Baker Academic

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Jesus' Wife: What Did We Learn?

I would like to thank all parties involved in the Wife of Jesus fragment forgery. You have entertained us with an interesting puzzle, hours and hours of online debate, ideological rants, at least one documentary, a dedicated issue of New Testament Studies, and an academic conference. I am especially grateful because this scandal afforded me the opportunity to write a book related to the topic of Jesus' wife. I don't mind saying that I really enjoyed this project. It was easily the most fun I've had with a book. I honestly didn't know where my research would lead and my conclusion ended up surprising me.

Now that there is no longer any reasonable reason to argue for the fragment's authenticity, let us devote a bit more time for some self-reflection, shall we? I promise to make this post extra lengthy for your navel-gazing pleasure.

1. A few months after Karen King announced the existence of what she called "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife" I was invited to give a public lecture about Jesus' sexuality alongside a few colleagues at the University of the Pacific. Carrie Schroeder's lecture that night addressed King's fragment more directly. She had a great line that night which has stuck with me. Carrie said, "I'm skeptical of this fragment for a number of reasons. But I am also skeptical of my own skepticism." Or she said something close to this (we'll go with the pink ipsissima vox bead). We could all stand to take this advice. The hermeneutic of suspicion was certainly useful in this case. It is equally true that a bit of reflexive suspicion was useful. Even our best experts are fallible and knee-jerk conclusions are rarely the best conclusions. Also, even if we are absolutely confident in our ability to spot a forgery, why not leave a bit of room for professional civility? Schroeder respectfully disagreed with King's argument for authenticity. King respectfully disagreed with my suggestion that modern ideological biases were relevant in this discussion. The tone of the conversation matters. Why not leave a bit of room for a change of mind in case newer and better information emerges?

2. We ought not forget that King was right about Jesus' historical marital status: the fragment was never going to reveal anything about Jesus as a historical figure. If authentic (and we know now that it isn't) it might have suggested something about early/medieval Christian belief. She never claimed what several news outlets suggested in headlines. In both her preliminary HTR essay and her subsequent interviews, King maintained that the fragment was too late too be valuable for historical Jesus studies.

3. We have not proven that Jesus was celibate. Our earliest and best data for Jesus still do not tell us much about his pre-public life. Sociohistorical research (which is largely what my book covers) suggests that Jesus would have been arranged for marriage by his parents prior to the age of thirty. But Jesus seems to hold some rather odd opinions about marriage and family. So the matter is not settled and it is certainly not hinged on the authenticity or forgery of King's fragment.

4. There are Christian biases in biblical studies. No doubt, there are theological agendas and apologetic motives. The question of Jesus' marital status is one of those issues that will attract (even if unwittingly) traditional assumptions. Moreover, many Christians will be repulsed by the topic of Jesus' sexuality. If this weren't true, there would be no motive for a forger to put forth a counter-narrative. It is also true that nobody is free of bias. The forger of this fragment seems to have some sort of anti-Christian bent. One sort of bias is no better than the other and both sorts are cause for self-reflection and self-awareness. If a fellow like Simcha Jacobovici claims to have discovered the true meaning of Mary Magdalene's menstrual flow, he doesn't get authenticity points just because he's unaffiliated.

5. This ain't your grandfather's social media, folks. In the olden days, when Jim Davila and Mark Goodacre were settling the frontier, social media might have seemed like a fringe interest. Those of us who were convinced that real scholarship happened in print media were convinced that blogs could be (should be) avoided. This latest forgery is a canary in the coal mine: the new peer-review process is a social media procedure.

And now I will leave you with a quotation by the good doctor: Dr. Seuss.

"I like nonsense; it wakes up the brain cells."

10 comments:

  1. I'm glad you agree there are biases in biblical studies. I'm sure you include your less-than-favourable views towards conservative Christians as a bias.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose that it depends what you mean by "conservative."

      Delete
    2. Since Anonymous spells "favourable" with a "u," I assume he means David Cameron.

