‘The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’ A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identifieda papyrus fragment in the Coptic language that she says contains the first known statement saying that Jesus was married. The fragment also refers to a female disciple.
Translated legible text
not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe]
The disciples said to Jesus
deny. Mary is worthy
of it
Jesus said to them,
“My wife
she will be able to
be my disciple
Let wicked people
swell up
As for me, I dwell with her in order to
an image
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identifieda scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen inany piece of Scripture: “Jesus saidto them, ‘My wife ...’”
The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card,with eight lines on one side, in black inklegible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having awife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?ref=todayspaper&gwh=00B6D2923F2F0C30566D1F261C878E67

Coptic Scholars Doubt and Hail a Reference to Jesus’ Wife.
When Karen L. King , a historian of early Christianity, announced this week that she had identified a fragment of ancient Coptic text in which Jesus utters the words “my wife,” she said she was making the finding public — despite many unresolved questions — so that her academic colleagues could weigh in.
And weigh in, they have. A few said thatthe papyrus must be a forgery. Others have questioned Dr. King’s interpretationof its meaning. Somehave faulted her for publishing a paper on an item of unknown provenance. And many have criticized her decision to give the scrap of papyrus the attention-getting title “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife,” as if it had equal weight to other, lengthier texts that are knownas Gospels.
But even some of those casting doubt are also applauding her work. Many scholars said in interviews that they were excited by the discovery, because if it is genuine, it suggests at least onecommunity of early adherents to Christianity believed that Jesus was married.
“It’s obviously an important find,” said Carl R. Holladay , professor of New Testament studies atthe Candler School ofTheology at Emory University.
However, he added, “The circumstances in which it’s come tolight really require all scholars to be really cautious abouthow we proceed.”
Dr. King has reiterated that the fragment is not proof that Jesus was married because it was most likely written three and a half centuries after his death, making it historically unreliable. She has emphasized that thefragment is merely aglimpse of a discussion among early Christians about whether their savior was married or celibate.
Despite her cautions,the finding has prompted “Jesus Was Married” headlines around the world — and jokes about Mrs. Jesus’ “honey-do” list.
The papyrus fragment, which measures only about1 ½ by 3 inches, is written in Coptic that Dr. King says is consistent with writing seen in fourth-century Egypt. It is roughly rectangular, torn on all four sides, so thateach line of text is incomplete. The ink on the front side contains eight lines, dark enough to be legible. Line 4 purportedly says, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife...’ ”
Other phrases in the text suggest that it is an account of a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples, Dr. King maintains. Accordingto her translation, Line 3 includes the words “Mary is worthy of it.” Line 5, immediately after the line about Jesus’ wife, says, “...she willbe able to be my disciple.” Line 7 says,“As for me, I dwell with her in order to...”
Dr. King, who holds achair at Harvard Divinity School, has written extensively about the Gospels of Mary, Judas and Philip, relatively recent discoveries that are not a part ofthe established biblical canon. Even before this week, Dr.King was a favorite target of religious leaders who consider the Bible the literal word of God.
Two years ago, Dr. King said she received an e-mail from a collector who asked her to translate a piece of papyrus that contained a reference to Jesus’ wife. She said that the owner does not know the provenance of the fragment, and has asked to remain anonymous.
In Rome, Dr. King presented a paper on the papyrus on Tuesday at a meeting of the International Association of Coptic Studies . The Associated Press quoted several of her colleagues there as saying that the handwriting, grammar and shape of the fragment made them suspect it was forged. (Several of those scholars did not respond to e-mails or to phone messages.).
Reached at her hotelin Rome, Dr. King said that as soon as she returns to the United States, she plans to have the inkon the fragment tested to determine whether it is truly ancient.
“The testing won’t be definitive, but it will be one more piece” of evidence, she said. She alreadyhad it examined by two papyrologists and a Coptic linguist,who deemed it mostlikely authentic.
Several scholars said in interviews that Dr.King should not haveagreed to study the fragment without verifying that it was not obtained illegally.
Jennifer Sheridan Moss , president of the American Societyof Papyrologists and an associate professor of classics at Wayne State University in Detroit,said that the society would probably not publish a paper on a piece of papyrus without knowing its provenance. “But if something this interesting came up, I suspect we would pursue more information on its provenance,” she said.
Aside from questionsabout the fragment’s authenticity and provenance, some scholars have questioned Dr. King’s interpretation, since the fragment lacks context. Echoing others, Darrell L. Bock , senior research professor ofNew Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, said in an interview that “my wife” could be a metaphorical reference to “the church,” which in theBible the apostle Paul calls “the bride”of Christ.
But Dr. Holladay disagreed, saying: “The papyrus seems to reflect some kind of conversation between Jesus and his disciples in whichhe’s talking about real people. The language is not being used metaphorically.”

