Jesus was married? What are your thoughts?

[TimothyH]

But we don’t know that with 100 percent certainty.

We do know with 100% certainty that Jesus wasn’t married.

Jesus’ bride is the Church. That isn’t a metaphor or allegory. Marriage is a covenant relationship, and Jesus is in a covenant relationship with his Church, which he died for.

The Church is Jesus’ spotless bride. For Jesus to have been married to another makes him an adulterer. It’s that simple.

-Tim-

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But we don’t know that with 100 percent certainty.

I would venture that we do know this with as much certainty as we know anything else about Jesus. (If christians can deny Jesus’s physical resurrection then nothing is actually a 100% “certain” benchmark ).

The difficulty with the marriage question appears to be because some Catholics will only feel certain if there is a clear and explicit magisterial statement on the the matter. But as others have noted, some things are just so obviously assumed as a given that noone has ever seriously objected to this (which is why there is no recorded polemic or doctrinal clarification on this topic).

 

[NP151]

As many of you probably know there has recently been a 4th century papyrus script found where Jesus mentions having a wife. Now this might be being used out of context, it might be a forgery, it might be something from one of the gospels that the church didn’t like, or it might be bringing the truth behind Jesus’s personal life to light. Has the church made a statement on this script if not why shouldn’t this be considered accurate?

 

[edwest2]

Why should it?

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/does-new-document-prove-that-jesus-had-a-wife

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rolltide]

Well, let me repost what I said on another thread. When this announcement was made, virtually every reputable historian gave a collective yawn. Alternative religious texts have been known about for years, and for most of them, there were good (and usually obvious) reasons why they weren’t included in the Bible, none of them very mysterious.

As an historian myself, I can tell you that we know quite a lot about the selection process. It worked like this. Most books could be grouped into a few categories:

1. Those which pretty much everyone agreed as legitimate. This included the four canonical Gospels, and most of the Letters of Paul. This legitimacy was also confirmed by their age. Most were written no more than 30 years after the fact. ALL of the canonical New Testament books were written before the year 100 AD.
2. Those which were absolutely clear forgeries. Some forgeries were easy to pick out, and everyone agreed. These were either books that were written hundreds of years later, or had ridiculous content, or both. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a great example of this. It purports to tell the story of Jesus’s life as a child and teen. It was regarded, even at the time, as little more than a collection of folk tales made up to fill the gaps in the Bible. (Call it early fan fiction if you like.) The behavior of Jesus in the book is so ridiculous at times as to not be credible.
3. Those which were rejected because they were Gnostic. This included many false “Gospels” that might contain elements of the original Gospels, but were distorted to conform with Gnostic ideas. Almost all were written a good 100-200 years (or more) after the canonical Gospels, and cannot be traced back any further than that. Gnostics believed that only by deciphering secret wisdom or knowledge in the Bible could one get into heaven. In other words, salvation was NOT for all, but a select, learned few. It also was completely independent of behavior often times, so, it didn’t matter if you were Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler… crack the Bible code, and you make it to heaven. (There’s shades of Gnosticism in Scientology, although the two are unrelated.)
4. Those which contained some true knowledge, but also contained clear falsehoods. These were problematic documents. Some of the information might be true, but because they were written down much later than the canonical books, other information was exaggerated or false, making it impossible to decipher what parts were genuine and what weren’t. As a result, they were left out of the Bible out of an abundance of caution. However, there are tidbits that come from these books that are almost certainly true. For example, it’s where we learn about the upside-down crucifixion of Peter.
5. A few books which were highly debated, and eventually accepted or rejected. There were a select few books that everyone was on the fence about. They included the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation, and the Didache. Of these controversial books, only Revelation made it in. The Didache is one of the oldest genuine Christian documents out there, but it was rejected for being more of an early catechism. In other words, while it accurately described first century Christians, it contained no inspired knowledge that would help one achieve salvation, so it was left out to remain an historical document of the time. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were included by some early on as canon, but were eventually left out due to an abundance of caution due to some mildly controversial theological statements. They are, however, also considered genuine statements and ideas of the early Christian community.

From what I understand, it seems like this papyrus falls into the Gnostic category. It was written several hundred years after the fact, the content was known about for years, and there are no earlier traces of the document existing. That’s almost a classic case of an authentic, Gnostic text, in which case, it will provide some further insight on this heretical sect of Christianity.

