“Jesus’ Wife Gospel” Ignites Firestorm of Controversy

Harvard Univ. backs down in the face of Scholars’ Criticism

By Nigel Tomes, 25 Sept. 2012

“Suggestion of a married Jesus”—Harvard Gazette

It started out as a good week for Harvard University, the elite US academy. A Harvard scholar basked in the spotlight of media publicity. With great fanfare, Prof. Karen L. King of Harvard Divinity School announced the discovery of the “Jesus’ Wife Gospel,” a 4th century [Egyptian] Coptic fragment. The credit card-sized papyrus scrap contains the words, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...,'" said Dr. King. Another line says, "As for me, I dwell with her in order to..." This, the professor proclaimed, is the “only extant ancient text which explicitly portrays Jesus as referring to a wife.” “King and [her] colleague... at Princeton University, believe that the fragment is part of a newly discovered gospel,” a Harvard news release declared. They dubbed it the “Jesus’ Wife Gospel.” The Harvard Gazette’s headline trumpeted, “Suggestion of a Married Jesus.” The Gazette also announced that the professors’ “analysis of the fragment is scheduled for publication in the January issue of Harvard Theological Review, a peer-reviewed journal,” buttressing the credibility of their claims.

“Harvard Prof.: Ancient Papyrus Mentions Jesus’ Wife”

News media jumped on the bandwagon; it quickly became front-page news around the globe. “Was Jesus Married?...” asked Bloomberg News. “'The Gospel of Jesus' Wife,' ...Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married” declared the Huffington Post. “Harvard Professor: Ancient Papyrus Mentions Jesus’ Wife” ran ABC News’ headline. “Scholar: Jesus talks of wife in ancient script,” said the Science Blog, PhysOrg. The Smithsonian Channel promised a special TV documentary about the papyrus and King’s research Sept. 30. Meanwhile the Smithsonian Magazine’s Ariel Sabar informed readers that “the ‘wife’ Jesus refers to is probably Mary Magdalene, and Jesus appears to be defending her against someone, perhaps one of the male disciples.”

The Da Vinci Code Vindicated?

The UK’s, Daily Mail, took it one step further; its heading proclaimed, “'Proof' Jesus was married found on ancient papyrus that mentions how son of God spoke of his wife and Mary Magdalene.” The “fragment contains the bombshell phrase where Jesus, speaking to his disciples, says 'my wife', which researchers believe refers to [Mary] Magdalene,” the Mail told readers. It also supports the “thought that Jesus and Magdalene were in fact a couple, as picked up by Dan Brown in the plot of his best-selling thriller The Da Vinci Code,” said the Mail. To movie and book fans it seemed like vindication for Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code which alleged the dark secret that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, was hidden for centuries by the Catholic Church. Throwing his weight behind Prof. King’s claims, James Tabor, the controversial author and academic who claims to have found the “Jesus’ Family Tomb,” challenged Bible scholars to “reconsider the question” of Jesus’ marital status in response to the newly-discovered “Jesus’ Wife Gospel.”

The Tide Turns—Scholars Object

The week started with Harvard Univ. trumpeting its academic coup—the first evidence suggesting Jesus was married (or at least that early Christians debated this issue). However, the tide quickly turned; skeptical scholars quickly questioned King’s claims.

Is this Fragment a “Gospel”?

Scholars objected to Prof. King calling this fragment the “Jesus’ Wife Gospel. “King is calling the receipt-sized slip of papyrus ‘The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.’ ...[Yet] the fragment contains just 33 words spread across 14 incomplete lines—less a full-fledged gospel than an ancient crossword puzzle,” commented Daniel Burke on RNS. The term, “gospel” biases readers towards viewing this fragment as part of a substantial work, like the New Testament Gospels. The professors talk about “The gospel of which the fragment is but a small part…” However, the fact is that there’s no evidence beyond this tiny scrap. We don’t know whether it’s a “small part” or a substantial part. Their claims go beyond the evidence.

Is it Authentic?

