 |
| The little scrap of papyrus that "threatens" to undermine Christianity. NOT! |
300 years after the death of Christ we have St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-387), who's writings demonstrate that he fought stridently against heresies during his time. One of these heresies, Arianism - which denied that Jesus was divine and not of one substance with the Father - was officially condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., a council that St. Cyril himself attended. Cyril also denounced two forms of Gnosticism, Marcionism and Manichaeism, both of which he addressed in his 18th Catechetical Lecture entitled On the Words, And in One Holy Catholic Church, and in the Resurrection of the Flesh, and the Life Everlasting. Of particular interest is Section 26 of this writing in which we read the following (with my emphasis):
"...I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, "And in one Holy Catholic Church;" that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Catholic Church in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God..."
Notice what St. Cyril does, he cuts down other Christian sects and uplifts the One True Church, the Catholic Church, whom he refers to as "the spouse of our Lord." But, where did St. Cyril get such and idea from? In The Letter to the Ephesians, chapter 5 verse 25 we read the following:
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her...
Indeed, the New Testament is peppered with references to Jesus as a bridegroom. Bear in mind that NONE of these writings were yet canonized as Scripture, it would take almost 100 years from the time of St. Cyril before they would be part of established Scripture:
- John 3:29 - John the Baptist refers to himself as a friend of the Bridegroom.
- 2 Cor. 11:1-3 - St. Paul likens himself as a father of the bride for he introduced the Corinthians to Christ.
- Rev. 19:5-8 - Depict the marriage supper of the Lamb and his bride dressed in white.
- Mark 2:19 - Jesus refers to Himself as the bridegroom as the reason why His guests weren't fasting.
- Matthew 25:1-13 - Jesus tells of the parable of the 10 virgins waiting for the coming of the bridegroom.
Indeed, the New Testament is peppered with references to Jesus as a bridegroom. Bear in mind that NONE of these writings were yet canonized as Scripture, it would take almost 100 years from the time of St. Cyril before they would be part of established Scripture:
- John 3:29 - John the Baptist refers to himself as a friend of the Bridegroom.
- 2 Cor. 11:1-3 - St. Paul likens himself as a father of the bride for he introduced the Corinthians to Christ.
- Rev. 19:5-8 - Depict the marriage supper of the Lamb and his bride dressed in white.
- Mark 2:19 - Jesus refers to Himself as the bridegroom as the reason why His guests weren't fasting.
- Matthew 25:1-13 - Jesus tells of the parable of the 10 virgins waiting for the coming of the bridegroom.
Easily seen is a comparison between Jesus and a husband, that is, Jesus is "married" to the Church. This analogy was not lost on yet another one of the Early Church Fathers; St. Cyprian of Carthage writing over 100 years before St. Cyril in his The Unity of the Catholic Church (251 A.D.), writes the following in the sixth paragraph of his treatise:
The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous, she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty and the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ.
So, if we were to take this little, itty-bitty piece of papyrus at face value we can easily justify that - if it is in fact Jesus Christ speaking in this fragment - the "wife" that He is referring to could competently be assumed to His Church. If no other reasoning is used and we simply look at what the Early Church Fathers thought and wrote about at the time this fragment was allegedly written, this conclusion not only becomes feasible but in fact, probable. Now, let's analyze what this fragment says and see if my theory pans out.
The Harvard Divinity School has dedicated a web page to the fragment and, if nothing else, it could be argued that Christ could be talking about His Church. The fragment lines read thusly (brackets indicate sections missing form fragment):
Not [to] me. My mother gave me li[fe]...The disciples said to Jesus'[]...deny. Mary is [not] worthy of it []...Jesus said to them, "My wife []...she will be able to be my disciple []...Let wicked people swell up []...as for me, I dwell with her in order to []...an image []...
