If Jesus had a wife, would that change anything?

[jsgoddess]

A Harvard scholar of divinity alleges that she has found a slip of papyrus text, written in Coptic, that refers to Jesus's wife and to a female disciple.

I don't mind talking about whether this claim is or isn't likely to be true, but even more I'd like to talk about what it would actually mean if it could be demonstrated to be true.

For Christians, would you care if this were true? Would it change anything?

For everyone else, would you care? Would it change your opinion about anything?

Is this a hoax? If not, is it meaningful or just something kind of vaguely interesting?

(If it's not interesting, you're in the wrong thread!)

[Che G., Anonymous Capitalist]

It is papyrus from the 4th century, so I don't see how it could prove much of anything, other than another belief of an early Christian sect. Early Christians believed all kinds of shit, like Jesus killed a playmate, or a giant floating cross had the power of speech.

[Che G., Anonymous Capitalist]

Of note: female disciples are a small-o orthodox belief. Female disciples are mentioned in the NT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_disciples_of_Jesus

[TonySinclair]

Mary's perpetual virginity seems to be very important to Catholics, but not to Protestants. I would expect Jesus having a wife to be the same, i.e. some denominations would refuse to accept it, and others wouldn't care.

And some might breathe a sigh of relief.

[DrDeth]

I'll point out that Jesus's lifestyle would preclude Him having a living wife, mostly.

But we hear virtually nothing of His early adult life. No reason why He couldn't have been married at 21, then His wife died before Jesus began him ministry.

Note the Jesus did have active female followers, mentioned in the NT. None of his 12Disciples/Apostles were female, of course.

[BigT]

If you mean now, probably no real changes. If you mean that it was then, it would probably completely change Paul's outlook and give us back the Jewish notion that marriage and sex are sacred, rather than how it devolved to being sacrilege. Fortunately, the pendulum seems to have mostly swung the other way, hence why it wouldn't be such a problem now.

If Jesus were a womanizer, or, say, homosexual, that would have a much larger impact today. And, if well known in the past, I think Christianity would be completely different.

The only real problem I'd see is if it challenged the actual gospel narrative.

BTW, the link in the OP seems to be bad. Did you mean: http://www.masslive.com/newsflash/in...d8c8b46999b051

[John Mace]

BFD.

But I think the issue for the Catholic Church is that the Apostles were all men, and hence an all male clergy. If there was female Apostle, well then there goes the Boys' Club!

Still. Jesus lived in a highly patriarchal society, and his teachings, egalitarian though they may be, were still influenced highly by the cultural norms of his time. IOW, it could go either way.

[Maeglin]

One of the three scholars who viewed that papyrus is my advisor with whom I am studying papyrology. It's not every day that our little discipline gets so much attention. We talked about it today after I took (and passed, hooray!) my comprehensive exams.

It's probably not a hoax. The people who analyzed it are very serious and careful and have each worked on thousands of papyri over decades. The characteristics of forged papyri are usually pretty well known. If this were a forgery, then it is an extraordinarily elaborate and well-crafted one that was seeded in what is probably a low-value collection decades ago. It is of course possible that the document is forged. But forgery would be contingent on a string of really implausible things.

Based on the look & feel of the document, the paleography, the quality of the Coptic, and the details of its preservation, the editors believe it is genuine. The only way to determine with absolute certainty is to carbon-date the ink. The ink would have to be rendered, thereby destroying the document.

The question is not the historicity of Jesus' wife. This papyrus is of course dated long after Jesus' death, and the author certainly had no special knowledge. What the document does suggest is that what historians believed was strictly an oral tradition was actually written down much earlier than we had thought. This might change what we think Christians, at least in Egypt, believed at the time.

I care a lot because I think discoveries of unique papyri are fabulously interesting. They're why I am spending hours untold trying to decipher a totally mundane 2nd century tax declaration that no one but me cares about. I hope to find something awesome in a dusty archive someday. But this is not going to make the Pope reconsider clerical celibacy, does not prove anything about the Da Vinci code, is not a Jesuit conspiracy, nor any of the other wacky shit that seems to be sticking to this story. It was probably just a slow news day. I'm thrilled that suddenly lots of people are taking notice of something I really care about, but this too shall pass.

