Tag Archives: jesus

Jesus’ Wife: What is the significance of this new Egyptian Fragment?


If you’ve been following or perusing news websites at all this week, you’ve most likely read or at least seen one of the many articles published in response to Dr. Karen King, of Harvard Divinity’s announcement regarding a new Coptic fragment containing a quote attributed to Jesus referring to “his wife.” (1) This discovery was released in the New York Times and further reported by CNN, NBC, BBC, and many others news agencies. This of course launched quite a response from scholars, bloggers, and everyone with an opinion (for reliable insights on this discovery check out Marc Goodacre’s blog). While I believe Dr. King and most of the articles covering the story were responsible, my facebook newsfeed showed some (what I call) overreactions to the discovery and I wanted to share a few thoughts.

I want to ask and address one main question, and it’s three components, “What is the Significance of this specific discovery, or what do we learn from this fragment?” In order to answer this main question, we will focus on three components that will lead us to a reasonable conclusion at present. A. Does this say anything about the Historical Jesus? B. Regardless of the search for the Historical Jesus, what else could this document tell us? C. As some are suggesting ( see summary in 2), does this influence the view of role of women within the church, or lead us to new stunning discoveries that Jesus may have had female disciples? For the sake of discussion, I will assume the fragment’s authenticity (see skeptical article).

A In order to put things in perspective, we must look at the date of the text The fragment is roughly dated to the 4th Century (300s) and written in Coptic. Dr. King believes that it was initially written in Greek and may have been written as early as the late 2nd Century. So, this means that this fragment is from a book or scroll that was at best written 50-70+ years after the Gospels in the Bible were written and (if we give a 150 CE date), 120 years after Jesus’ time on earth. So, it is highly unlikely that this fragment would tell us anything about the Historical Jesus or his disciples. Dr. King, rightly emphasizes that point. This is a fairly uncontroversial position, as both scholars who trust the New Testament as the Word of God (Ben Witherington, see NBC article above), and those who believe we cannot ascertain any accurate picture of the historical Jesus out of the New Testament (see April Deconick [3]) , believe that this document does not shed any new light on Jesus’ life or status from 4BCE-34CE.

B So, what does this tell us? If anything, it is evidence that a group of Christians possibly believed that Jesus was married. Is this the only text that hints at this possibility? No, but it is one of the few. The most popular and most significant is the Gospel of Philip, where Mary of Magdala is referred to as his companion that He kisses on the mouth (a scholar, Dr. Deconick, who specializes in the Gnostic Gospels, indicates that Valentinian Christians held a view of a married Jesus. While she personally believes Jesus was married, she admits that the new fragment, as well as any gospel we have cannot lead us to that conclusion or vice versa on purely historical grounds). The Gospel of Philip, nor our fragment can get us closer to understanding the historical Jesus. Yet, Philip and the new fragment can provide insight into communities that existed within the late Second and early Third Centuries. If one assumes that the reference to “my wife” was literal and does not involve any theological or mystical metaphors, it can indicate that Jesus’ marital status was a topic of discussion and theological debate. However, we need to proceed with caution and not read too much into the text or the author/community it came from. The author is unknown, the place or origin is unknown, and we do not know what community or group produced it.  While it may seem easy to place it in the collection found at the Nag Hammadi library in the early 20th Century, we cannot responsibly make that assumption with the data in hand.

Also, what exactly does the text say?

As per the article from the Christian Post, the text reads

• “not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe…”
• “The disciples said to Jesus,”
• “deny. Mary is worthy of it”
• “… Jesus said to them, ‘My wife … ”
• “… she will be able to be my disciple …”
• “Let wicked people swell up …”
• “As for me, I dwell with her in order to”
• “an image”

