I just read an article that Fr. James Martin SJ posted on facebook about the " Gospel of Jesus’ Wife. Most of the scholars deemed it fake but the article did say there’s a chance, however slim, that Jesus was married another we could be “one archeological discovery away” from finding this to be true.
It also points out that we know nothing about Jesus teen and early 20’s years, suggesting He could’ve married and it judgement mentioned in Scripture.
IF proof was ever found that Jesus was married, what would that mean for the CC? Would She change her teaching? Or is the belief Jesus was single ex Cathedra?
“One archeological discovery away”…hardly unlikely. Unless you can find a contemporary inscription somewhere which says “Jesus of Nazareth was actually married to this woman and had kids” I highly doubt it will happen.
I am pretty sure that the Church does not explicitly teach that Christ was unmarried. Nor does the Bible mention it either way. However, if He was, don’t you think that that fact would have been remembered or recorded?
If there were a wife that they didn’t get along with, that too would have been a major element in the narrative.
The central idea in the theory is that there was not just a wife, but a **family. ** Sure, between 12 and 31, or 36 years of age there would have been ample time for Him to have formed a family, but then where did they all go?
A Saint Joseph who disappears without a trace is understandable if he were an older fellow who died at an expected age. A wife and children who go poof before Dad is 31 years old really would be noticed by those around Him.
Exactly. Of course, just on the historical level we can’t say either “Jesus was never married” or “Jesus was married.” But I think even serious scholars agree that the chance the historical Jesus would have been married is rather low.
Here’s one thing. Jesus’ relatives enjoyed positions of importance in the early Church; there’s Mary of course, but also his ‘brothers’ and their descendants who were influential figures in the Church in Jerusalem. His half-brother James the Just for example was the first bishop of Jerusalem; Simeon (Clopas’ son, said to be Jesus’ cousin) was the second bishop; the grandchildren of Jude (another ‘brother’ of Jesus) also became important leaders; and Jude’s great-grandson, Jude Kyriakos (‘of the Lord’), was the last Jewish bishop of Jerusalem before the Jews were expelled from that city in AD 135. Won’t you think that if Jesus had a wife and kids, either the wife or the children would have also been mentioned as becoming leaders of the Church? I mean, if you are going to choose someone from Jesus’ family anyway, why settle for His ‘brothers’ or cousins and their grandkids when you can have His biological son become bishop instead?
Since the article does not cite any dogmatic definition by an ecumenical Council or a pope, I don’t think we can safely claim that the Church has made Jesus’ singleness a dogma of the faith. However, since the “married Jesus” idea goes against the constant understanding of all the saints, Church Fathers, and scholastic theologians, I think we can safely say it is certainly false. Do you think that is reasonable?
Jesus is God. Jesus had a singular mission in the Incarnation. To chases these silly tangents about a married Jesus is to fundamentally misunderstand who Jesus is. Gnostic heretics started these ideas, and gnosticism rejects the orthodox understanding of God. So, you can rest easy knowing that Jesus was NOT married and those who claim he was are flirting with heretical beliefs.
We are also one archeological discovery away from learning the moon is made of greeen cheese, BTW.