Coptic Reference to Wife of Jesus

[Jayhawker Soule]

From the New York Times:

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 the International Congress of Coptic Studies 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.

< -- snip -- >​

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. [emphasis added - JS]

“This fragment suggests that some early Christians had a tradition that Jesus was married,” she 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.”

Personally, I am not sure that this constitutes 'further evidence' of much of anything. It may become more so if and when we learn more about provenance.

 

[Breathe]

Interesting. Verrry interesting. Thanks for that. :yes:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nothing concrete, but definitely an interesting idea. I look forward to further information.

 

[Renji]

I wonder who's that "wife of Jesus" being referred to in the fragmented papyrus. Apocryphal traditions say it's Mary Magdalene. Not that I believe this, but it is interesting.Oh well, I guess only time can tell.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

More here.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If it coud be shown that Jesus was married, How would that effect Christianity?

This fragment seems to add to the possibility, but not to the substance.

Are there any of Jesus teachings or life story that depend on the fact that he was not married?

All problems in that regard seem to attach to later church developments and dogma .

I would have no problem with a married Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And this from the Harvard Divinuty School is excellent.

 

[ChristineES]

This isn't the first time they found something with Jesus talking of a wife.

 

[outhouse]

From the New York Timesersonally, I am not sure that this constitutes 'further evidence' of much of anything. It may become more so if and when we learn more about provenance.

I agree

it is highly suspect and many claim it is not authentic to even the 4rth century



true or not, it gives no value at all to any part of the historical jesus legends



at best it gives us a glimpse at minor aspect of a much later belief from a little known group

 

[fallingblood]

From the New York Times:

​

Personally, I am not sure that this constitutes 'further evidence' of much of anything. It may become more so if and when we learn more about provenance.

I like how King approaches this. She is an interesting scholar, and has some great work. I do like that she didn't make a definite statement or assumed that the papyrus meant anything about Jesus.

I would be interested in reading the entire text (or as much as possible) when the gospel this statement is in (I believe for the time being, it is called the Gospel of the Wife of Jesus (one of your links talked about it)) is published. The larger context would be interesting.

It would also be interesting if they could really trace it back to the second century, as King suggests. It still probably wouldn't say much about Jesus, but it would, at least for me since my main focus have been the first couple of centuries, be a little more immediate and important.

 

[paarsurrey]

One may like to read the following link; they claim to be from Jesus' lineage; true or false:


“We, the 99th generation of descendants, from the 1st century marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene have decided to release information about our ancestors. On this website is long hidden information from our family records about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, their 3 children, the Ark of the Covenant and the Knights Templar.”
The True Jesus - We, the Descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's children

Food for thought.

 

[fallingblood]

One may like to read the following link; they claim to be from Jesus' lineage; true or false:


“We, the 99th generation of descendants, from the 1st century marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene have decided to release information about our ancestors. On this website is long hidden information from our family records about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, their 3 children, the Ark of the Covenant and the Knights Templar.”
The True Jesus - We, the Descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's children

Food for thought.

No. They may believe what they are saying on their website, and honestly, I don't doubt that they do. But what they are pushing simply isn't something that can be historically verified, and is extremely unlikely.

Now, Jesus probably has some family descendants that lasted into the present time. He did have a number of siblings, who most likely had offspring (and in fact, we do have some very early mention of possible family descent) but to trace any of that would be virtually impossible.

Looking at the site though, I would almost assume they are a cult. I didn't spend much time, but I it looks almost like a cult.

 

[F0uad]

Do they use the Gospel of Mary? If not isn't it hypocrisy?

 

[Iti oj]

Wow some site

 

[Bob Dixon]

Wow some site

Seems pretty legit.

I'm sure Jesus' descendants are working with "colloidal water", or whatever.

 

[paarsurrey]

We find the following account mentioned in "THE FIFTH GOSPEL" by
Fida Hassnain and Dahan Levi 1988

"Till then, we will have no option but to believe that Mary Magdalene is buried at Kashgar and Mary the Mother is buried at Murree."

Jesus in the East

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Food for thought.

You are what you eat ...

 

[Amechania]

If it coud be shown that Jesus was married, How would that effect Christianity?

This fragment seems to add to the possibility, but not to the substance.

Are there any of Jesus teachings or life story that depend on the fact that he was not married?

All problems in that regard seem to attach to later church developments and dogma .

I would have no problem with a married Jesus.

It would seem to me that if Jesus was married his decision about the cross would have been more complicated. That's sort of the idea behind the Last Temptation of Christ. It's easier for a man with no personal responsibilities to face martyrdom than a man who has a wife. The idea of a wife is not so disturbing, but the implication of children is more so. A wife implies children. If Jesus had children, it changes the dynamic of his sacrifice ten-fold, to my mind. And the dilemna, the sweating blood, becomes more real. I personally doubt Jesus was married or had children, but if he did, it would radically change my idea of him. "Who is my brother, my sister, my mother" takes on a whole new meaning.

 

[painted wolf]

I love the growing body of knowledge about the early diversity of the Christian religion. It's fascinating how this small cult grew and evolved over time to become the religion it is today.

If nothing else it provides some evidence that what modern Gnosic and Coptic Christians believe has a deep and interesting history. And it makes the fact that these ideas have survived to the present day despite the best efforts of the "mainstream" church (and the ravages of time) that much more interesting.

wa:do

 

[paarsurrey]

It would seem to me that if Jesus was married his decision about the cross would have been more complicated. That's sort of the idea behind the Last Temptation of Christ. It's easier for a man with no personal responsibilities to face martyrdom than a man who has a wife. The idea of a wife is not so disturbing, but the implication of children is more so. A wife implies children. If Jesus had children, it changes the dynamic of his sacrifice ten-fold, to my mind. And the dilemna, the sweating blood, becomes more real. I personally doubt Jesus was married or had children, but if he did, it would radically change my idea of him. "Who is my brother, my sister, my mother" takes on a whole new meaning.

My religion hints that Jesus must have married:

[13:39] And, indeed, We sent Messengers before thee, and We gave them wives and children. And it is not possible for a Messenger to bring a Sign save by the command of Allah. For every term there is a divine decree.

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

Jesus was one of those messengers as per Quran.
There are historical and other proofs as well which support that.