[Gagundathar]

Kudos to you. Maeglin and to your colleagues.
Your work is unheralded usually, but is essential in our quest to understand our shared histories.

Personally, I thought it was likely (even when I was a Christian) that Jesus was married. He was of age and had the support of at least 11 other people and his mother. The wedding at Cana may very well be describing his marriage. But, what dogma would that change?

Protestants, by and large, wouldn't really care that much. Marriage and sex would still be treated much the same way (depending upon the denomination) and the essential nature of this 'heresy' would be ignored. The underlying premise that women are evil isn't as prominent in the Protestant branches of Christianity as it is in the Catholic branches.

The idea that women are the wells of Evil is a powerful idea that has caused great damage to generation after generation of women for well over 1500 years. From the concepts of Eve seducing Adam to the Immaculate Conception, women have been made into something symbolic and therefore inhuman. This reflects the fear of the priesthood for anything that challenges it, especially powerful women. By dehumanizing women, they made them easier to hate and subjugate. And their legacy is with us all, even now.

So, it can be hoped that this tiny scrap of our shared legacy might show us all a pathway to more gender equality.
We will see what happens.

[Alan Smithee]

Maegelin, that's awesome! I love that someone on this board is so connected to the actual research! I agree that this is unlikely to be important theologically or to tell us anything about Jesus historically, but I still think this is an amazing and important discovery. I also think it brings to the fore how little we actually know about Jesus and about early Christian beliefs. The fact is, there is no earlier writing stating that Jesus wasn't married! (Assuming that the text is at least a hundred years older than this particular papyrus, as believed.)

[grude]

I remember reading something somewhere before that explained that Jesus not having a wife would have been absolutely outlandish in the culture and time he lived in. *Assuming you believe there was an actual person of course.

It would have been commented upon, it would have been so outside the norm it would have been of note. The fact it was not commented on was simply evidence that having a wife was the default position.

Is this true in any way?

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by grude

I remember reading something somewhere before that explained that Jesus not having a wife would have been absolutely outlandish in the culture and time he lived in. *Assuming you believe there was an actual person of course.

It would have been commented upon, it would have been so outside the norm it would have been of note. The fact it was not commented on was simply evidence that having a wife was the default position.

Is this true in any way?

Maybe. I am not an expert on family practices among non-elites in the Near East in the early empire, but at least I can tell you about the Lex Papia Poppaea. This law was part of Augustus' more general moral reforms and attempts to restore old Roman vigor (certainly unnecessary) through legislation. The purpose of the law was to make marriage more attractive and to discriminate against celibacy.

I don't know if anyone was ever tried under this law or to what extent it was enforced in the Near East. But shoring up marriage was a big part of Augustan ideology, so there may well have been some additional pressure to marry.

[FriarTed]

It shouldn't change anything. There is nothing in orthodox Biblical Christianity that would have JC's Deity or sinless humanity tainted by marital sex or procreation. However, there are lots of less sophisticated believers & unaware dualists who think that it would & thus whose faith would be shaken.

One practical consequence that would arise would be a radical challenging of the authority of The Church and the reliability of the New Testament. If the Church & the NT could cover up something that big, what else are they not telling us?

Btw, from all reports, the fragment only says "Jesus said 'My wife..." The rest could be something like "- all who hear my words and do them are my wife, and my mother, and my brother, and my sister."

Or the whole quote may be "My wife... take her, please."

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by grude

I remember reading something somewhere before that explained that Jesus not having a wife would have been absolutely outlandish in the culture and time he lived in. *Assuming you believe there was an actual person of course.

It would have been commented upon, it would have been so outside the norm it would have been of note. The fact it was not commented on was simply evidence that having a wife was the default position.

Is this true in any way?

Well, not for a religous wanderer like Jesus. Or for example John the Baptist.

But like I said before, first we hear of the adult Jesus when he is 30 or so. Plenty of time to have been married and be a widower.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

I don't mind talking about whether this claim is or isn't likely to be true, but even more I'd like to talk about what it would actually mean if it could be demonstrated to be true.

As noted by others in this thread, this particular papyrus fragment, no matter how authentic, doesn't prove anything about Jesus himself. So if it could be demonstrated to be true that Jesus had a wife, that would mean that we had a new, previously unknown, significant source of information about Jesus. And that in itself might well be significant.