Unfortunately, this does not tell us much. As mentioned briefly above, it may fit into Valentinian thought with a huge dose of Gnostic influence. However, we cannot asset that solely from the text itself. We cannot, as far as I can recognize, gather gnostic spirituality from this either. Some have suggested that “my wife” refers to the church ( see overview in 4), since the church is often referred to as Jesus’ bride (I don’t hold much stock in that viewpoint, but the lack of data we have cannot eliminate that theory however unlikely or likely it is). It also cannot tell us if Jesus’ bride is Mary of Magdala, Jesus’ “companion” in the Gospel of Philip.
C. Finally, I wanted to look at the last question regarding the discovery’s significant. Does this fragment add anything new to the status of women among Jesus and his disciples. Does it suggest that Jesus had female disciples? Regarding the historical Jesus, this passage does not really give us much regarding his followers in 30 CE. It may indicate that the discussion was more lively regarding the role of women in the late second sentury, but it adds nothing new. I don’t believe that this passage suggests that Jesus had female disciples, but it doesn’t have to, The Gospel of Luke already implies it.
 Jesus had disciples that were not part of “the Twelve.” While it would be controversial to say that Mary was part of the twelve, it is not at all that daring to say that she was a disciple (conservative Christian scholars affirm this ie. Bauckham). In Richard Bauckham’s book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, he suggests that the internal evidence in the Gospel of Luke points not only toward female discipleship, but by use of inclusio, the possibility that Mary was a key witness and major source in the composition of that gospel (See my earlier post on this topic). Again, this is a conservative-leaning Christian scholar, not a progressive-liberal Christian thinker.
In conclusion, what does this new Fragment tell us? Probably nothing about the historical Jesus, not much (or nothing new) about his inclusion and selection of disciples, and it cannot tell us much about the specific community it came from. However, it can give us insight and confidence that there was a group out there (possibly the Valentinian Christians) that believed Jesus had a wife.  Unfortunately by using this fragment alone, we cannot honestly go much further without spinning into conjecture. The group may have been addressing theological and social topics such as Christian Sexuality, whether it was better to be single vs married , etc (1). It is still too difficult to gain specifics like that solely on the data we have without reconstructing too much on our own. Regardless, it is an exciting discovery even if it is not as sensational as some would like to believe. Now it’s time to wait for the peer review process.
1. Goodstein, Laurie. “Historian Says Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 20 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=all&gt;.
2. Cooper, Kate. “‘Wife of Jesus’ Reference in Coptic 4th Century Script.” BBC News. BBC, 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 20 Sept. 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19645273&gt;
3.Deconick, April. “The Forbidden Gospels.” : Did Jesus Have a Wife? N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2012. http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/2012/09/did-jesus-have-wife.html.  (She does not explicitly state that the use of the fragment does not shed light on the Historical Jesus, but her final paragraph explaining the use of the New Testament implies it. {Dr. Deconick, if you happen upon this site and I have interpreted you incorrectly, please let me know}
4. Boyle, Alan. “Reality Check on Jesus and His ‘wife'” Cosmic Log. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2012. <http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13945001-reality-check-on-jesus-and-his-wife?lite

Favorite Reads of 2011


Yes I am trading thoughtful (or merely time-consuming for me) posts for an end of the year book list. It’s not a top ten, and I do not have a “read of the year.” These are the books that lingered in my mind past the initial reading and were the ones I couldn’t put down.

Fear and Trembling: Soren Kierkegaard

– From his pseudonym Johannes Climacus, Kierkegaard explores the concept of faith. He examines Abraham’s obedience and willingness to sacrifice Isaac as a tool to explore the internal process of making an obedient decision out of faith. Here he deploys his famous analogy of the Knight of Infinite Resignation vs. the Knight of Faith. Making the topic more interesting, Kierkegaard’s seems to use his analysis as a way of coming to grips with his own personal failure of letting his beloved, Regine Olson, slip through his fingers.