More importantly scholars questioned whether it’s genuine or a forgery.  King says two experts authenticated it as genuine. Other scholars quickly raised “red flags.” Dr. Jim West of Quartz Hill School of Theology greeted King’s claims by saying, “It strains credulity to believe that of an entire document, however long it originally was, the only portion preserved in near pristine, incredibly legible condition is the credit card sized segment which just happens to mention ‘Jesus’s wife…’ Could it be legitimately ancient? Sure anything is possible. But that so many are accepting it as [legitimate] without knowing its origins is just downright troubling.” [J. West’s,Zwinglius Blog]

Wolf-Peter Funk, a noted Coptic linguist, also questioned its authenticity, saying the form of the fragment was "suspicious."

Stephen Emmel, Prof. of Coptology at the Univ. of Muenster, Germany, commented, "There's something about this fragment in its appearance and also in the grammar of the Coptic that strikes me as being not completely convincing somehow."

Coptic scholar, Christian Askeland, is skeptical of its authenticity due to the odd formation of some of its letters and omissions in the Coptic text. Other scholars said the fragment's grammar, form and content raised several red flags. Alin Suciu, a papyrologist at the Univ. of Hamburg, Germany, was blunt, flatly calling it a “forgery.” “I would say it's a forgery. The script doesn't look authentic" when compared to other samples of Coptic papyrus script dated to the 4th century, he said.

Experts from Egypt (the fragment’s purported origin) joined the skeptics. Hany Sadak, director general of the Coptic Museum in Cairo, Egypt, said the fragment’s existence was unknown to Egypt’s antiquities authorities until the news articles this week. “I personally think, as a researcher, that the paper is not authentic because...if it had been in Egypt before, we would have known of it and we would have heard of it before it left Egypt,” he said.

What’s the Fragment’s Original Source?

Prof. Jim West of Quartz Hill School of Theology was quick to raise the issue of its source. In his Zwinglius Blog under the title “No, People, a 4th Century Scrap Doesn’t Prove Jesus Had a Wife,” Dr. West asked “what’s the provenance of the fragment?  Was it discovered in a controlled scientific dig? Who are the excavators? Where are the photos of the artifact’s discovery in situ [in its state when found]? Who deciphered it?  What is its date?”

“King isn’t an archaeologist so how did she come into possession of the piece?” Jim West asked. Where and in what situation was the fragment found? These are important issues to archaeologists. If an artifact is found wrapped on old newspapers or with old coins (for e.g.) this helps date the find. What about this case? No contextual data is available. Dr. West responds, “It’s nothing more than a statement ‘in thin air’, without substantial context... so its provenance is a mystery.  That means, so far as real historians & biblical scholars are concerned, it’s rubbish.  No provenance, no usefulness.  The only people who accept unprovenanced artifacts are people who do shows for the Discovery Channel,” he said disparagingly.  Dr. West reminds us of previous cases; “scholars have been duped a number of times – falling for clever forgeries foisted off on them through ‘anonymous’ donors and ‘antiquities dealers’.  Remember the ‘Ivory Pomegranate’?  The ‘James Ossuary Inscription’?  The ‘Jehoash Inscription’?  The ‘Lead Codices’?  The ‘Secret Gospel of Mark’?” [J. West’s, Zwinglius Blog] So, West asks, “If Dr. King has an artifact from a controlled dig, cool.  If not, then why has it become public?”

Scholars Question Harvard’s Ethics

What started out as a good week for Harvard rapidly turned into a nightmare. The fanfare of Harvard’s announcement had barely faded before scholars began to question the motives of the parties involved. The day after Harvard’s announcement, an Associated Press story titled, “Scholars question authenticity of 'Jesus' wife' papyrus” was widely circulated. AP reported that “experts in the illicit antiquities trade also wondered about the motive of the fragment's anonymous owner, noting that the document's value has likely increased amid the publicity of the still-unproven find.” [AP Sept. 19, 2012]

Is Harvard being manipulated?

The “Jesus’ Wife” fragment has not been authenticated as genuine, there’s no history of where it’s been, plus its owner may have a financial interest in all this publicity. The question arises--Is Harvard University being manipulated (by the fragment’s anonymous owner or others with a vested interest) to inflate the perceived its value? Clearly the fragment’s market value likely increased due to the widespread publicity. Skeptics ask, Will the mystery owner use this opportunity to make a tidy profit?  Boston University archaeologist Ricardo Elia points out that “lurking behind all of this is the suspicion that the collector is doing this for the purpose of having the scholar authenticate a piece, and get a lot of attention to it, and then turn around and sell it.” If so, Harvard University  will have aided & abetted this action.