As far as the fact of him having had a wife goes, I don't know that it would change anything, but it would raise some obvious questions. Like, Whatever happened to her? Why don't we hear anything about her? When and why did Jesus marry her, and what did he think about the compatibility of marriage with his mission?

[John Mace]

I think it would be much more interesting and impactful if it were to be shown that Jesus had children. I'm sure it could be hand-waved away with the whole "dual nature" thing, but it would still be rather shocking to know that God might have lineal descendants among us today.

[John Mace]

On further reflection, if Jesus did have offspring, and you consider the Identical Ancestor point for Europe and the Middle East, then Jesus would either be an ancestor of no one, or an ancestor of almost everyone in that region.

[UncleFred]

I hope this isn't a hijack, but how do we know the Jesus referred to on the Papyrus is the one revered by Christians? Could the name be 're-used'?

I understand the name 'Jesus' may not be subject to common use like Joe or Fred. I also thought 'Jesus' might have been a synonym of 'Teacher' or 'Rabbi' (I'm way out of my element there.)

Still, given the complexities of different languages, alphabets, and usage, could that name have been referring to another individual?

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by UncleFred

I hope this isn't a hijack, but how do we know the Jesus referred to on the Papyrus is the one revered by Christians?

That was one of the things I was wondering about, too. There certainly were other people named Jesus (or the equivalent in whatever language), and still are today.

[Ulfreida]

Catholic here. No, wouldn't change anything whatsoever for me. Would it change anything in Catholic doctrine? Almost certainly not. And would like to point out that there is a difference between "not given much political power within the organization" (true of women within the Catholic church today) and "women are evil" (not true of modern Catholic teachings at all).

I'm already a very big fan of Mary Magdalene (the biblical one).

[PandaBear77]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

For Christians, would you care if this were true? Would it change anything?

Nope and nope. I'd find it vaguely interesting but my faith hinges on whether or not Jesus rose from the grave, not whether or not He liked it and put a ring on it.

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by UncleFred

I hope this isn't a hijack, but how do we know the Jesus referred to on the Papyrus is the one revered by Christians? Could the name be 're-used'?

I understand the name 'Jesus' may not be subject to common use like Joe or Fred. I also thought 'Jesus' might have been a synonym of 'Teacher' or 'Rabbi' (I'm way out of my element there.)

Still, given the complexities of different languages, alphabets, and usage, could that name have been referring to another individual?

Not "Teacher" or "Rabbi", but it's just another form of "Joshua", so by no means unique. Indeed the Apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with the OT book Ecclesiastes) is surtitled "The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach", so it's not even as if there was never another religious teacher called "Jesus". (Of course, Christians emphatically believe that Jesus was not just "another religious teacher".)

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I think it would be much more interesting and impactful if it were to be shown that Jesus had children. I'm sure it could be hand-waved away with the whole "dual nature" thing, but it would still be rather shocking to know that God might have lineal descendants among us today.

This couldn't be handwaved away in Egypt. At the time, the Egyptian church was profoundly Miaphysite. Egyptians by and large rejected the dual nature formula and aggressively believed in the single nature of Christ. The more derogatory word for this is monophysitism. This was a major conflict at the time this document was written. The Coptic Church is still Miaphysite and rejects the dyophysite compromise of the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Jesus is neither an Egyptian nor a Greek name. A quick search suggests that the only time it comes up in papyri is when it refers to The Jesus.

[Maeglin]

Also, I looked at the document. The name "Jesus" is not written out, it abbreviated as IC with a macron on top. There should be no doubt that this refers to Jesus Christ.

[TruCelt]

Originally Posted by John Mace

On further reflection, if Jesus did have offspring, and you consider the Identical Ancestor point for Europe and the Middle East, then Jesus would either be an ancestor of no one, or an ancestor of almost everyone in that region.

I've heard a related conspiracy bandied about by those who know a great deal more than I about the early Popes. Not my opinion, but related, so I'll relate it. Apparently several of them were more like Kings than religious leaders, and passed the office on to children or nephews. (possibly even one niece?)

