Queries & Comments

008

Karen King on “Jesus’ Wife”

Another Explanation—Not a Forgery

Hershel Shanks’s article, “The Saga of the ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’” (BAR 41:03) sparked a conversation in my family concerning the proof that the fragment is a forgery—that the forger had copied every other line of a known manuscript (Codex Qau) of the Coptic Gospel of John (CGJ).

Could it be that the scribe was not a forger but an ancient copyist, copying not from Codex Qau, but from another copy of the CGJ that had line lengths double that of Codex Qau? If so, that it was the same copyist would suggest that the fragment about Jesus’ wife was likewise an ancient copy of an archetype we have not previously seen.

If so, it would not be a forgery.

Karen King, Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard University, responds:

Your suggestion is a good one. It seems clear that the Coptic Gospel of John fragment (seventh–eighth century C.E.), which is now at Harvard on a ten-year deposit, has been copied from some version of the Codex Qau (c. fifth century C.E.). It could have been copied (1) from that manuscript (since the time of its burial has not been established); (2) from a manuscript copy of it as you suggest; or (3) from the 20th-century critical edition by Herbert Thompson (either the printed edition of 1924¹ or the more recent online PDF), as forgery proponents argue.

Whether the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife and the Coptic Gospel of John fragment were written by the same person (i.e., the same ink, pen and handwriting) is, however, a separate and much more debatable issue. It involves a number of technical fields, and I expect the debate to continue for some time.

Meanwhile, I would be interested in what you and your family have to say about another issue. For me, a crucial remaining question concerns the dating of both pieces of papyri to about the seventh–ninth centuries C.E. by radiocarbon (C-14) analysis: What would be the contexts for each being copied or even composed in Egypt at that time? I am not a specialist in the history of Christianity in Egypt during this period, but only have some questions.

One might imagine that a (poor and error-filled) copy of the Coptic Gospel of John (written in an ancient and no longer used dialect of Coptic) might have been made simply because of the esteem and holy power that Christians ascribed to Scripture. But why include only select excerpts (John 5:26–30; 6:11–14) rather than a continuous text? Might it be because these passages emphasize two points of agreement with Muslim teachings about Jesus: that he was a prophet and raised people from the dead for judgment? Or might the fragment be the product of copying on to some old papyrus by an inept modern writer (whose context and intentions are also matters of speculation)?

Similarly with the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife, I would be interested in whether it may have been composed at that time rather than being a copy of an earlier manuscript. For example, Pierluigi Piovanelli at the University of Ottowa has identified such a recent apocryphon in Ethiopic attributed to Salome, Elizabeth and Mary of Magdala.² Or, again, the fragment may be a modern composition by an inept forger.

If I may, let me add, not only to you but to BAR’s readers more generally, that in several respects my own position has not changed. I still consider that the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife fragment is not evidence of whether Jesus was married or not, so whether the fragment is ancient or modern makes no difference to that question. I am also still open to and still learning from the substantive aspects of the discussion. In that regard I have never considered those pressing a substantive case for forgery to be “opponents” (as some style themselves), but as colleagues who are also trying to get to the bottom of things. In my view, scholarship is not about making final, definitive statements, but about putting out one’s analysis and ideas for conversation, listening to alternative and critical responses, and engaging again when one has something constructive to offer. So far the academic response to the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife fragment has been almost solely concerned with questions of forgery, but little with interpretation of its meaning—either in antiquity or today. (Analysis of reactions to the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife fragment—both public and academic—is another conversation.)

At this point, when discussions and research are ongoing, I think it is important, however difficult, to stay open regarding the possible dates of the inscription and other matters of interpretation, to consider the implications that scholars are operating with different methodological assumptions, and to take into account the enormity of the gaps in our knowledge of both ancient and modern 009 contexts. Your family discussion, Rabbi Reisner, is a great example.

Shame on You, Mr. Shanks

Re: Hershel Shanks’s article on Karen King and the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.” What I don’t understand is the attack on Simcha Jacobovici, who had nothing to do with the “Jesus’ Wife” papyrus. All I can say is shame on you. Since when are ad hominem arguments a form of intellectual debate?

Mr. Shanks: Having been an outsider yourself, is this what you learned from your experience?

Simcha Responds

I was surprised to see you dedicate a page to me in your recent article, “The Saga of ‘The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife,’” because, as you say, “BAR does not publish Simcha’s farfetched claims.” But here you are publishing my claims after all, except you don’t do it in the context of a balanced, serious article. You do it so as to create a straw man to mock as a prelude to an article on Professor Karen King’s publication of the controversial “Jesus’ Wife” papyrus.