Was this Fragment Looted?

Under the title, “Papyrus suggesting Jesus had a wife stirs controversy, doubts” AP also reported that scholars questioned the ethics of Prof. King and Harvard University. David Gill, Prof. of archaeological heritage at the University of Suffolk (UK) & author of the Looting Matters blog, which monitors the illicit antiquities trade, says “This looks to me as if any sensible, responsible academic would keep their distance from it.”  Prof. Gill also inquired whether Harvard contacted Egyptian authorities about the find.

If this fragment is indeed genuine, this raises the issue—was this fragment looted (at any point in its history)? Was it ever part of the illicit trade in antiquities? Prof. Gill points out that the Archaeological Institute of America, for example, won’t publish articles in its journal announcing antiquities’ discoveries without proof that they conform to a 1973 UNESCO convention fighting the illicit trade. Plus many American museums no longer acquire antiquities without a provenance, following successful efforts by countries to reclaim looted treasures. Archaeologists also complain that the looting of antiquities removes them from their historical context, depriving scholars of a wealth of information. [Assoc. Press, Sept, 19, 2012] These are questions Harvard and its professor should answer before rushing to publish.

What about Egypt’s Rights?

So far Harvard has kept the fragment’s owner anonymous.  Boston University archaeologist Ricardo Elia contends that Harvard’s actions raise the issue of professional ethics, because Harvard appears to be protecting the owner, a collector, from other claims to ownership of the fragment—for example, Egypt’s claims if it originated there. Harvard Divinity School “said the papyrus most likely came from Egypt, which means it could be Egypt's cultural property," Dr. Elia said. “If it's real, it was looted and smuggled, most likely,” Prof. Elia said. “If it's not real, then it shouldn't even be out there in the discussion.” [AP, Sept. 21, 2012] Either way—forgery or genuine—Harvard is in a hard place!

Harvard in Damage Control

By the week’s end Harvard University was in full damage control mode. By Friday an AP headline announced, “Harvard Holding off Publishing Claim Jesus had a Wife”. The report began, “Harvard University says it hasn't committed to publishing research that purportedly shows some early Christians believed Jesus had a wife even though its divinity school touted the research during a publicity blitz this week.” [AP Sept. 21. 2012] Harvard was clearly back-pedalling on this issue.  Earlier in the week, on Tuesday, Harvard said Dr. King's research was scheduled for publication in the Harvard Theological Review [HTR] in January and noted that the HTR was peer-reviewed, which implied the research had been fully vetted. This buttressed the authors’ claims of validity.

However, surprised (perhaps) by the strong reaction of scholars, by Friday the journal was “singing a different tune.” The HTR's co-editor Kevin Madigan said the editors had only “provisionally” committed to a January publication, pending the results of the ongoing studies. In an email, Mr. Madigan said the added studies include “scientific dating and further reports from Coptic papyrologists and grammarians.” [AP Sept. 21. 2012]

More Heat than Light

Certainly the controversy ignited by the “Jesus’ Wife Gospel” generated a lot of heat, probably more than either Dr. King or Harvard ever expected. However, it cast very little light on Jesus’ marital status. Aside from this fragment, Dr. Michael J. Kruger, Prof. at the Reformed Theological Seminary, points out “we do not have a single historical source in all of early Christianity that suggests Jesus was married. None. There is nothing about Jesus being married in the canonical [NT] gospels, in apocryphal gospels, in the church fathers, or anywhere else. Even if this new [“Jesus’ Wife”] gospel claims that Jesus was married, it is out of step with all the other credible historical evidence we have about his life. As [even Dr.] King herself noted, "This is the only extant ancient text which explicitly portrays Jesus as referring to a wife. It does not, however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married" [Gospel Coalition, Sept. 19, 2012] Putting all this into perspective, Dr. Kruger says “I like to remind my students of a simple…fact: of all the gospels in early Christianity, only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are dated to the first century.   …Thus, if we really want to know what Jesus was like, our best bet is to rely on books that were at least written during the time period when eyewitnesses were still alive. And only four [New Testament] gospels meet that standard.” [Dr. Michael J. Kruger Gospel Coalition, Sept. 19, 2012] None of the New Testament gospels tell us that Jesus was married.