Anyhoo, If Jesus had a wife, then he may also have had children, which would seriously limit the Pope's ability to claim divine approval of a heritable title. If the title head of the church is hertable, it would obviously go to Jesus' direct descendants, right?

So the theory goes that the church purged all reference to Jesus' wedding, wife, and possibly children.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

Maybe. I am not an expert on family practices among non-elites in the Near East in the early empire, but at least I can tell you about the Lex Papia Poppaea. This law was part of Augustus' more general moral reforms and attempts to restore old Roman vigor (certainly unnecessary) through legislation. The purpose of the law was to make marriage more attractive and to discriminate against celibacy.

I don't know if anyone was ever tried under this law or to what extent it was enforced in the Near East. But shoring up marriage was a big part of Augustan ideology, so there may well have been some additional pressure to marry.

More significantly to my mind, it has always been the case as far as we know within Jewish society that the norm for adults was to marry - there has always (again as far as we know) been a hefty social pressure to be married.

An unmarried adult male Jew would be considered remarkable and unusual.

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Malthus

More significantly to my mind, it has always been the case as far as we know within Jewish society that the norm for adults was to marry - there has always (again as far as we know) been a hefty social pressure to be married.

An unmarried adult male Jew would be considered remarkable and unusual.

Wow, and everyone's always gone around claiming that Jesus was entirely unremarkable.

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by Malthus

More significantly to my mind, it has always been the case as far as we know within Jewish society that the norm for adults was to marry - there has always (again as far as we know) been a hefty social pressure to be married.

An unmarried adult male Jew would be considered remarkable and unusual.

Now, sure. But one of the ways Jewish populations spread from city to city in the ancient Near East was for unmarried young males to emigrate from their home towns to other cities. It would not have been all that unusual to be a wandering young man, either.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Malthus

More significantly to my mind, it has always been the case as far as we know within Jewish society that the norm for adults was to marry - there has always (again as far as we know) been a hefty social pressure to be married.

Some of the Essenes had a tradition of celibacy.

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by TruCelt

I've heard a related conspiracy bandied about by those who know a great deal more than I about the early Popes. Not my opinion, but related, so I'll relate it. Apparently several of them were more like Kings than religious leaders, and passed the office on to children or nephews. (possibly even one niece?)

Anyhoo, If Jesus had a wife, then he may also have had children, which would seriously limit the Pope's ability to claim divine approval of a heritable title. If the title head of the church is hertable, it would obviously go to Jesus' direct descendants, right?

So the theory goes that the church purged all reference to Jesus' wedding, wife, and possibly children.

There was no "pope" for centuries after Jesus' death. The bishop of Rome was by no means the most important figure in the church, and it took centuries for the metropolitan system of ecclesiastical hierarchy to develop.

Bishops, patriarchs, and emperors were utterly unable to suppress beliefs and practices that were literally ripping apart the early church and still remain unresolved among old churches. There is no reason to believe that the very authorities who could not wipe out Miaphysitism or Nestorianism would have done any better excising some largely unimportant piece of trivia.

[cosmosdan]

It's all speculation anyway, so it doesn't make any difference to me. I'm sure it does to those who have to believe the Bible is the word of God and that's it. Other ancient documents don't matter, because God already decided they weren't scripture.

I do think it's healthy for believers to realize that thier beliefs can change , and the details of Jesus life aren't crtitical to appreciating and finding meaning in his teachings.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Malacandra

Wow, and everyone's always gone around claiming that Jesus was entirely unremarkable.

Remarkable ... for his sexual habits? Not to my knowledge.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Some of the Essenes had a tradition of celibacy.

Certainly, but they were expressly not part of mainstream Judaism. They tended to live in seperatist communes, like Qumran.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Malthus

Certainly, but they were expressly not part of mainstream Judaism. They tended to live in seperatist communes, like Qumran.

Likewise, Jesus was "not part of mainstream Judaism". And some of his teachings are similar to those of the Essenes. I think that is the point that Simplicio was making.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Likewise, Jesus was "not part of mainstream Judaism". And some of his teachings are similar to those of the Essenes. I think that is the point that Simplicio was making.

Unlike the Essenes, he appears to have lived within the mainstream Jewish community - doing normal stuff like attending weddings.