Resurrection of the Son of God: NT Wright

– The third installment in Wright’s Christian Origins and the Question of God Series packs a punch for anyone interested in studying the topic of Resurrection and/or afterlife. He takes us culture by culture, thinker by thinker, philosophy by philosophy, examining what each people group thought of in terms of resurrection, afterlife, death, etc. Wright does this to set up a historical understanding of the concept in order to fully comprehend what Christians meant when they used the term in the New Testament. He then proceeds to argue that the best explanation for these Christian writings and the Christian movement, was a historical bodily Resurrection. This book is also helpful because Wright accurately critiques the all-too common unbiblical Platonic and Cartesian views of heaven present in many evangelical churches today. A “must-read” if you’re ready for 750 pages on the topic.

Exclusion and Embrace: Miroslav Volf

– Volf’s Exclusion and Embrace might be my book of the year. The book explores ideas of conflict, conflict resolution, reconciliation, forgiveness, justice, and evil all in relation to the cross. He skillfully critiques modernity and postmodernity’s attempts at deciding what we’re supposed to do with evil and atrocities in the world in favor of a Biblical view. An excellent read and a good way to brush up on post-modern thinking.

Evil and the Justice of God: NT Wright

-Yes another NT Wright book made my list. This book is highly influenced by Volf’s Exclusion and Embrace but more directly tries to answer the “Problem of Evil.” He attempts to present a Biblical Model and answer that is both enlightening and challenging. Wright’s handling of the problem will not satisfy all, but is a refreshing departure from the usual defenses and arguments presented in favor of Christianity. Like Wright’s other material, he astutely emphasizes the complete meta-narrative of scripture enabling us to see the problem, and the picture more clearly.

Generous Justice: Tim Keller

– Tim Keller released an excellent little book on the topic of justice. This was one of the more refreshing reads as Keller is an unashamed evangelical whose passion for evangelism and social justice are evident in all his writing. He effectively articulates God’s concern for the poor, making any theology omitting the poor, fallacious theology. Many books that address the issue of social justice come from the perspective of a more liberal-minded theology, Keller breaks that trend providing a breath of fresh air for those who feel that evangelicalism in the United States lacks passion in that arena. A short, but great read.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: Richard Bauckham

– An excellent read in the field of Biblical Studies regarding eyewitness testimony in the ancient world and specifically in the Gospels. While the book’s scope is broad, my favorite sections are Bauckham demonstrates the Bible’s internal textual evidence regarding the witnesses behind particular stories. His section on the eyewitness testimony of women in the Gospel of Luke is of particular interest.

I had other good reads this year, but these are the highlights.

In an effort to protect myself from Theological McCarthyism, I offer this disclaimer.  While I would highly recommend any of these books, I do not endorse all the ideas conveyed by the authors.

Guilty Pleasure of the Year: The Hunger Games trilogy: heck, I started the books and couldn’t put them down.


Women and the Bible


What role did women have in the Bible?  … wait… before we clam up and fight as to whether women should speak in church, become elders, pastors, or maybe the Pope someday… lets reread, and maybe rephrase the question. What role did women have in the Bible’s construction?  This may sound like an odd question considering that there is no book in the new testament called, The Gospel according to Miriam, or Joanna, but women seem to have a greater role than most realize.

If you read the Gospels, you will notice that named-women appear surprisingly frequently throughout Jesus’ ministry. We also see them at the cross, at his burial, and at the empty tomb. This prompts the question, why and how do we have stories about these women? It seems obvious that some were eyewitnesses, but how much is actually their testimony?

The Gospel according to Luke is the most helpful when examining the testimony of women. First of all, Luke by implication states that he is not an eyewitness. He describes that he has carefully investigated everything from the beginning, and taken an account of the testimonies of the first eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4). If you are like me you will wonder,  “who are these first eyewitnesses?”

Scholars such as Richard Bauckham will suggest that there is a good possibility that a substantial amount of Luke’s eyewitness testimony came from women like Mary and Joanna (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Gospel Women). There are a few clues as to why: the literary technique of inclusio, and text’s internal evidence regarding Mary and Joanna’s knowledge of the ministry.

Inclusio is an ancient literary technique where similar ideas, or phrases bracket the beginning and end of a section.

ex.