If we are to take these words at face value and place them within the already established view of the Church being the one and only Bride of Christ, then we can extrapolate the following translation:
My mother gave me life = Mary is very important, she gave life to me
The disciples said to Jesus = If Mary is so important, will she lead your Church?
deny. Mary is [not] worthy of it = No. Mary will not lead my Church
Jesus said to them, "My wife = Jesus told them, "My Church...
she will be able to be my disciple = She will be my pilgrim here on Earth (See Eucharistic Prayer III, Intercessions para. 2)
Let wicked people swell up = Let those who do not believe, continue to not be part of my Church
as for me, I dwell with her in order to = I will be with the Church always (See Matthew 28:20)
an image = My Church will be physical for all to see
So, in speaking within the context of the Early Church, we could loosely translate it into following:
Mary, the mother of Jesus is very important, after all she not only saw her son give Himself up for us but, she was born without Original Sin and is our mother as well. The disciples ask Jesus, therefore, is she to lead them as they spread His Word as commanded, after all Mary too was in the upper room when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles. Jesus tells them, "No. Even though she magnifies my presence, she will not lead my Church," Mary's role as a spiritual intercessor will be much more important then anything she does here on Earth. Jesus continued to tell them, "My Church, my devout pilgrim here on Earth will be the ultimate disciple, as my Bride she will dispense all forms of knowledge without ever faltering. Therefore, those who do not believe in my Bride that is, My Church, do not believe in me, for I dwell with her and she with me, bounded together for eternity. She will be my physical presence for all to see here on Earth."
The above is just a simple and personal translation from all the information that I've been able to attain since this story broke yesterday. Indeed, if this is the case, how beautiful a picture that Christ paints by explicitly describing his Church as such. However, in the process of researching this new-fangled attack against the established teachings of the Catholic Church, I found one thing that struck me as rather suspicious when it came to the scholar who first deciphered this apparent 1,700 year old piece of paper.
The scholar in question is Karen L. King, a Harvard Divinity School professor. I did a bit of research on her and what I found was a bit telling as to how she determined what the translation of the papyrus scrap says. Turns out that Professor King is the author of such essential Gnostic literature as:
The Harvard Divinity School has dedicated a web page to the fragment and, if nothing else, it could be argued that Christ could be talking about His Church. The fragment lines read thusly (brackets indicate sections missing form fragment):
Not [to] me. My mother gave me li[fe]...The disciples said to Jesus'[]...deny. Mary is [not] worthy of it []...Jesus said to them, "My wife []...she will be able to be my disciple []...Let wicked people swell up []...as for me, I dwell with her in order to []...an image []...
If we are to take these words at face value and place them within the already established view of the Church being the one and only Bride of Christ, then we can extrapolate the following translation:
My mother gave me life = Mary is very important, she gave life to me
The disciples said to Jesus = If Mary is so important, will she lead your Church?
deny. Mary is [not] worthy of it = No. Mary will not lead my Church
Jesus said to them, "My wife = Jesus told them, "My Church...
she will be able to be my disciple = She will be my pilgrim here on Earth (See Eucharistic Prayer III, Intercessions para. 2)
Let wicked people swell up = Let those who do not believe, continue to not be part of my Church
as for me, I dwell with her in order to = I will be with the Church always (See Matthew 28:20)
an image = My Church will be physical for all to see
So, in speaking within the context of the Early Church, we could loosely translate it into following:
Mary, the mother of Jesus is very important, after all she not only saw her son give Himself up for us but, she was born without Original Sin and is our mother as well. The disciples ask Jesus, therefore, is she to lead them as they spread His Word as commanded, after all Mary too was in the upper room when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles. Jesus tells them, "No. Even though she magnifies my presence, she will not lead my Church," Mary's role as a spiritual intercessor will be much more important then anything she does here on Earth. Jesus continued to tell them, "My Church, my devout pilgrim here on Earth will be the ultimate disciple, as my Bride she will dispense all forms of knowledge without ever faltering. Therefore, those who do not believe in my Bride that is, My Church, do not believe in me, for I dwell with her and she with me, bounded together for eternity. She will be my physical presence for all to see here on Earth."
The above is just a simple and personal translation from all the information that I've been able to attain since this story broke yesterday. Indeed, if this is the case, how beautiful a picture that Christ paints by explicitly describing his Church as such. However, in the process of researching this new-fangled attack against the established teachings of the Catholic Church, I found one thing that struck me as rather suspicious when it came to the scholar who first deciphered this apparent 1,700 year old piece of paper.
The scholar in question is Karen L. King, a Harvard Divinity School professor. I did a bit of research on her and what I found was a bit telling as to how she determined what the translation of the papyrus scrap says. Turns out that Professor King is the author of such essential Gnostic literature as:
- The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle
- Images of the Feminine Gnostic (Studies in Antiquity & Christianity)
- Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity
In other words, the person who translated this fragment may have an embedded interest in manifesting a so-called "Gospel of Jesus' Wife." I can truly see that she is without a doubt an expert in early Gnosticism but, for her to automatically assume that this is a Gnostic Gospel of Christ, may be a bit far fetched; how does she know it's a gospel and not some epistle? Honestly, how easy would it be to take 8 non-consecutive lines from any of the epistles of the New Testament and say that they must be a "gospel?"
