The Da Vinci Code may have come and gone, but the same
dubious "scholarship", breathless "gotcha!" tactics, and general, sloppy
silliness lives on—in the New York Times:
A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
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.
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
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.
Let's be clear: I don't have a problem with a news story about this
fourth-century scrap of gnostic text that has little or nothing to do
with the historical Jesus described in the four Gospels and testified to
by first-century Christian witnesses. I do have a problem with how the
story is presented, as it is simply misleading. First, the headline:
"...Refers to Jesus' Wife". Sure, it may refer to "Jesus' wife", but
that is akin to me writing a note with reference to George Washington's
harem or mention of Thomas Jefferson's homosexual lover. Saying it
doesn't make it so, especially many decades, or even centuries, after
the fact.
The article is backloaded, if you will, so that some proper historical context isn't really provided until the eighth paragraph, which states:
The article is backloaded, if you will, so that some proper historical context isn't really provided until the eighth paragraph, which states:
[King] 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.
Oh. Huh. So, in other words, this is just another Dan Brown-like
tempest in a teapot? To a large degree, yes, although the discovery of
such ancient texts is always of interest to scholars (as they should
be), even if they don't prove what the New York Times wishes it
did. Consider that prior to paragraph #8, reporter Laurie Goodstien
works her readership over with all of the subtlety of a desperate
cage-fighting promoter:
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.
Wow, what a wealth of wishful thinking: "...the discovery could
reignite the
debate...", "But they are relevant
today,...", "Roman Catholic Church ... despite calls for change..."
Nope, there's no agenda or naked bias here—just good, old-fashioned
reporting about Jesus and his lovely wife! I also like how Goodstein is
so keen on reminding readers at least three times that Prof. King
teaches at (make proper bowing motion now) Harvard. That seals the deal!
Except, alas, King herself isn't nearly as carried away as the earnest
reporter:
The notion that Jesus had a
wife was the central conceit of the best seller and movie “The Da Vinci
Code.” But Dr. King said she wants nothing to do with the Code or its
author: “At least, don’t say this proves Dan Brown was right.”
No need to say it: just imply it every which possible and hope readers aren't paying close attention.
For more about gnosticism and the "gnostic gospels", see these excerpts from The Da Vinci Hoax, as well as this lengthy discussion of things gnostic.