      Delete
  2. Gene Stecher
    Chambersburg, Pa.

    Certainly we can expect Jesus' sexuality to be suppressed in the gospels when the emotion expressed by Jesus in Mark is largely systematically suppressed by the other three. This type of refracted memory creation we could possibly call the sanitizing of Jesus.

    Matt (8:1-4) and Luke (5:12-16) remove Jesus’ anger and impatience at the leper from Mark’s (1:40-45) healing of the leper.

    Matt (12:9-14) and Luke (6:6-11) remove Jesus’ anger and grief at his accusers from Mark’s (3:1-6) healing of the withered hand.

    Matt (13:10-17) and Luke (8:9-15) remove Jesus’ impatience at the disciples from Mark’s (4:10-20) explanation of the Sower parable.

    Matt (9:18-26) and Luke (8:49-56) remove Jesus’ emotionally intense order in Mark (5:35-43) to family and disciples for secrecy after a girl is raised from a comatose state.

    Matt (14:13-21, 15:32-39) does retain the word ‘compassion’ of Jesus found in Mark’s (6:30-44, 8:1-10) healing of the 5000 and 4000. Luke (9:10-17) and John (6:1-14) do not retain it.

    Matt does (16:1-4) not retain Jesus’ deep inner sigh found in Mark (8:11-13) when the Pharisees demand a sign. Luke does not have the pericope.

    Matt (16:5-12) does retain some of Jesus’ frustration with the disciples in Mark (8:14-21) over their lack of understanding of the feeding miracles.

    Matt (16:21-23) removes the word ‘rebuke’ from Jesus’ actions when responding in Mark (8:31-33) to Peter’s challenge. Luke does not have the challenge.

    Matt (17:14-21) and Luke (9:37-43) remove Jesus’ exasperated reaction ‘if you are able!’ to the father’s lack of faith in Mark’s (9:14-29) healing of the epileptic child.

    Matt, ‘grieved and agitated’ (14:36-46) and Luke, “anguish’ and ‘sweat like great drops of blood’ (22:39-46) do retain the emotion of the prayer in Gethsemene in Mark, ‘distressed and agitated’ and ‘deeply grieved even to death’ (13:32-42).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gene, you make a good case for a trajectory (or many) toward a less emotional Jesus. But you incorrectly make a primary association between sexuality and emotion.

      -anthony

      Delete
    2. Gene Stecher
      Chambersburg, Pa.

      Hi Anthony,

      I actually was trying to follow your advice and avoid "binary" thinking. I was thinking that the "primary association" between sexuality and emotion is their inclusion in a spectrum of factors which make us human. And in relation to Jesus, my view is that both are suppressed in the gospels.

      I look forward to reading your analyses of socio-historical research and the possible conclusions one might draw about Jesus' pre-public life.

      Delete
  3. I've been off social media for a week or so and just now read this. The quote is pretty much spot on. Thanks, Anthony.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gene Stecher
    Chambersburg, Pa.

    Hi Anthony, last evening I read your Wife of Jesus: Ancient Texts and Modern Scandals. I found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable, informative, and provocative cultural-historical biblical study. Thank you for an integration of memories and practices around "collectivism," "civic masculinity," and "eschatology." I like the separation of the non-public Jesus possibilities (the default position) from the public Jesus possibilities. Very interesting were the analyses of various sayings about eunuchs, security, family, wedding imagery, etc. Particularly illuminating were the analyses of GPhilip as a Valentinian document, the evidence in the Gospel of Jesus' Wife debate, and the origins of courtly love in the 8th century Arabic cultures. These are just a few of the gems I would encourage others to enjoy. The book is like the stereotype of a good wife, very nurturing.

    Now a little levity. What we need is a sequel, right, The Children of Jesus: Ancient Texts and Modern Scandals. After all, where would Jesus' sensitivities toward children come from if not from his own offspring, right? Right!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your kinds words, Gene!
      If the book warrants a third printing, I might have to include some of the more recent forgery findings!
      -anthony

      Delete