Her motive for objective truth also comes into question when her past dealings in feminism come to light. She wrote a response for a 2006 feminist movie entitled Period Piece, which was a short film about the attitudes, experiences and the images about menstruation. The movie was done by Emily Culpepper who, according to her profile at the University of Redlands, has academic expertise in:
- Women and Gender in Western Religions
- Contemporary Goddess Spiritualities
- Women Reproductive Health and Medical Issues
- Lesbian and Gay Issues in Religion
- Feminist Ethics
- Menstrual Attitudes
But wait, there's more! Turns out that the Co-author of Professor King's 2007 book, Reading Judas: the Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity, is Elaine Pagels who authored a 1998 book called Women and Goddess Traditions (Studies in Antiquity & Christianity) as well as the Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, written in 2003.
To re-cap: We have a feminist friendly scholar who has gone so far as to state that piece of faded papyrus is a gospel in which Jesus Christ has a wife whom apparently is one of his most trusted disciples. Among the company that this scholar keeps are feminists who are well versed and drawn to Gnosticism - a heresy in it's own right. So now we come to the million dollar question: Why are these women so drawn to Gnostic thought? The answer is simple: Gnosticism is awash in male and female egalitarianism, in fact, one could argue that Gnosticism tends to treat the feminine as superior. Simple proof of this attitude is seen in the last page of Dan Brown's, The Da Vinci Code:
Like murmurs of spirits in the darkness, forgotten words echoed. The quest for the Holy Grail is the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary Magdalene. A journey to pray at the feet of the outcast one.
With a sudden upwelling of reverence, Robert Langdon fell to his knees.
For a moment, he thought he heard a woman's voice...the wisdom of the ages...whispering up from the chasms of the Earth.
This "woman's voice that brings wisdom" is what is referred to the Sophia Myth in Gnosticism. Most if not all of the Gnostic works tend to have this in common, so much so that one could make a substantial claim in saying that the modern day view of the Gnostic works amount to feminism in Christianity. And therein lies the issue, what we are seeing with all of these Gnostic books is not an objective view of a wrongfully thought out form of Christianity but, AN ALTERNATE view of what Christianity is and, in essence, a heresy.
At this point I'm going to make three predictions: 1) Professor King will come out with a book that takes 8 lines of ancient Coptic writing and proceeds to flesh out an unsubstantiated theory about Jesus "wife," who better to write such a book with her scholarly background and feminist ideal? She will therefore win the accolades of all forms of feminist theologians, female "pastors," and schismatic nuns; This just might be the reason for her interpretation of this little piece of dated paper as being a "gospel" of Christ's wife. 2) The fragment will be proven to be authentic and will be relegated to a 4th century Gnostic writing. Since the Early Catholic Church was already in the process of determining what books would be canonized as Scripture by the late 4th century, it is especially telling that the Early Church Fathers did not see this as being inspired nor of relevance for it to take a place among the 27 books of the New Testament; therefore, if the Councils of Rome (382 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.), and Carthage (397 A.D.) - who all agreed on the 73 books of the bible - were privy to this Gnostic writing, it is patently obvious they didn't view it as authentically Christian. Lastly, 3) This fragment will be proven to be fake. Time will only tell if any of these possibilities pan out.
Mark you DVR's for Sunday September 30th in which the Smithsonian - purveyors of such fine art as the "Ant covered Jesus" video in a gay-friendly exhibit - is set to do a special on the tiny little fragment.
Her motive for objective truth also comes into question when her past dealings in feminism come to light. She wrote a response for a 2006 feminist movie entitled Period Piece, which was a short film about the attitudes, experiences and the images about menstruation. The movie was done by Emily Culpepper who, according to her profile at the University of Redlands, has academic expertise in:
- Women and Gender in Western Religions
- Contemporary Goddess Spiritualities
- Women Reproductive Health and Medical Issues
- Lesbian and Gay Issues in Religion
- Feminist Ethics
- Menstrual Attitudes
But wait, there's more! Turns out that the Co-author of Professor King's 2007 book, Reading Judas: the Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity, is Elaine Pagels who authored a 1998 book called Women and Goddess Traditions (Studies in Antiquity & Christianity) as well as the Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, written in 2003.