It’s interesting what you took away from the attacks on Professor King. In the past, you might have said that the attacks on me are due to the fact that I’m not a scholar. But now you’ve seen that a scholar of Karen King’s stature is also mocked and attacked the minute she brings up an ancient manuscript that tells a story not in keeping with Pauline theology. Instead of being shocked at “scholarship by mockery,” you conclude that it’s okay to mock me, but it’s really unfair to mock her.

You make it sound as if I’m a lone wolf claiming to make all sorts of outlandish “discoveries.” But I’m not. I don’t even claim to make many of the discoveries that you attribute to me. I’ll give just two examples:

So as to make me sound crazy, you write, “Simcha has also discovered the true tomb of Jesus and much of his family.” The only problem is that I don’t claim to have “discovered” it. It was discovered by a bulldozer in Talpiot in 1980 and reported to the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). “Jesus, son of Joseph,” “Maria” and other Gospel-related names that were inscribed on the ossuaries in the tomb were published by L.Y. Rahmani in the official Israel Antiquities Authority catalogue, not by me. The responsible archaeologist at the time, Professor Amos Kloner, sat on the information for 16 years, not even publishing it in ‘Atiqot, the magazine of the IAA, until 1996. Except for one article in the United Kingdom, no one talked about the tomb until 010 2007 when my film (The Lost Tomb of Jesus) and book (The Jesus Family Tomb) put the discovery on front pages around the world. So why the mockery? As a journalist, you seem to applaud Kloner’s lack of publication, and you seem upset by the fact that I brought to public attention this remarkable find. As for its relation to Jesus’ family, I’m not the only one who says this. Professor James Tabor, Professor James Charlesworth, the late Professor Jane Schaberg and many other academics have said as much. So why isolate me?

Sixty meters from the alleged “Jesus Family Tomb” is an unexcavated burial cave. For the first time in Jerusalem archaeology, we built a robotic arm to investigate that burial cave and got the cooperation of both the ultra-orthodox haredim and the IAA. As a Biblical archaeology magazine, how is it that you don’t celebrate this achievement? Using this technology, we discovered an image on an ossuary that looks like the “Sign of Jonah”—the earliest Christian symbol—with an inscription “Yonah” below. I didn’t decipher the inscription; Professor Charlesworth did. In the same issue that you mock me, you have an article by the eminent Professor Rachel Hachlili. She says that there is no question that the word “Yonah” is inscribed on the controversial ossuary. Professor/Father Émile Puech agrees with Hachlili and Charlesworth, and so does noted epigrapher Dr. Robert Deutsch. But you give none of these people any credit. You don’t even mention them. In fact, you don’t try to report the facts accurately. Instead, you give all the “credit” to me—an old lawyer’s trick, Hershel—only to set me up for an ad hominem attack. This is Hershel the former attorney writing, not Hershel the journalist.

Still your friend,

Why Simcha’s View Is Not Accepted

I was surprised to see the opening of your story on “The Saga of the ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.’” It seemed to me that it was a kind of mocking of our friend Simcha Jacobovici that I found sadly misguided and out of place.

I have been involved extensively in the Talpiot tomb research, and your assertion that Simcha “discovered the true tomb of Jesus and much of his family” is surely not the case. Rami Arav and I hold the IAA licenses to excavate both tombs, and I think I have written the most on the subject from an academic point of view.

As for why people would not accept that the tomb of Jesus has been found, I think there is a host of reasons ranging from faith that Jesus was taken to heaven—bones and all—to the same kind of skepticism on the part of academics you have encountered with the James ossuary inscription, which I hold to be authentic; namely, it is sensational, “too good to be true,” and those promoting it only are interested in making money.

Simcha Stands Outside the Academy

Why ridicule Simcha Jacobovici? How does ridicule in any way relate to a journal that is supposed to be evidence-based, archaeologically and historically, and not simply a bully pulpit for various faith perspectives?

Simcha has the advantage of standing outside the academy. That means he isn’t bound by allegiance to college statements of faith as many religious “scholars” are, especially in the United States. Nor is he bound by the prejudices of the tribe as many of us in secular institutions are, having to take into account what are “safe” research topics and what are not. He is, as he points out, an independent investigator, an investigative journalist. And that’s an important role, questioning many of the pretentious claims made by so-called experts. The silence of the academy on Simcha is very much like the silence of the lambs. Academics tend to follow the herd and, being intimidated 063 by various factors, are afraid to stand out in any radical way.

In a self-serving way, I should mention that I think it is embarrassing that one of the most popular books on early Christianity, which I coauthored with Simcha, The Lost Gospel, has not been reviewed by BAR.

I remain an avid BAR reader as I have for more than 20 years! In general, excellent work. But, please, no more embarrassing ridicule.

Simcha’s Successes

I was surprised at the touch of rancor toward Simcha Jacobovici, particularly from the normally reserved (in print anyway) Hershel Shanks. In defense of Mr. Jacobovici, he’s had some reasonable 064 successes and has been aligned with some pretty heavy hitters in the BAR world—not the least of which is Mr. Shanks himself, concerning the James Ossuary.