Beginning: He is a Champion

He likes to play football

he wins MVP’s

He’s won multiple superbowls

End: He is a Champion

While we see this mainly in literary or rhetorical instances (see Hebrews: Christ as the perfect high Priest), we see this in ancient histories and biographies for eyewitness testimony as well. This means that a section will introduce a person, and fill the inner section with testimony or anecdotes from that person, and then close the testimony off by dismissing the individual in some way. A few biblical scholars today (Bauckham, Hengel) will claim that the Gospel according to Mark is largely the eyewitness testimony of Peter based on an inclusio of his testimony (for a non-Christian example of ancient eyewitness inclusio, see Lucian’s Alexander). In Luke, we seem to have multiple sources at work, but the main inclusio we see is with Mary and Joanna. Luke introduces the two in Luke 8:2-3 and last mentions them in Luke 24:11. While interesting and notable that there are two events (the ministry in Luke 8 and the empty tomb in 24) the women were possibly eyewitnesses for, why give them more credit? This comes from their disciple-like knowledge of Jesus’ ministry described in Luke 24.

The women go to the tomb where they find two shimmering men who claim that Jesus is not there. They tell the women,

Luke 24:5b-8

“Why Do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.'” Then they remembered his words.

Pay close attention to “remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee.” The two men move on from this statement, assuming and taking it for granted that these women obviously heard this before. So, let’s go to the original scene in Galilee

Luke 9:18, 21-22

Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him… Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

The section in chapter 9 shows that this specific teaching of Jesus was given to his disciples in private. The two men in chapter 24 suggest that these women were there with Jesus for this teaching. This means that there is a good possibility, that the women were responsible for the accounts of ch. 9: 18-26. Therefore, it seems safe to postulate that if Mary and Joanna were privy to this private conversation, they were present for considerably more.

Inclusio and the testimony from Luke 8 and 24 lead us to believe that some of the women we find in the gospel contributed a considerable portion of the eyewitness testimony we have.* While we cannot know this for certain, a strong case is available. At the very least we can remind ourselves of a few things today. Women are more than just stay-at-home moms and can play quite an important role in ministry. These women traveled with Jesus, participated in his ministry, served the poor, shared the gospel, and as a result put family life aside. These were not women who simply stayed at home. On the contrary, they were with Jesus through his ministry, and remained with him at the cross when the Twelve were too fearful, and most likely quite active in the rise of the early Church.

For further reading:

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

Gospel Women

*By implication in the introduction, Luke used multiple sources. I am not saying that these women were authors, or the only eyewitnesses, just major contributors.


When the Sun won’t rise Pt. 2/Good Friday


I left off my last post saying that I believed that I was approaching the Problem of Evil with a “Biblical View.” I attempted to place emphasis on the importance of treating evil as a serious topic (not belittling it), and moving beyond a mere philosophical response. As finite beings, this is impossible to do as a whole since this very discussion is an exercise in philosophy. If you will notice, I am not very interested at this time in learning how evil came to exist.* The question of “why” is even more difficult and unhelpful in this discussion. The most important questions are, “what now?” and “what next?” This might seem odd, but I am not presenting an exercise in thought that will help for a Philosophy of Religion assignment, but rather a personal reflection, a Biblical reflection relating to the problem of evil.

No one usually approaches the topic intentionally trying to belittle someone’s suffering or issue. However, it happens quite often in theistic arguments when trying to answer the question of “why?” A popular Christian argument is the idea that God has a greater plan, and that evil is going to achieve a greater good through God’s help (Many times Rom. 8:28, Gen 50, or even the life of Christ are chosen for backup evidence). I generally agree with this, but holding this view alone reduces evil to a mere obstacle, or type of “boot camp.” This quasi-Hegelian thought process fails miserably when we arrive at an Auschwitz or tsunami. Very few people will call those two events mere bumps in the road. One could argue that the lives lost were relatively small considering the total population of planet earth’s history and future, but that would be diminishing the evil in a very unchristian way for a Christian line of argumentation. There are a couple issues with this view when it is given on it’s own. It creates a temptation that causes us to invent divine intentions for disastrous events. It is simply not our place. Also, for argumentation’s sake, there is no way an individual could satisfactorily come up with a reason for Auschwitz. An explanation could only come from God. However, my main issue with this incomplete response,  is that it conflicts with the God of the Bible.  The God of the Bible (the Trinitarian God: The Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit) is described as the creator and controller of the universe, and one who cares deeply about people. Any Christian attempt in answering the “why” for has to take this into consideration.

