Gospel of the Wife of Jesus
Long venerated by many Christians as the burial shroud of Jesus, the Shroud of Turin was in the late 1980s radiocarbon dated at AD 1260-1390, rather conclusively a fake. Disappointment was deep, far and wide.
We like to cherish things of antiquity, and sometimes find it easy to trust too quickly if for no other reason than that we want to trust and believe. We are not naive or gullible, we are romantics.
In the past couple of weeks we have seen a lot of attention and argument about the so-called Gospel of the Wife of Jesus. It’s a tiny papyrus fragment with Coptic text that has Jesus mentioning his wife Mary, supposedly Mary Magdalene. The papyrus apparently dates to the fourth century (quite ancient in Bible studies), and is said to be a copy of a second century gospel. Be that as it may, the ink, the writing on the fragment is thought by some experts to be genuine and by others to be perhaps post-2003 AD.
A news piece this morning says that the writing, the ink, will be carbon dated the middle of this month, October 2012.
For myself just watching all the scholars and scientists involved on both sides, I’m wary and ready to chuckle if it comes to that. Respecting the integrity of everyone involved, especially Professor King who brought the fragment to light last month, it does seem at least that someone should have gotten a best-seller out of it before allowing the carbon dating.
As to the question it raises -- was Jesus married? -- this isn’t the first time that has been discussed, and either way, it all comes down to my basic theological premise, “just because you believe it, even believe it fervently, even believe it with every fiber of your being, that don’t make it so!” Other than what we have in the gospels, which is always subject to historical-critical discussion, the so-called “historical Jesus” is long and truly out of reach. Barring a time machine, that is, which would probably be tragic.
As to the papyrus and ink, if it proves a modern fake, discussion closed, wad it up and trash it. If it proves genuine, that proves nothing about Jesus, only that someone wrote a story in which they said that Jesus said something interesting -- which is not uncommon in any of the dozen or more gospels we have, both canonical and non-canonical. Again, just because somebody said He said it, that don’t make it so.
Nevertheless, conjecture is fun. All the focus is on Mary Magdalene only, nobody else ever comes up as a candidate. This is helped by such as the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar in which Mary Magdalene is portrayed very close to Jesus. Very close. Very close indeed. It’s a stage play. But we are romantics. Also, we love a scandal.
Tradition that is interested in Mary Magdalene often holds her to have been a prostitute, a low-life woman who came to Christ. Naturally, romantic human imagination doesn’t stop there. But suppose it’s true, suppose for a moment that she was His lover and wife. It could fit everything good we believe about Him.
It would scandalize the scribes and Pharisees, who already were scandalized that He would call tax collectors and other sinners to be His disciples, and to eat with them.
The same scandal-driven folks who were scandalized when apparent women of the streets came in the house where He was having dinner with prominent, respectable folks. Wiped His feet with her tears and hair. Anointed Him with expensive nard, “for burial,” as He said.
It would be thoroughly Biblical, scriptural, fitting the history of prophets, and Jesus did refer to Himself as a prophet, as does Luke the evangelist. Witness, the prophet Hosea, whom God called to take the harlot Gomer for wife. Hosea named their third child Lo-ammi, a pointed and hilarious if damning double entendre meaning “not my people.”
For Jesus to take Mary Magdalene to wife could upset people then and now who had and have their own convictions and certainties about Him. Certitudes and rationalizations that, then and now, would not unlikely cause God to laugh. God the Father whose values are a hundred-eighty out from ours. And God the Son whose touch, even whose very word, creates, re-creates, makes pure and holy, clean, undefiled and sinless.
The theology of it all is quite excellent.
TW+