Tom Gilson

SHOCKING New Evidence Reveals 4th-Century Coptics WONDERED If Jesus Was MARRIED!

Yawn…

 

gjw.pngSure, it’s stirring up the whole Internet: “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife,” as the NY Times puts it. But really, so what? Someday someone in the far future is going to unearth yesterday’s NY Times, and they’re going to call it evidence that people in the 21st century wondered what the earliest Christians had to say about women’s role in the church. Which is all this fragment does for us, except it’s about the 4th century instead of the 21st.

This so-called “Gospel of Jesus’ wife” is a credit card-sized fragment written in Coptic (Egyptian) in the 4th century. According to the NY Times, the discoverer, Dr. Karen L. King,

repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question…. But the discovery is exciting, Dr. King said, because it is the first known statement from antiquity that refers to Jesus speaking of a wife. It provides further evidence that there was an active discussion among early Christians about whether Jesus was celibate or married, and which path his followers should choose.

It’s undoubtedly a valuable find for some historical purposes, but nothing in the news reports on it indicates anything new or surprising. It provides no new biographical information about Christ. It was written many miles away and hundreds of years after the facts. All we have is a tiny fragment. It’s the only document among hundreds from the early Christian era hinting at a wife. It bears signs of dependence on historically discredited gnostic gospels.

It’s evidence that the church in the fourth century had questions and concerns about women’s role in the church. Sure, that’s a vital issue today, and it was in the fourth century, too; but we already knew they were talking about it back then.

So thanks for the news, but I think I’ll go back to my nap again. Wake me up if something interesting comes along, okay?

That’s all I have to say about this, but if you’re interested in a closer look at it, see this Survey of Responses from the Christian Apologetics Alliance, especially Glenn Andrew Peoples’ article.

Commenting Restored

The comment function here has been out of service, possibly causing frustration, for which I apologize. You can comment again now, and it will save and post as it should do. First-time commenters' comments will not appear, however, until approved in moderation.

7 thoughts on “SHOCKING New Evidence Reveals 4th-Century Coptics WONDERED If Jesus Was MARRIED!

  1. It could just as well be evidence that the influence of Gnosticism, and possibly even the writings, had reached Egypt at some time prior to this fragment’s date.

  2. YAWN…Hilarious! That’s exactly what I thought. My first reaction was again? Doesn’t Jesus get married once every couple years now? EPIC FAIL satan, going to have to come harder than that.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe

Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!

"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel

"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell

Purchase Here!

More on the book...

Discussion Policy

By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.

Copyright, Permissions, Marketing

Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.

All content copyright © Thomas Gilson as of date of posting except as attributed to other sources. Permissions information here.

Privacy Policy

%d bloggers like this:
Clicky