The Gospel of John has one of the most fascinating stories regarding the topic of evil and pain, the resurrection of Lazarus.* I will summarize it, but you can read it in full (John 11). Lazarus is dying and his good friend Jesus, a known miracle worker, is in another town. Word reaches him, but surprisingly Jesus does not rush to Lazarus’ aid. Instead he claims, “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the Glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified in it.” (John 11:4). It is a very interesting statement considering the gravity of the situation, but the disciples believe Him and continue on.  To our greater surprise, Jesus waits two more days before heading over.

Finally, Jesus starts to leave and explains to His disciples,  “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I must go awaken him out of his sleep.” The disciples don’t seem to get it, so eventually Jesus has to clarify “Lazarus is dead, and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe; but let us go to him.” At this point, it seems like this pain is purposeful and that I am wrong for dismissing this line of thinking two paragraphs earlier. Keep in mind that I said the explanations of “purposeful pain” are terrible when used alone. However, let us continue because we haven’t reached the interesting section.

Jesus returns to Lazarus’s family to find that he was buried and has been dead for four days. He talks with the mourning and deeply affected family for a while, sees everyone’s pain, and asks to go see Lazarus’ tomb. Then, the remarkable happens, “Jesus Wept” (John 11:35).

“How is that more remarkable than the resurrection that follows?” I’ll admit, crying at a grave site is not a very impressive or unique act contrasted with a guy returning to life. What is so strange is that Jesus wept, knowing full well what He was about to do. Sorrow was present in the midst of purpose. It would have been easy for Jesus to show no emotion and just raise Lazarus. The story would still maintain its astonishing quality and display God’s power. But, we’re shown something much more. Even if God truly does have a purpose in pain, even if He knows that His next action will thrill us, he still weeps out of compassion!

Of course, being Good Friday, we have to recognize God’s ultimate response to evil. He sent his son live amongst the poorest of the poor, suffer with the weak, get mocked with the fools, associate with the outcasts, die with criminals, and feel the Father turn his face away. This response to evil was not pain free, but wrought with it. If that is God’s ultimate response, we have to recognize what question matters to God. God does not completely answer our question of why; He gives us a victory over evil and gives us the answer to “what now?”

Victory is won, the now is taken care of. The “what next?” is the only remaining question. This is where we have to follow.  Instead of explaining pain, shifting blame, or discovering an end-all theory, we need to fulfill the call to “bear one another’s burdens.” I am not saying that we must all go and find a place to get killed for a good cause. No, but we have to be on the forefront of combating, and reacting to evil. We need to come along side those in pain, fight it when we can even if we believe that there is a purpose behind it all. I will finish (sort of) with a final quote.

“One day I think we shall find out, but I believe we are incapable of understanding it at the moment, in the same way a baby in the womb would lack the categories to think about the outside world. What we are promised however, is that God will make a world in which all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well, a world in which forgiveness is one of the foundation stones and reconciliation the cement which holds everything together. And we are given this promise, not as a matter of whistling in the ark, not as something to believe even though there is no evidence, but in and through Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection, and in and through the Spirit through whom the achievement of Jesus becomes a reality in our world and in our lives.”*

I know that this was much more of a Sunday-school post than some of you anticipated. I guess that’s what happens when you finish writing something on Good Friday. I hesitated on posting any of this because it is such a big and sensitive topic. I know that if I read this again, I will be upset that I missed something, or excluded something obvious. I apologize for questions raised that are left unanswered. Unfortunately a blog does not provide the adequate medium for a full treatment of the topic. I pray that in some way you the reader have gained something out of my musings. I, like many of you will continue to wrestle with this issue. Have a great Friday and I hope to get a few more posts I’ve been thinking about on here.


