[4th Century] Papyrus Refers to Christ’s Bride
Tancred
9/18/12
eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/09/papyrus-refers-to-christs-bride.html
Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ , so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish [Ephesians 5:24-27]
Edit: with a h/t to the Duke. It will be tempting for some overly friendly individuals to want to grant the benefit of the doubt to the frequently anti-Catholic New York Times. That’s not our purpose here. They’ve never been lacking for malice toward the Catholic Church, and this time is no exception.
A little research and perhaps a stronger religion desk would have left this story where it belongs.
The document in question was written nearly four centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection and is fragmentary, referring to Christ’s “wife”. The article in the Times doesn’t address the fact that Christ is often referred to as bridegroom or the spouse of the Church, but He is indeed referred to that way in Christian writing. And it didn’t stop the journalist from speculating about possible changes in the Church’s teachings.
Unfortunately, there will be a lot of confusion over this from Huffpo:
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 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.
To borrow a page from the Modernists’ book of Bible criticism–namely, the
distinction between “the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith”; that is, to widen the gap between the time of the actual life of Jesus (early decades of the 1st century A.D.) and that of the New Testament accounts (supposedly early to mid 2nd century but actually mid to late 1st century) to give the idea that the New Testament is not an accurate account of the historical Jesus but rather a theologically-inspired and miracle-embellished presentation of the Christ of faith: The 300-year gap between the 4th century papyrus and the 1st century life of Jesus would seriously challenge the historical accuracy of its statement that Jesus had a wife who was also one of his disciples–especially because of the Gnostic-feminist nature of some documents from that era (such as the apocryphal Gospel of Mary Magdalen).
INVENTING JESUS’ WIFE
September 19, 2012
www.catholicleague.org/inventing-jesus-wife/
Bill Donohue comments on the contention by Harvard professor Karen King that Jesus once remarked, “My wife”:
The evidence that Jesus had a wife can be ascertained by using a magnifying glass to read a 3.8 x 7.6 centimeter inscription made on a scrap of papyrus. We know nothing about when the scrap was discovered. We know nothing about where it was discovered. We know nothing about how it was discovered. We know nothing about the context in which the words were written. And we know nothing about the owner.
What we do know is that two of the three scholars who first examined the scrap questioned its authenticity; they are now unsure whether it is real or a fraud. The third scholar went right to the heart of the matter questioning its grammar, translation and interpretation. Not much left after that.
The reigning dogma in the academy is that words can have multiple meanings. For King, however, the words, “My wife,” are so clear that they “can mean nothing else.” Yet according to some biblical scholars, “sister-wives,” as they are called, were not uncommon in the early centuries: these were women who performed domestic duties but did not have sexual relations. And since we know nothing of the context in which the words were allegedly said, King’s confidence is unwarranted.
King is known for her fertile imagination. For example, she previously claimed that Mary Magdalene was one of the apostles. Even better, in the book in which she made this extraordinary claim, she “rejects his [Jesus’] suffering and death as the path to eternal life.” Not much left after that.
In the 1990s, King sent her German mentor a book she wrote on feminine images in the gospels. She later learned that he “had utterly no interest” in it and quickly pawned it off on his wife, unread.
So after first inventing an apostle for Jesus—who the divinity professor says is not the Savior—King has now invented a wife for him. Her generosity, if not her scholarship, is beyond dispute.
Sheer satanic Karen King blasphemy.
Even Clive Cussler – a fiction writer – would scoff at the “scholarship” of this hoax.
Someone ought to dig up the old Teilhard deChardin hoax with the “prehistoric” fossil he was party to( Piltdown “man” ? ) If a wildcat Jesuit couldn’t pull it off – the fraud lasted only for a time until exposed and disgraced – this chick ain’t got a chinaman’s chance.
Yes, that’s right – “Piltdown man” was Teilhard’s baby. I live about 40 miles from there. It seems that many in the Vatican aren’t familiar with his fraudulent activities and still take him seriously to this day. Even the Pope has spoken favourably about him – I guess his “evolutionary theology” fits nicely with a hermeneutic of continuity.
Come to think of it, a “pig’s tooth in an ape’s jaw” could be a fitting epitaph for the “hermeneutic of continuity.”
What do you have against our porcine friends, anyway, Deacon? : – )
Not anything in principle – I find them very flavoursome! The reference to the porcine incisor was purely in relation to the nature of the fraud. IIRC Teilhard inserted a porcine incisor into an ape mandible and then used sophisticated staining techniques to create the appearance of great antiquity – he then planted the “hominid” jaw where he knew it would be found.
It is at least 26 years since I read accounts of the forgery, so I may not be correct on the details, but I think I am – unless I’m mixing it up with “Java man” – another great invention!
P.S. I’m meeting with a Prof of Coptic studies on Tuesday when she gets back from the above conference. It will be interesting to get her take on the “revelation” and will report back anything pertinent.