Have you met Jesus' wife?

A fragment of what is reputed to be a fourth-century Coptic document has been loaned to Dr. Karen King of Harvard University. Though it consists of just eight lines of about four words each, Dr. King believes that it could suggest that Jesus was married, and that it might inform the church on issues such as marriage and gender roles in the church. She believes that the fragment might be a translation of a second-century Greek text.

Here's a convenient summary of the fragment, including pictures and translation.

Here is a story about the discovery, and Dr. King, who is advancing the notions that she believes the fragment contains. Warning as you read the article: be aware that the concept of "authenticating" the fragment extends only to dating it. If it does date to fourth century, it is considered "authentic." "Authenticity" does not extend credibility to the ideas contained on the fragment, but just to the age of the fragment.

Notice also this line about Dr. King's beliefs regarding the fragment:

"She believes that the context of the eight lines on the front side of the papyrus reflects a discussion Jesus was having with disciples about the “the cost of discipleship,” or how becoming a Christian may affect bonds with one’s natal family, similar to passages in Matthew and Luke."

First, she is assuming that the fragment is in fact a translation from a Greek document written in the second century, even though she has not a scrap of evidence to support such a notion, other than the assertions that the church was already discussing gender issues in the second century.

Second, she is assuming that this "translation of a second-century Greek text" is an actual account of a discussion Jesus had with his followers, a very tenuous assumption especially when one considers the amount of spurious literature about Jesus produced between the second and fourth centuries.

Third, that she would allow this fragment (even if it were "authentic") to inform the New Testament's position on marriage, discipleship and gender issues says a great deal about her personal view of the infallibility of Scripture.

I have no problem with a theologian or an archaeologist chasing down the evidence to see where it will lead. I just don't care for them making these massive, largely unfounded assumptions and then trying to use them to inform a modern debate which is based on modern notions.

And frankly, because the Scripture is inspired and infallible, it needs to serve as the boundary of our conclusions, rather than being at the mercy of our conclusions.

Does this sound like fideism? May I remind you that if you believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead, as I do, you are already fideistic, because the resurrection involves a complete and total repudiation of scientific realities regarding death and the decay of a corpse? Any belief in the miraculous, or the supernatural, would be considered fideism in our secularized culture.

 Here's a good response to Dr. King by Dr. Thomas White of Southwestern Baptist Seminary.

And here's a question for you: is the foundation of your faith inspired Scripture, or is it connected to evidences and proofs? Why do you believe what you believe?

Thank You, Lord, for a reliable Bible that proclaims absolute truth!