The Gospel of Jesus Wife discovered...

According to huffingtonpost, there is a new document that was discovered suggesting that Jesus was married.

Gospel of Jesus wife discovered

I’m not sure where Christians stand on Jesus being married or single, but judging by the article, it sounds to alarmistic too me. Even if Christ was married, that still doesn’t hinder his teachings nor resurrection.


One would think one of the four gospel writers would be sure to document such a momentous occasion and celebration.

This was some real gobbledygook, even by HuffPo standards.

[quote=HuffPo]Harvard Divinity School professor Karen L. King says she has found an ancient papyrus fragment from the fourth century that, when translated, appears to indicate that Jesus was married.

[quote=Karen L. King]Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was not married, even though no reliable historical evidence exists to support that claim

[quote=Karen L. King] It was not until around the year 200 that Christian followers began to say Jesus was unmarried, according to a record King cites from Clement of Alexandria. In his writing, Clement – an early theologian – said that marriage was a fornication put in place by the devil, and that people should emulate Jesus by not marrying.

[quote=Karen L. King] One or two decades later [mid-third century], Tertullian of Carthage in North Africa declared that Jesus was “entirely unmarried” and told Christians to remain single. But Tertullian did not come out against sex altogether and allowed couples to get married one time, denouncing divorce and remarriage as overindulgent

So let me get this straight. Prof. King believes that there exists “no reliable historical evidence” to support a celibate Jesus. Yet she cites more than one example of historical evidence which supports a celibate Jesus from sources less removed from the historical Jesus than this newly rediscovered papyrus. So the preponderance of evidence suggests that said evidence isn’t reliable? Sounds almost conspiratorial!

[quote=HuffPo]The papyri included a handwritten German description that had the name of a now-deceased professor of Egyptology in Berlin who called the fragment a “sole example” of a document that claims Jesus was married.

Wow! So an Egyptologist who presumably was the last professional to study this papyrus from Egypt once concluded that it was the only document claiming that Jesus was married. Let’s compare that with Prof. King’s credentials:

[quote=HuffPo]King …] focuses on Coptic literature, Gnosticism and women in the Bible, [and] has published on the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Mary of Magdala.

Ah! The cherry picking of evidence all makes sense now. I have an inkling as to Prof. King’s motive here, but I wonder what’s HuffPo’s motivation in publishing this article…

[quote=HuffPo Blogger Michael D’Antonio]If Jesus had a wife, then there is nothing extra Christian about male privilege, nothing spiritually dangerous about the sexuality of women, and no reason for anyone to deny himself or herself a sexual identity.

Ah! HuffPo being HuffPo. The cards have all fallen into place, now. I can’t let this one slide, though. Notice the missing, implicit premise here: Having a wife precludes “male privilege” (whatever that necessarily entails), and being (what kids these day call) “sex-negative”. Anyone who has known a jealous, controlling, abusive, and/or chauvinistic man who also just so happened to be married can see that this obviously does not follow.

I put the same faith in the Huffy Post that I put in the History Channel, being none at all… Of course if Jesus was (is?) married, that doesn’t change anything for me. Jesus is God, married or not

Absolutely ludicrous.

This. You don’t just ignore the marriage of your leader. And they wrote about His mother and adoptive father, so there’s no reason not to mention His wife.

I read the article and it is terrible journalism and worse theology.

You are a Christian, per your profile. Not to be flip, but how could you not know?

The above statement might be true were Jesus simply another first century do-gooder with some radical ideas about Judaism.

Jesus is God.

What he said. :thumbsup:

The entire idea is nuts. Jesus didn’t come to get a girlfriend or a wife, he came to save us.

[quote=“Matthew 19:10-12”]10[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. 12Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

My guess is, Jesus would likely have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Or, as St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” … and Jesus, being God, would certainly not have been tempted to sexual immorality.


I think the civilized Christian world would have known a fact as HUGE as this some time ago.

Next topic?

Nothing makes the radical left happier than marginalizing Christiany and It’s followers. That’s all this is.

Jesus married? And he being married changes…what?

I don’t think it would have been very , uh, nice of Jesus to marry and then take off and ascend into heaven and leave his wife behind.:frowning:

Jesus was married, Jesus despised religion, Jesus “chickened out” and someone else took His place on the cross, the “parallels” between Jesus and Osiris, Horus and an Indian god/demigod. With the latter, he was shot in the ankle by an arrow, so you can see how this and Christ dying on the cross are actually “similar.”

All as truthful as the Gospel of Judas.

Well he left his disciples and Mother behind (she lived out the rest of her earthly life pre assumption under the care of the Beloved Disciple). :shrug:

The formula behind this and every other of these is so simple I could write a bit of software to produce every one of these extravagant heretical claims and even let you make your own new ones too…

Note sparsity of documents from first century or two due to Romans burning virtually everything and the fact its 2000 years ago. Make silly claim Jesus was a pink unicorn for instance ]. Then, in the absence of any support of your claim whatsoever assert it was true and say “It wasn’t until the second century that Christian writers claimed Jesus was human”. You do this based on the fact no writing of any kind says anything related to your topic and commit the fallacy of first mention = origin. As usual dismiss any claim made within scripture itself. Then when the uniform testimony of the faith after the second century shows Jesus was human and not a pink unicorn claim that it was the fault of Constantine, suppression of documents, evil Catholic Church did it, so on and so forth… :eek::eek::eek:

Lather rinse repeat… It never stops working sadly…:shrug:

You know they’re getting desperate when they recycle The Da Vinci Load.

I thought the Da Vinci Code was about Mary Magdalene being the rightful heir to the Church.

The one thing that stands out to me is the claim that this fragment of papyrus–the size of a business card–is a “gospel”. Dr. King and the blog author seem to think gospel = fragment of an old document.

A second thing is that a fragment of Coptic document from 400 AD is not coincident enough with the events to overturn 2000 years of scholarship.

I don’t get what all the excitement is about. Here, let’s have some fun with this:

“Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …’”

…is the city of Jerusalem.
…is the church unblemished.
…is she who be will be the first pope. :eek: :D: :whistle:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit