Karen King is a scholar of religion and history at Harvard University. She specializes in the study of early Christianity, with a focus on how gender, power, and diversity intersected in the formation of Christian communities. King is particularly known for her work on early Christian texts that were not included in the New Testament, such as the Gospel of Mary and the Secret Book of John. She has also been involved in controversy over the authenticity of a papyrus fragment known as the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife,” which some scholars believe is a forgery. Some have criticized her for not conducting a more thorough analysis of the papyrus before agreeing to publish it, while others have defended her and suggested that her error was the result of an understandably complex and difficult authentication process.
The Facts
In 2012, Harvard Divinity School’s Karen King announced the academic discovery of a remarkable papyrus: a scrap that Jesus talks about a woman as “my wife” and that “she is able to be my disciple.” King viewed the fragment as a blockbuster finding for feminist scholars and an existential threat to the Catholic Church’s all-male priesthood. But eventually, King had to backtrack and acknowledge the manuscript is likely a forgery after it was exposed by scholars. The papyrus is related to Mary Magdalene, whose portrayal King sought to recover in a more positive light. Ariel Sabar, wrote a book unpacking the history of ownership behind the “Jesus’ Wife” fragment. Sabar concludes that the owner of the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” was Walter Fritz, an unemployed German man who left his country for the US. Due to his financial struggles, Fritz became a car and online porn dealer before he began the forgery, which was likely designed to prey on Karen King and others’ Christian beliefs.
Is King’s Scholarship Reliable in Light of the Controversy?
King’s work on the “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” was groundbreaking. However, it is true that she made a serious error in identifying the papyrus fragment as an authentic ancient text. This mistake understandably raised questions about her methodology and the reliability of her other work. That being said, one error does not necessarily negate all of King’s other contributions to scholarship. It is important to evaluate each piece of work on its own merits and to examine the evidence and arguments presented. It is also important for scholars to acknowledge and address any mistakes or errors they make in their work, as this helps to maintain the integrity of the field and ensure that future research is based on accurate information. It is difficult to say definitively whether the result of King’s error was more due to the quality of the forgery or any deficiency in her scholarship, as this is a matter of interpretation and assessment.
Politically Motivated?
Some critics have leveled the allegation that Karen King’s work is more politically motivated than scholarly, particularly in relation to her research on feminist theology and the role of women in early Christianity. These critics argue that King has approached these topics with a predetermined ideological agenda, rather than with an objective and dispassionate approach. While it is important for scholars to be transparent about their ideological commitments and to strive for objectivity and rigor in their work, scholars are human beings, and they inevitably bring their personal beliefs, values, and experiences to their work. In many cases, these personal factors can inform and enrich scholarly research, helping scholars to ask new questions, explore new perspectives, and make connections between different fields and disciplines.
Scholars with no political agenda should not necessarily be concerned about scholars who have political or ethical commitments that influence their scholarly work, as long as those commitments do not compromise the integrity of the research. At the same time, it is important for scholars to be aware of potential biases and to engage in ongoing self-reflection and critique to ensure that their work is based on sound evidence and arguments. This includes being open to critique from colleagues and peers, and engaging in healthy debate and discussion about different perspectives and approaches to scholarship.
King’s mistake in identifying the papyrus fragment as authentic was certainly a serious one, and it led to significant controversy and criticism in academic circles. Some scholars have suggested that King’s eagerness to affirm the authenticity of the fragment, combined with the fact that she did not subject it to rigorous testing, may have contributed to her error. At the same time, it is true that the forgery was very well-made and initially fooled many experts in the field. It is possible that even if King had conducted more extensive testing on the fragment early on when the discovery was made, she may still have been misled by the skill of the forger.
Fool Me Once…
In all fairness to Dr. King, other scholars have been fooled by forgeries in the past. In the field of archaeology, for example, there have been numerous cases of forged artifacts being accepted as genuine for many years before being exposed. In the field of classics and ancient history, there have been cases of fake documents and manuscripts being accepted as authentic by scholars for decades or even centuries. One famous example is the “Ossian” poems, which were supposedly composed by a third-century Scottish bard but were actually the creation of a Scottish poet named James Macpherson in the 18th century. It was not until the 19th century that scholars began to realize that the Ossian poems were a fraud. Other examples include the “Donation of Constantine,” a document purporting to be a decree by the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century granting the Pope ownership of much of Italy, which was revealed to be a medieval forgery in the 15th century.
It is also certainly possible that if the discovery of the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife had been made 30-40 years prior to its actual discovery, the scientific testing methods available at the time may not have been as accurate or advanced as they are today. As a result, it’s possible that the forgery may not have been discovered until decades later, if at all. After all, according to The Atlantic, “King had placed her faith in the opinions of expert papyrologists, along with a series of carbon-dating and other scientific tests, at MIT, Harvard, and Columbia, that had turned up no signs of modern tampering or forgery.”
Ultimately, it is important to acknowledge that mistakes can happen in academic research, and it is valuable for scholars to engage in ongoing reflection and discussion about how to improve their methods and avoid errors in the future. In the same 2016 article, although Dr. King stated that she still believed there was a chance the document could be genuine, she admitted that a preponderance of the evidence currently available “tips the balance towards forgery.” While King’s error was undoubtedly a difficult and embarrassing experience for her, it does not necessarily negate the value or accuracy of her other work. In fact, scholars often disagree about the dating and authenticity of many texts that receive little to no media attention since they are less controversial. Many scholars in the field continue to respect King’s contributions to early Christianity studies, and her other research on topics such as Gnosticism, feminist theology, and the role of women in early Christianity has been widely cited and discussed.
Won’t Be Fooled Again
That being said, it is always important for readers and researchers to approach scholarly work with a critical eye, and to engage in ongoing evaluation and debate about the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments and perspectives. Ultimately, the credibility and impact of any given scholar’s work will depend on the soundness of their methods, the quality of their evidence, and the persuasiveness of their conclusions. At the same time, it is important for scholars to be aware of potential biases and to engage in ongoing self-reflection and critique to ensure that their work is based on sound evidence and arguments. This includes being open to critique from colleagues and peers, and engaging in healthy debate and discussion about different perspectives and approaches to scholarship. Ultimately, the credibility and impact of any given scholar’s work will depend on the quality of their research, the rigor of their methodology, and the persuasiveness of their arguments, regardless of their political or ethical commitments.