Liberal Scholars Push Shotgun Wedding for Jesus

That the media and public at large know nothing about history in general and even less about biblical history in particular is proved yet again by a scholar's claim of finding a piece of manuscript mentioning Jesus' "wife."

Harvard University history professor Karen King announced the fragment of a "gospel" in which Jesus is depicted as referring to "my wife," Mary.

It's far from the first time someone has suggested that Jesus had a wife. Usually the idea goes hand in hand with a theory about some sort of misogynistic conspiracy to hide Jesus' alleged spouse from the world.

Most of these tales, or "gospels" as university professors like to tout them, are writings inspired by third or fourth century mystery cults that flourished in the Roman Empire.

The liberal scholar line in general is that there were many versions of Christianity until the early fourth century when four gospels were chosen from among dozens or even hundreds of so-called Gnostic Gospels, some of which were wildly bizarre. Usually, this goes hand in hand with the theory that early Christians were so bigoted or insecure about their position on Jesus' divinity that they deleted all references to Jesus' wife and children.

Probably the most famous illustration of this line of historical torture is the "DaVinci Code," which ties the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD into the old saw about the Merovingian kings and their holy bloodline descending from Jesus. Part of the conspiracy theory is that the Emperor Constantine dictated that out of dozens of variants of Christianity only one version and its four gospels would be practiced in his empire.

In reality, the four gospels were accepted Christian canon centuries before, and the Council of Nicaea dealt with the heresy of Arianism, and set a date for the celebration of Easter.

King's discovery fits in perfectly with the conspiracy version of Christian history. Although King claims the Coptic script is a copy of a second-century Greek text, which is nowhere to be found, the actual scrap of writing is dated to the fourth century.

In it, the apostles are depicted having a discussion about Mary's worthiness to be counted as a disciple. This, too, is a common theme in the Gnostic version of Christianity. For a theory that proposes the early church was anti-women, the texts the theory's champions put forward are all markedly more sexist than the four real gospels in the Bible.

I expect the media will love this story as reporters will think it challenges Christianity, but any familiarity with the church's early history blows the Gnostic theories out of the water every time.

First, the earliest Gnostic gospel for which there exists any mention is the so-called Gospel of Judas, mentioned by St. Irenaeus in the late second century in "Against Heresies," where he called the Gnostic Gospel of Judas a "false history."

The earliest actual writings about Jesus are often thought to be the letters of Paul in the New Testament. The four gospels were most likely written over the course of a few decades after Jesus. Most scholars place them all within the first century, but certainly they were completed and considered canon by the middle of the second century because St. Irenaeus lists all four gospels and gives reasons why they are authoritative in the same "Against Heresies" around 180 A.D.

As for Jesus having a wife, there's no reason to think the early church would have opposed it. Marriage was expected of most people, and Jesus was unusual among religious teachers of the time in that he had many female followers and was probably close friends with several of them.

If you read the gospels closely, Mary Magdalene seems to have been one of Jesus' favorite followers, and she bears the honor of being the first witness to Jesus' resurrection with a special commission to tell the Apostles what happened.

Many of the letters of Paul also address prominent women in the early church, and Paul stated repeatedly that Christ's followers, men and women, were equal. So the notion of he-man woman haters erasing Jesus' wife just doesn't hold water.

King's discovery is an interesting historical artifact perhaps, but it has little if anything to do with the actual Christian church.



69 thoughts on “Liberal Scholars Push Shotgun Wedding for Jesus

  1. The fragment did not say "my wife Mary". The fragment said "my wife" and "she is an apostle of mine". Now everyone assumes its Mary, but the Catholics still deny Mary was an apostle. Look at all the furor over Dan Brown's book and Leonardo's picture of the Last Supper. This refutation of Jesus and his human relationship to his apostles by my fellow Christians is all about the Council of Nicea, and the Trinitists' victory later dogmatized as official church doctrine by Augustine, Ambrose and Jerome several generations later. The whole idea of a three headed god is a Greek one where the Olympus Gods had their three faces.

    Perhaps its time to face what all the Orthodox Christian faiths have maintained that God is the One inviolate and indivisable, and Jesus is his son, a separate and independent demi god. The western half Christianity considers this blasphemy as did Saint Nicholas (Santa) who cold cocked Arias for suggesting this at the Council of Nicea. Remember fully one half of Christianity maintains that Jesus is divine, and a pathway to his Father, but he is subservient to God who is the great Dominus of the Universe. This resulted in the Great Schism between the Roman Church and the Eastern Church.

    After all my reading and studies I side with the Orthodox churches. I am not bothered that Jesus and Mary may have been married. His human half obviously needed her and he didn't discover his true power until the night before he died. God is the Dominus and Jesus is His Intercessor. When Jesus said, "I am the light and the way," he was declaring himself to the be the Intercessor between mankind and his Father. Jesus being at least half like all the rest of us, understood our strengths and failings, and God allowed him to be the go between.

    Why is this so troubling for the western half of Christianity? This view does not support the godless atheists, in fact it makes an even stronger case for the Bible and God and Jesus whom atheists and Muslims like to belittle. Jesus, with half of God's powerful DNA is the second most powerful being in the Universe under our Creator. I am comforted by this.

  2. How much does Harvard University pay this "professor"? If she has time for this nonsense, I''d venture to say far more than she is worth. Why does this bother these people so much? If they choose not to believe, that's fine. Do us all a favor Ms. King...get a life!

  3. What the heck is a scolar but a stupid human. Most scholars don't no anything about the world around them and nothing about what God intended !!!!!!!!

  4. Have you seen any Christians storming the walls of liberalism or atheism and burning and killing people at random and screaming and ranting and burning flags? I think this shows who is civilized and who is not.

  5. Doesn't it strike you as just a bit strange that He who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6) said nothing about the truth of a wife? It is incredible that, if it were in fact true, there was such an omission by the writers of the gospels and that there is no expository amplification on the part of St. Paul regarding the "remarkable example of Jesus' wife." All of which, in all intellectual honesty, must lead those who insist on the same to admit to the implausibility of the authenticity and veracity of the document. If the authorship of the document and the origin of the document itself are not known, why would anyone attribute any credibility to it or pay it any heed?

  6. If Jesus married, the Apostles would have mentioned it.
    These scholars are idiots.

  7. I thought Harvard Uni was a good university. But if this is the quality of the academia nowadays, and many lecturers in social sciences across many western universities are demonstrating incredibly broad interpretaions of manuscripts and other data, it begs the question: Why on earth do parents permit their children to study in such backwater places? Education needs to be founded on objectivity, demonstrable validatory skills and careful observations. Karen King has failed to do this. She has sought only to promote herself, not her craft, and her religious views, not her scholarly understanding. Pity.