Christopher B. Zeichmann

A Wordpess Site

Gospel of Jesus’ Wife Blog Posts and Online Articles


This post is intended to be an up-to-date collection of blog posts and online articles cited in the article “Gender in Biblical Studies after the Forgery of The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.Biblical Interpretation 26 (2018): 391-412.  Links cited in the article are all collected here for ease of access. [Last Updated 30 Aug 2018]

 

Ahmed, S. 2004. “Declarations of Whiteness: The Non-performativity of Anti-Racism,” borderlands 3/2: n.p. <http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol3no2_2004/ahmed_declarations.htm>

Askeland, C. 2014. “Jesus Had an Ugly Sister-in-Law,” online post at Evangelical Textual Criticism <http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.ca/2014/04/jesus-had-ugly-sister-in-law.html>.

Baden, J. and C. Moss. 2014. “The Curious Case of Jesus’s Wife,” The Atlantic 315/5: 74–81. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/12/the-curious-case-of-jesuss-wife/382227/>

DeConick, A.D. 2014. “Sexism and the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife,” online post at Forbidden Gospels Blog <http://aprildeconick.com/forbiddengospels/2014/5/9/sexism-and-gospel-of-jesus-wife>.

Depuydt, L.  2014b. “The Papyrus Fragment and the Crocodile: When Discerning a Blunder Is Itself a …” online post at NT Blog <http://markgoodacre.org/Depuydt.pdf>.

Gurry, P. 2016. “The Owner of the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife Unveiled,” online post at Evangelical Textual Criticism <http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.ca/2016/06/the-owner-of-gospel-of-jesus-wife.html>.

Le Donne, A.  2016. “Jesus’ Wife: What Did We Learn?” online post at The Jesus Blog <http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.ca/2016/06/jesus-wife-what-did-we-learn.html>.

Mazza, R. 2016. “The Jesus’ Wife Fragment: End of Story?” online post at Faces and Voices <http://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/the-jesus-wife-fragment-end-of-story/>.

Mroczek, E. 2014. ““Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” Less Durable Than Sexism Surrounding It,” online post at Religion Dispatches <http://religiondispatches.org/gospel-of-jesus-wife-less-durable-than-sexism-surrounding-it/>.

Roberts, M.D. 2014. “Was Jesus Married? Does the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife Help Answer This Question?” online post at Reflections on Christ, Church, and Culture <http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/2014/05/05/was-jesus-married-does-the-gospel-of-jesus-wife-help-answer-this-question/>.

Sabar, A. 2016a. “The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife,” The Atlantic 318/1: 64–78. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/485573/>

———. 2016b. “Karen King Responds to ‘The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife’,” online post at The Atlantic <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/karen-king-responds-to-the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/487484/>.

Thompson, A. 2012. “Reality Check on Jesus and His ‘Wife’,” online post at Cosmic Log <http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13945001-reality-check-on-jesus-and-his-wife>.

West, J. 2012. “No, People, A 4th Century Scrap Doesn’t Prove Jesus Had a Wife,” online post at Zwinglius Redivivus <http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/no-people-a-4th-century-scrap-doesnt-prove-jesus-had-a-wife/>.

———. 2014. “What a Very Odd and Curious Response: Or, How Some Feminists Need to Learn about Adiaphora,” online post at Zwinglius Redivivus <http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/what-a-very-odd-and-curious-response-or-how-some-feminists-need-to-learn-about-adiaphora/>.

———. 2016. “The State of Biblical Scholarship in America: An Observation,” online post at Zwinglius Redivivus <http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/the-state-of-biblical-scholarship-in-america-an-observation/>.

 

Other links of interest:
The Smithsonian‘s initial announcement of GJW (2012)

Ariel Sabar’s update on GJW at The Smithsonian (2012)

An abbreviated version of Tony Burke’s “Heresy Hunting” article (2008)

e-Clavis entry on GJW, by Ian Brown with a thorough bibliography (2017)

A nearly comprehensive set of links to relevant blog posts by Michael Gondrin (2017)

Tony Burke’s Introduction to Fakes, Forgeries, and Fictions, which has an insightful discussion of GJW (2017)

Jesus’s Wife on the Web – Chance Bonar has an insightful article (2017)

Gender in Biblical Studies after the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife


A couple years ago Eva Mroczek wrote an excellent blog post on the open sexism surrounding academic discourse on the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife and it seems worth revisiting in light of the Atlantic article published yesterday. It’s difficult to know what to make of all of it, but a few things warrant further discussion.

1) In terms of the scholarly hype surrounding the article itself, in what ways is it being framed as a rehabilitation of “masculinized knowledge” against the ostensibly “hyperfeminist” theology advanced by King and GJW? That is, in what ways are scholars finding reassurance in the fact that “they were right all along” or that existing (often, but not always, patriarchal) knowledge regimes still hold a place of priority in the academy? It was clear from the beginning that certain sectors of the academy were doing their best to minimize or discredit GJW, even as King remained extremely measured in her claims about it.

2) In terms of the previous efforts to discredit GJW, how is it that the gospel was understood as representative of “hyperfeminist” concerns, when it is now clear that it was a product of a deep misogyny? How is it that the disciplinary knowledge of biblical studies is able to conflate the two? One notices that despite the complete dissolution of feminine agency in both GJW and Fritz’s thinking, this text has represented a threatening variety of feminism in certain sectors of the academy. What is that threat and how did it become proximate to discourse on feminism?

3) In terms of gendered knowledge, why do Nag Hammadi literature and other Christian apocrypha have much closer to gender parity among experts than male-dominated discourse on canonical literature? Why is “canon” so appealing to masculine scholars and why do non-canonical works seem to threaten that knowledge – we are always immediately reassured that the latest non-canonical work tells us nothing about the historical Jesus but is of interest only to historians of later periods? It’s difficult not to be reminded of the discussion of Secret Mark, which (regardless of authenticity) I think functioned to reassure us that there was nothing even vaguely queer going on in early Christianity. In what ways does “canon” itself represent an investment in existing sources of authority and knowledge regimes – or even things “worthy of study”?

Just to be clear, I’m not trying to “call out” anyone, but trying to think through the texture of scholarly discourse in a broader sense. I hope that the initial post was clear that not all who were gunning for it from the beginning are usefully labelled “sexist,” even if they (like all of us) are socialized in a patriarchal context. I’m mostly interested in how “legitimate” scholarly knowledge – knowledge inextricable from patriarchal norms and discourses – operates in this context. All of this to say, I’m not calling anyone in particular sexist on account of their early rejection of GJW; rather, I am trying to ask is “how do many dismissals function to reinforce the fundamental sexism of biblical studies regardless of the scholar’s intent?”

[This post is a modified form of a Facebook post I made to facilitate discussion on the matter – if you would like to participate, feel free to add me as a friend]