wrote the book, and there isn't much doubt about what he wrote.

this tiny scrap of papyrus that is only partially legible..... how do they know that this is even talking about the same Jesus. It was a common name in those days.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Iolanthe wrote:Hashi - I read the Apocrypha once but cannot remember it at all. I must read it again. Wasn't it the Synod at Nicaea that brought about the split in the church between the Greek and Roman churches over the Trinity?. AD 325 according to Wikipedia.

I believe so but it has been a while since I last refreshed my knowledge of those events. I would have to look into it again.

Mary's nature vis-a-vis virgin or not virgin is, or should be, irrelevant to Christians even though I realize that her status for Catholics is to be absolutely immaculate. I am not certain why that is a requirement but then my Catholic theology isn't that highly developed (at least, not on that topic). Frazier and Campbell conclude that Mary is the Catholic interpretation of the World Mother, from whom all life ultimately arises, but that is a little odd since World Mothers are almost never virgins, at least I cannot think of any examples of this.