To re-cap: We have a feminist friendly scholar who has gone so far as to state that piece of faded papyrus is a gospel in which Jesus Christ has a wife whom apparently is one of his most trusted disciples. Among the company that this scholar keeps are feminists who are well versed and drawn to Gnosticism - a heresy in it's own right. So now we come to the million dollar question: Why are these women so drawn to Gnostic thought? The answer is simple: Gnosticism is awash in male and female egalitarianism, in fact, one could argue that Gnosticism tends to treat the feminine as superior. Simple proof of this attitude is seen in the last page of Dan Brown's, The Da Vinci Code:
Like murmurs of spirits in the darkness, forgotten words echoed. The quest for the Holy Grail is the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary Magdalene. A journey to pray at the feet of the outcast one.
With a sudden upwelling of reverence, Robert Langdon fell to his knees.
For a moment, he thought he heard a woman's voice...the wisdom of the ages...whispering up from the chasms of the Earth.
This "woman's voice that brings wisdom" is what is referred to the Sophia Myth in Gnosticism. Most if not all of the Gnostic works tend to have this in common, so much so that one could make a substantial claim in saying that the modern day view of the Gnostic works amount to feminism in Christianity. And therein lies the issue, what we are seeing with all of these Gnostic books is not an objective view of a wrongfully thought out form of Christianity but, AN ALTERNATE view of what Christianity is and, in essence, a heresy.
At this point I'm going to make three predictions: 1) Professor King will come out with a book that takes 8 lines of ancient Coptic writing and proceeds to flesh out an unsubstantiated theory about Jesus "wife," who better to write such a book with her scholarly background and feminist ideal? She will therefore win the accolades of all forms of feminist theologians, female "pastors," and schismatic nuns; This just might be the reason for her interpretation of this little piece of dated paper as being a "gospel" of Christ's wife. 2) The fragment will be proven to be authentic and will be relegated to a 4th century Gnostic writing. Since the Early Catholic Church was already in the process of determining what books would be canonized as Scripture by the late 4th century, it is especially telling that the Early Church Fathers did not see this as being inspired nor of relevance for it to take a place among the 27 books of the New Testament; therefore, if the Councils of Rome (382 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.), and Carthage (397 A.D.) - who all agreed on the 73 books of the bible - were privy to this Gnostic writing, it is patently obvious they didn't view it as authentically Christian. Lastly, 3) This fragment will be proven to be fake. Time will only tell if any of these possibilities pan out.
Mark you DVR's for Sunday September 30th in which the Smithsonian - purveyors of such fine art as the "Ant covered Jesus" video in a gay-friendly exhibit - is set to do a special on the tiny little fragment.
!!! UPDATE - 10/5/2012 !!!
Well, well, well. Turns out that the little scrap piece of papyrus was a hoax! Gee, who would've ever thought that this would've been a forgery? Too many news outlets have already deemed it so that to list them would only take up more of your precious time, instead Google it and see for yourself.
I will, however, briefly mention this article which was published yesterday as the last and final "nail in the coffin" for this poor attempt to circumvent Christian Tradition and Teaching. The article states the following:
Next time Professor Karen King receives an oblong scrap of papyrus with an explosive text and an owner wanting to remain in the shadows, she will probably pass. It is now more than likely that the "Jesus had a wife" manuscript, which she sensationally unveiled in Rome a couple of weeks ago, is a fake. There is little point in repeating the arguments for forgery. Far more puzzling is how an intelligent woman like Professor King could possibly have fallen for it...
...As for poor Professor King, it is likely that her publication record of feminist readings of early Christianity made her susceptible to being duped. It is even possible that a hoaxer crated the "Jesus had a wife" manuscript with her in mind so that she could act as the "convincer" for a buyer deciding whether to part with hard cash...
This is what happens when a person views Christianity through a biased lens, Professor King - in all of her scholarly glory and aptitude - miserably failed in the common sense department! If she had only read the so-called papyrus scrap within the context of Church History and not a feminist ideal, then perhaps she could've saved face. As it stands, take note of all of the female scholars I've listed in this post; I have no doubt that we will eventually hear from them again.