His teachings were radical to be sure, and perhaps he was influenced by the Essenes, but he certainly did not attempt to live like an Essene - in a seperatist commune, outside of mainstream society.

How genuinely "different" Jesus was from your ordinary run of the mill radical rabbi of the time is hard to assess, because of course after his death he became central to an entirely seperate religion and was deified. Assuming that he was an actual historical figure and not pure myth, of course.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by FriarTed

Btw, from all reports, the fragment only says "Jesus said 'My wife..." The rest could be something like "- all who hear my words and do them are my wife, and my mother, and my brother, and my sister."

Or the whole quote may be "My wife... take her, please."

Or "My wife is the church" Not sure if that would work grammatically but it would be consistent with some other things.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

The wedding at Cana may very well be describing his marriage.

Having to work at your own wedding party sucks ...

And I really could not find any way that his being married would affect anything about me. I really don't care, other than I think it would have been great if he had been married. Marriages are good for providing companionship, not just legal sex. Lack of companionship is lonely, man is a social creature.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

Marriages are good for providing companionship, not just legal sex. Lack of companionship is lonely, man is a social creature.

"Foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head. So, uh, is ok if we go to your place, baby?"

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Malthus

His teachings were radical to be sure, and perhaps he was influenced by the Essenes, but he certainly did not attempt to live like an Essene - in a seperatist commune, outside of mainstream society.

Some Essene's lived in separatist communes, but they also lived inside other Jewish communities and in Jerusalem. At least, according to Josephus, who also has several Essenes running around his histories interacting with non-Essenes.

But in any case, my main point was just that there was at least one Jewish tradition of religious celibacy at the time. And that in a tradition that at least some evidence links to Jesus. Marriage wasn't necessarily "the norm".

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Ulfreida

Catholic here. No, wouldn't change anything whatsoever for me. Would it change anything in Catholic doctrine? Almost certainly not. And would like to point out that there is a difference between "not given much political power within the organization" (true of women within the Catholic church today) and "women are evil" (not true of modern Catholic teachings at all).

I'm already a very big fan of Mary Magdalene (the biblical one).

Wouldn't celibacy of the priesthood be much harder to support if Jesus himself were not celibate?

And wouldn't it be funny if the next fragment was discovered and continued "my wife" with "his name is Simon."

[Maeglin]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Wouldn't celibacy of the priesthood be much harder to support if Jesus himself were not celibate?

And wouldn't it be funny if the next fragment was discovered and continued "my wife" with "his name is Simon."

No. Priests weren't formally required to be celibate for centuries. Many western bishops are attested to have had wives and children throughout the middle ages.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by FriarTed

Btw, from all reports, the fragment only says "Jesus said 'My wife..."

Originally Posted by Voyager

And wouldn't it be funny if the next fragment was discovered and continued "my wife" with "his name is Simon."

There is no next fragment, but in the previous fragment, some of his disciples were asking Jesus what his favorite song by The Who was.

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Wouldn't celibacy of the priesthood be much harder to support if Jesus himself were not celibate?

And wouldn't it be funny if the next fragment was discovered and continued "my wife" with "his name is Simon."

Yeah, dream on.

[Kinthalis]

My wife,

Can't live with her, can't live without her! Am I right guys?!

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

No. Priests weren't formally required to be celibate for centuries. Many western bishops are attested to have had wives and children throughout the middle ages.

Yep. More likely, if it turned out that said wife was considered "an Apostle", it would make it harder to justify the male only rule for priests. But all this stuff on non-canonical and it's not going to become canonical, so it really doesn't matter (as far as the RCC is concerned).

[Son of a Rich]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

Kudos to you. Maeglin and to your colleagues.
Your work is unheralded usually, but is essential in our quest to understand our shared histories.

Personally, I thought it was likely (even when I was a Christian) that Jesus was married. He was of age and had the support of at least 11 other people and his mother. The wedding at Cana may very well be describing his marriage. But, what dogma would that change?

Protestants, by and large, wouldn't really care that much. Marriage and sex would still be treated much the same way (depending upon the denomination) and the essential nature of this 'heresy' would be ignored. The underlying premise that women are evil isn't as prominent in the Protestant branches of Christianity as it is in the Catholic branches.