* The Genesis narrative discusses humankind’s seduction to sin, but does not actually seek out evil’s origin. How did “the accuser” become evil enough to tempt, and how did “the accuser” make it into the Garden of Eden. Ultimately, the origin of evil is not given to us. Also, even with free will, how could an evil choice be known? Interesting topic but unfortunately not pertinent for this discussion.

* Even if one does not believe the validity of this story, it gives insight into the Christian perspective of God’s character. The loving, redeeming, savior-God is compatible with this somewhat shocking story.

*Wright, N. T. Evil and the Justice of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006. Print


When the Sun Won’t Rise Pt.1


Some of you expecting a blog much sooner from me, probably assumed that my first post was going to be my last. The delay is a result of my hesitancy to write on anything other than the topic of Japan.  I pondered if it was wise for me to even approach the tragedy, or the accompanying questions of “why?” or “what’s next?”  I am not a pastor, nor philosopher, nor teacher. Take these words with a grain of salt. Silence is sometimes the better option, but I will attempt to choose my words wisely and hopefully write something worthwhile.

For many, including myself, Japan has been imprinted on our hearts and minds. It has been nearly six days since the earthquake and tsunami struck, but it appears that we haven’t fully realized the devastation that took, and is still taking place. As an abundance of pictures are displayed, the horrors seem all the more real, and in our globalized society, close. I’ve found that the news has become too difficult to view as we witness yet another natural disaster decimate a people.

It gets to the point, where watching a girl’s body go limp from shock and loss becomes too much to bear from our living rooms. Not a month ago we were seeing people crying in New Zealand, a little earlier Chile, and just over a year ago Haiti. The pictures of the atomic-bomb like devastation are haunting, but watching the survivors emotionally torn apart utterly heart-breaking

It is in times like these when we ask God, if we believe in God, “how can this happen?”  This question is the emotional voicing of the ever disturbing and perplexing “Problem of Evil/Pain.” The reason that this issue is more difficult than say, a theistic or atheistic argument on free will vs. either divine, biological, or psychological hard determinism is that everyone at some point must stare pain in its eyes. While most of us do not go around wondering if the Trenta coffee we just purchased was of our own volition or not, we all face pain regardless of our worldview. The Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, and Hindu all have to deal with loss of some sort. As a result, the undeniable reality and physical manifestation of the problem, make a simple or even complex philosophical answer unhelpful. We even run into the danger of making light of the situation.

I am not trying to diminish what philosophers do. On the contrary, I believe that work on this topic is vitally important, but not enough in of itself. This is because the “real” answer might not be helpful one its own. The answer to the Problem of Evil is not necessarily a solution. If the atheist is right in saying that we live in a random disastrous world, we are still left with the same problem. If the Christian asserts that God has a greater ultimate good in store, we are still left facing the problem and are in danger of belittling a the severity of a tragedy. This idea is akin to that of a doctor telling a patient that his or her pain is the result of a tumor that may be malignant. The diagnosis, while important, is not helpful on its own. What is important is that the problem is treated and the patient made well.[1]

At this point, you might think that I am merely towing the middle of the road to appease any theistic or atheistic readers. I can guarantee you that I have satisfied neither at this point, nor is it my intention to present a surface-level postmodern idea that would present nothing of value. I believe that I am ultimately working with a Biblical response very similar to that of NT Wright’s as his works are fresh on my mind. I will expound upon this in part 2.


[1] Unlike the “Problem of Evil,” all parties involved agree upon the diagnosis and the correct answer is known. I will assert that proper diagnosis is vitally important to treating a disease.   Like a physical or cancerous tumor, the “correct” philosophical diagnosis may not be easy to hear and is useless when presented alone. I admit that the metaphor has problems and I will flush it out at more length and fix the errors at another date.