Dear Father Pacwa
Considering your vast knowledge of ancient languages, and the proper structure thereof, would you be able to present some thoughts on the alleged “Jesus’ Wife” papyrus? If you have already done so previously, would it be possible to share it with the world again?
My own theory is:
1.(if it is authentic) Our Lord may have been referring to His Bride THE CHURCH, and the language is simply taken out of context.
2. The papyrus is genuinely old, but is of the penny-comic vein whereby real historical characters are given the Paul Bunyon treatment and fantastical stories are created about them.
I may be completely wrong on both counts, but anything you can offer would be great!
– Thank you, Father.
Need Answer
Dear Need Answer
I am not at all an expert on Coptic language, since I have never studied it. I only know what I have read about it, which is limited information. The big academic problem is that the information about the site of its discovery and other important information about its origin. Quite a number of forgeries have been passed on to scholars for consideration, including the famous ossuary with the name of “Jesus brother of James son of Jeseph” that had been found in Jerusalem. However, as soon as I saw a photo of that even I, who am no expert, could tell the difference in penmanship on the line, clearly indicating it was a forgery — as it was proven to be.
More recently, the “Jesus’ wife” text has been called “authentic,” which means it is ancient, but still limited to the 4th or 5th centuries. This dates the text around the time of the Infancy Gospels which have been known for 1500 centuries but recognized as late nonsense by everyone (except Mohammed, since one of the stories in included in the Quran). In other words, taking a late Coptic text as legitimate is as serious as taking the Book of Mormon as a serious document on the life of Christ.
God bless and take care,
Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