The idea that women are the wells of Evil is a powerful idea that has caused great damage to generation after generation of women for well over 1500 years. From the concepts of Eve seducing Adam to the Immaculate Conception, women have been made into something symbolic and therefore inhuman. This reflects the fear of the priesthood for anything that challenges it, especially powerful women. By dehumanizing women, they made them easier to hate and subjugate. And their legacy is with us all, even now.

So, it can be hoped that this tiny scrap of our shared legacy might show us all a pathway to more gender equality.
We will see what happens.

As the vast percentage of thieves, murderers, and war starters are men, it would seem demonizing women would be an uphill battle.

[kanicbird]

I believe Jesus has to have what we might call a soulmate, on earth He may have had numerous sexual encounters as He was certainly accused of hanging out with prostitutes. Jesus says that people will not marry or be married in the next life, so marriage as we know it is a worldly concept, not part of the eternal plan, though sex is certainly part of the eternal plan. If Jesus knew this* at the time of getting involved in a relationship to marry, it would be unlikely but not impossible that He would marry except if it was to have the love of God reach a person, in which case all bets are off and Jesus would do whatever is needed, even if considered sinful, to reach a person and let the Father judge His heart sinless.

From the * above: Jesus clearly did not know everything and could have married before it was revealed that marriage is a worldly construct, this is clear in scriptures in several places 'who touched me?', 'Not the son, only the Father knows','will I find any faith on the earth?' all quotes of Jesus in scriptures showing He did not know everything.

So to me it would be a curiosity, but fits into how I do view Jesus, doing anything needed to have God's love reach humanity.

[Ají de Gallina]

[nitpick]
The Immaculate Conception is a Catholic doctrince about the Virgin Mary. It states that, as a special grace from God, she was spared of the stain of the Original Sin at the moment of her conception.
Her parents had sex to have her.
The Virgin Birth is a doctrine about Jesus in which Jesus was conceived miraculously without sex.
[/nitpick]

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

No. Priests weren't formally required to be celibate for centuries. Many western bishops are attested to have had wives and children throughout the middle ages.

Not to mention some Popes. But I was referring to the church today.

[astorian]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

A Harvard scholar of divinity alleges that she has found a slip of papyrus text, written in Coptic, that refers to Jesus's wife and to a female disciple.

I don't mind talking about whether this claim is or isn't likely to be true, but even more I'd like to talk about what it would actually mean if it could be demonstrated to be true.

For Christians, would you care if this were true? Would it change anything?

For everyone else, would you care? Would it change your opinion about anything?

Is this a hoax? If not, is it meaningful or just something kind of vaguely interesting?

(If it's not interesting, you're in the wrong thread!)

I do have serious answers to all your questions, and I'll get to them in a moment, but first...

1) I find it bizarre how quick the media are to latch onto iffy stories like this based on little or no evidence. Interestingly, it's usually around Easter time that they trumpet stories like this (every year, right before Easter, you can count on Time and/or Newsweek doing a cover story publicizing some new theory about the "real" Jesus).

2) I find it equally bizarre that secularists who normally scoff at the New Testament on the grounds that "it wasn't written until decades after Jesus' death" show no similar skepticism toward a fragment of a document written 300 years after Jesus' death.


That said...

I do not believe Jesus had a wife. On the other hand, if he HAD gotten married (as at leats one of his Apostles did), had sexual relations with his wife, and even sired some flesh and blood kids, it wouldn't bother me in the least. There'd have been absolutely nothing sinful or distatsteful in that, nor would it invalidate anything Jesus said or did.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to think that, if Jesus had a wife or kids, SOME early evangelist would have found that interesting enough to mention.

As it is, this is a fragment of a document from some Gnostic group living LONG after Jesus died. It's no secret that the Gnostics had a host of beleifs that we Catholics (and most Protestants) dismiss completely. This is just one of the latest.


As I've said many times before, Jesus COULD have been married, just as he COULD have been bald, just as he he COULD have been 6'8" tall, just as he COULD have been left-handed, or just as he COULD have been a spectacular singer. NONE of those things would be bad, and NONE would detract from his message or his divinity.

There jus tisn't any solid reason to believe any of those things IS true.