Remember the newspaper headlines in September about a newly discovered manuscript that ‘proved’ that Jesus was married? Closer examination of the fragment of manuscript points overwhelmingly to forgery. Read the report by Peter Williams of Tyndale House, Cambridge, here.
Evangelical scholars were among those who noticed the evidence against authenticity. Francis Watson of the University of Durham, Andrew Bernhard of Oxford, and Mark Goodacre of Duke University, ‘along with evangelicals Simon Gathercole and Christian Askeland [both of Cambridge], played a significant role in exposing the problems with the manuscript and claims about it on blogs and in the media,’ says Williams.
It’s well known that the massive sums paid by museums and universities for fragments of this sort have led to a substantial cottage industry to produce them. This one was only discovered because a) it seemed so unlikely that Jesus’s wife, had she existed, would have left no other trace in the 1st and 2nd century documents, and b) the forgers did a particularly shoddy job. There’s a lot of others out there waiting to be exposed.
November 18, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Scripture, reason and tradition.
November 20, 2012 at 4:32 pm
It’s not exactly the first time some “discovery” was made that supposedly “challenged” (on however shaky ground) Christian teaching. Before this supposedly authentic “manuscript”, there was that supposed discovery of Jesus’ “tomb”, and even Dan Brown’s nonsense was supposedly based on “research.” Related to that is the idea that the very existence of those gnostic “Gospels” is supposed to “challenge” Christian teaching according to some people’s “logic.” I still do not get why certain people continue to make it their life’s work to try to discredit Christianity when they have been constantly trying and failing for about 200 years.
A few personal incidents worth noting:
I once had a college professor who said that it is likely that Jesus was married on the grounds that it was customary for first century Jewish men to be married. Um, let’s see… how many other ways did Jesus defy first century Jewish Custom? that could be an article in itself.
The next two incidents are more disturbing because they actually involve people INSIDE the church:
At a church picnic with the parish I was a member of while living in the DC area, a parishioner was discussing a book about Jesus’ supposed “tomb.” the interim rector seemed to be agreeing with the parishioner that this is actually a work that Christian should take seriously. I would have been shocked had it not been for what took place a few months earlier:
At a church retreat a few months earlier, the same interim rector was conducting a discussion on the “role” of the church. I pointed out that I didn’t think that the discussion was taking Evangelism seriously. I mentioned the Great Commission. The Interim Rector says that the discussion WAS in fact about fulfilling the Great Commission, to “Go out into the world and make disciples of all nations.” I pointed out the second half of the Great Commission: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The interim rectors response was: “Well, we don’t really know that Jesus said that.” I can’t remember what my response was as I was so shocked by that statement, but it was something to the effect of “WHAT?” The Interim Rector continued by stating “That may have been added by the Church later on” or something to that effect. I was so shocked and appalled by what I was actually hearing from somebody ORDAINED IN GOD’S CHURCH that I found myself almost speechless!!! Here is somebody who is ordained in God’s Church, who seemed to actually agree with Dan Brown’s whacky theories!!! (Although the neither the name Dan Brown or the name of any of his works came up in the discussion, that clearly sound sounds like His theories). I guess I knew these people were there, but it’s still shocking when you actually encounter their theories in person, rather than just hearing others speak of them.
I know that was a long rant, but I thought these three stories relevant to the discussion.
November 21, 2012 at 7:09 pm
The stories are very relevant. I’m quite grateful to Evangelical scholars like the ones Dr. Wainwright mentioned, and also Bp Tom Wright, who “takes on”–politely and good-humoredly–Westar (Jesus Seminar) scholars like Marcus Borg. Westar was founded in 1985 by Robert Funk. Google his name to find out his platform. Westar doesn’t support Dan Brown’s fictions, but there are many passages in the New Testament that their scholars say were “added by the early church” in order to support doctrines they’d decided on “after the fact.” –About Evangelical scholarship, on another tack: do very many evangelical scholars think global warming is a fiction, as the person (maybe not a scholar) Dr. Wainwright cites above) maintains? Unfortunately, although evangelical scholars may have a good reputation for Biblical scholarship, there is that idea out there that at least some evangelicals are on a collision course with science. This hurts the reputation of evangelicals in general in the eyes of many. Does anyone out there know the names of well-known evangelicals who also understand and appreciate modern science? I think Dean (now Bishop?) Nick Knisely respects and engages the scientific community, but I’m not sure if he’s regarded as an “evangelical.”
November 28, 2012 at 7:31 pm
I’m not sure I’d categorize Nick Knisely as an Evangelical. As someone who has both family and roots in the Diocese of Rhode Island, I read up on him after his election to learn more about the person who would be taking on the office once occupied by the great missionary bishop Alexander Viets Griswold. From reading his blog, he seemed to express a somewhat questionable view of the cross, seeming to imply that we should sugarcoat the atonement to accommodate those who may find it uncomfortable. But I may have been misunderstanding what he was saying. And in one of his walkabouts, he stated that the Episcopal Church has no “confession,” which would seem to suggest that he views the 39 Articles of Religion as just a “historical document” with limited theological relevance. But again, I may have been misunderstanding what he was saying.
As for Evangelicals and global warming, the incoming evangelical Archbishop of Canterbury certainly seems to believe in global warming. John Stott certainly believed in global warming. I am currently reading Alister McGrath’s book “The Reenchantment of Nature: the Denial of Religion and the Ecological Crisis.” There is also the Evangelical Climate Initiative and similar groups.
November 28, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Bishop Knisely was a very effective and much loved priest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh when Alden Hathaway was bishop, if I remember correctly. I never got the impression that he had an inadequate understanding of the atonement, or thought the Episcopal Church had no confession. Others from Pittsburgh would be more qualified to speak to this than I, however.
November 29, 2012 at 1:12 am
You may be right. Like I said, I may have simply misunderstood certain things he may have said and/or wrote.