Cultural Heritage

Pretexts for Possession or Protecting for Posterity

Your article “Is It Possible to Protect Our Cultural Heritage?” (BAR 40th Anniversary edition 41:02) supports the argument used by the most respected museums in the world; to wit, that they are the safest protectors of the treasures of antiquity. It is a shame that the Middle East and the continuing turmoil in the region endangers our common heritage. I believe the British Museum has used this argument for refusing to return the Codex Sinaiticus to St. Catherine’s Monastery. I used to think these arguments were pretexts for possession, but this article provides all the credibility these museums need to keep and protect these artifacts for posterity.

Iconoclasts and Fishermen

The Fish as a Christian Symbol

In “Iconoclasts and Fishermen: Christian Symbols Survive” (BAR 41:03), Zaraza Friedman repeats the theory—often recited, but scantily supported—that “fish are a symbol of the Christian soul … [and that] in Greek, fish is ichthus … used by early Christians as an acronym.”

There’s a much stronger possibility concerning early Christians’ conscription of the fish emblem. To understand that usage, recall the pop song “This Is the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius,” which indeed it is, astrologically. About every 2,000–2,200 years the prevailing age’s astrological sign changes as the earth wheels go through the zodiac of signs. Two millennia ago the age of Pisces, the fish, dawned, and that new age’s god would suitably replace the former dominant image, the ram. Readers need look no further than that same issue of BAR to see the ram (p. 35) or its horn (pp. 34, 37) amply illustrated regarding Jews whose national religion formed during that astrological era.

Concomitantly, when the Hebrews backslid they longed to leave the uncertain age of the ram for the “good old days” of Taurus; the bull preceded the epoch of the ram. So the Hebrews built themselves a fitting golden idol (“a molten calf, and they exclaimed ‘This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!’” [Exodus 32:4–35]), a deity redolent of the bygone era of their secure slavery, as significant to them at that chancy moment as the fish would beckon to a future age of tentative spiritual formulation.

The Nave and the Navy

Zaraza Friedman’s article on iconoclasts and fishermen was fascinating (“Iconoclasts and Fishermen: Christian Symbols Survive,” BAR 41:03). Despite having taken five years of schoolboy Latin, I’m embarrassed to admit I’d never previously realized that the words nave and navy were more than just sound-alikes!

Synagogues

Why Was the Migdal Synagogue Omitted?

Rachel Hachlili’s article “Synagogues—Before and After the Roman Destruction of the Temple” (BAR 41:03) omitted any mention of the newly uncovered first-century C.E. synagogue in Migdal (Magdala). I find this curious. This is the only first-century C.E. synagogue found in Galilee and was probably an important stop for Jesus of Nazareth, as we now know that Migdal was 065 substantially larger than Capernaum and home to the famous Mary.

Perhaps Dr. Hachlili could explain the omission.

Rachel Hachlili responds:

The synagogue of Migdal was certainly not omitted. See p. 32 of my article; the last sentence of the left paragraph mentions “horvat Etri, Migdal, Modi’in, Qiryat Sefer and Gamla.”

The article did not describe all these synagogues in detail. If the reader is interested, he can read my description of the Migdal synagogue (pp. 33–34) in my recent book Ancient Synagogues—Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 2013) and the latest report on the synagogue by Dina Avshalom-Gorni and Arfan Najar in Hadashot Arkheologiyot 125 (2013): www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2304&mag_id=120.

“Punch Thy Neighbor”

Shelling Out for Scandal

Some shell out their BAR subscription fee to become educated or uplifted. I subscribe to be scandalized—and I’m always happy when Hershel delivers the goods: Stephen Patterson’s “Punch Thy Neighbor.” Keep it up, Hershel.

A Pornographic Punch

Re: “Punch Thy Neighbor” by Stephen J. Patterson (Biblical Views, May/June 2015):

I am not a prude, but it is rude of Patterson to claim that Matthew’s author recommends physical castration, even for God’s sake. Jesus of Nazareth stunned his disciples saying that celibacy is a good choice only if one has the gift for the spiritual kingdom.

If there are no amends for the Patterson article, I shall regret having to cancel my subscription. I once believed that you published an engaging, enlightening and never dull magazine.

BAR Will Appear Before Chirst

Re: “Punch Thy Neighbor”: BAR will “appear before Christ” and answer for why it gave Patterson a platform to twist God’s word.

Cancel My Subscription

Re: Stephen Patterson’s “Punch Thy Neighbor”: I would like to cancel my subscription. Just because the ancient world presented immodesty and lewdness surely does not mean that we must present it.

Karen King on “Jesus’ Wife”