The real 'Jesus' was probably married with children.

The alternative might be that he was gay.

Why is either one of these shocking?

He was human, after all.

for those who believe Jesus a mere 'human' prophet,, it would not be shocking

for the millions who believe him to be the SON OF GOD and THEE CHRIST born of a virgin female

it would be shocking


but I dont see how either can be 'proven', even with this tidbit of a relic,,,,

my belief is that

he was not sinful

he would not have willfully and without repentance embraced sinful behavior or activity

he was not the same as humans born from the sin of man

he was appointed by the love of GOD

,,,if he was equal to every human in his sinfulness, his crucifixion and rising would not have significance,,,,

Glad to know if it were to be so!...neither man nor woman ought to stand alone.
( regardless of sex preference). Twos make things easier. Don't you think?

That finding makes the "DaVinci Code" book more "fact based" fiction.

I find it completely believable that Christ took a wife and that does not impact his divinity for me.

He was indeed born a human.

So are you saying that sex is sinful?

no, Im saying homosexual activity is

in response to the 'alternative' theory

that he had a wife would be LESS of a surprise but still shocking considering his devotion to God

kind of like nuns, who also dont marry,,,,

I believe Jesus, (if there even was such a person,) was human and that he was married and had children. The reason is that at that time, it was expected for a man to marry. It was part of society.

If he was not human, then he was an alien. Now that would be shocking.

I also do not believe the myth created about him (by the Roman Catholic Church) being a God or dying on the cross, or all those other plagiarist myths.

I doubt it was expected for EVERY man to marry, Im sure there were exceptions to that expectation then as there are now

and I believe Jesus was known to be 'exceptional' and not merely another 'human'


That is probably one of the paramount differences between western religions is their idea of Jesus

believing he Died on the Cross and rose again is at the core of Christianity,,,,

merely another human?

I don't think I said that.

There are some pretty exceptional humans in history. I don't elevate them to Gods though.

I misunderstood the the statement 'he was human after all'

to mean he could be capable of(or limited to) anything any other human was,,,,

I meant to say that he was not "God," so, I guess in your world that would make him a "mere" human.

I don't know what humans are capable of, and I don't know what their real limitations are. They (we) may be more capable that we think.

Jesus may have married at some point - probably Magdelene, but IF he married it was to a tolerant woman as he was a drifter in the time before his death

tho early on his carpentry may have been a legitmate trade - my reason to question whether he ever married is that he was a drifter

The bible is the truth, read it and stop making asumptions with no proof! Bunch of fools!

What makes you so certain?
There are a lot of things in the Bible that cannot possibly be true.


Some would say people who believe them are the "fools." So don't be so quick to call others "fools."

is this

"I don't know what humans are capable of, and I don't know what their real limitations are. They (we) may be more capable that we think. "


consistent with this

'There are a lot of things in the Bible that cannot possibly be true."


if one is uncertain what humans are capable of, how can one know what is IMPOSSIBLE For a God/Creator?

It depends if you are taking the Bible literally or not. One needs to use common sense and use their brains for thinking. That is what they are for.

The world being made in seven days is not literally or possibly true, but that would depend on what you mean by a "day."

So for a person to say that "the Bible is true" naturally depends on ones perception and interpretation of the Bible. People have been debating that subject forever.

My objection was his remark........ "Bunch of fools!"

Al Bundy was Jesus?

Haven't you seen that famous painting of Jesus watching TV with his hand in his pants?