 

[fastenatingguy]

As many of you probably know there has recently been a 4th century papyrus script found where Jesus mentions having a wife. Now this might be being used out of context, it might be a forgery, it might be something from one of the gospels that the church didn’t like, or it might be bringing the truth behind Jesus’s personal life to light. Has the church made a statement on this script if not why shouldn’t this be considered accurate?

Fortunately, this controversy “came and went” without a whole lot of fanfare from the secular media. Which to me means there wasn’t much there to begin with, or they would be in lockstep on this.

 

[akka]

As many of you probably know there has recently been a 4th century papyrus script found where Jesus mentions having a wife. Now this might be being used out of context, it might be a forgery, it might be something from one of the gospels that the church didn’t like, or it might be bringing the truth behind Jesus’s personal life to light. Has the church made a statement on this script if not why shouldn’t this be considered accurate?

First the Jesus-John relationship, now this?
If it were the muslims that get it, I’m sure they will be protesting very soon.

 

[BroomWagon]

Fortunately, this controversy “came and went” without a whole lot of fanfare from the secular media. Which to me means there wasn’t much there to begin with, or they would be in lockstep on this.

This. Because there have been a number of documents that were later shown not to be valid or questionable. There was a full thread on this in the “World News” forum in these forums.

 

[Rolltide]

This. Because there have been a number of documents that were later shown not to be valid or questionable. There was a full thread on this in the “World News” forum in these forums.

Oh, the document is probably genuine and valid… it’s just that it’s most likely a Gnostic text written almost 400 years after the life of Christ. It’s a fake, it’s just a 1600 year old fake, not a recent fake. It will have some historical value, but not for any branch of modern Christianity.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But we don’t know that with 100 percent certainty.

We are just as certain as we are that God exists and he has Revealed his plan for our salvation through his Son. That is 100%.

 

[R_C]

Oh, the document is probably genuine and valid… it’s just that it’s most likely a Gnostic text written almost 400 years after the life of Christ. It’s a fake, it’s just a 1600 year old fake, not a recent fake.

:sad_yes:

Btw there’s a similar thread already 4 pages long here.

 

[Jessup]

I personally don’t believe Jesus would have had a wife regardless of what secular media says. If he started his ministry at 30, and was crucified at 33. It would not make sense,
as what I was taught ( anthropology ) in the biblical days, a man who was 30 would have married someone who would have just come of age to have a family. (13-15) years old, because she would have been targeted for rapes, and other abuses by the community other wise.
The man would have to had been able to take care of her and the numerous children . That’s why the virgin marry would have been very young compared to St. Joseph who was probably 30 or so when he married her. Why then would Christ take a wife, if he knew he was on his way to the cross.
To leave a widow? LDS claims Jesus had a wife because it is one of the commandments to get married and be fruitful. But that’s another discussion.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It seems to me that, if He had a wife, she, not John, would have cared for Mary, as Ruth did for Naomi.

 

[farpinho]

:coffeeread:
:coffeeread:
:coffeeread:

 

[Battleaxe]

I would venture…

The difficulty with the marriage question appears to be because some Catholics will only feel certain if there is a clear and explicit magisterial statement on the the matter. But as others have noted, some things are just so obviously assumed as a given that noone has ever seriously objected to this (which is why there is no recorded polemic or doctrinal clarification on this topic).

We are just as certain as we are that God exists and he has Revealed his plan for our salvation through his Son. That is 100%.

To add to that:
As a person, Jesus is the eternal Word. Why would He have married? That wouldve made a mockery of His role in the eternal Be-ing, Know-ing, Lov-ing inner Life of the Blessed Trinity. God is the Creator of marriage (which is a reflection of His inner Life), so Jesus already knew/knows all about the unspeakable love between husband and wife. [In the Heart of God, its infinite.]
His marrying wouldve been infinitely sillier than for a person to "marry" an earthworm. [The way this present world is, thats probably already been done. ]

He did everything for a reason: His mission on this Earth was to redeem us and to teach His disciples to be the foundation members of His Church.
Saying He married or may have married shows (to me, anyway) a lack of understanding of Who He was and is.

 

[Ranp]

It seems to me that, if He had a wife, she, not John, would have cared for Mary, as Ruth did for Naomi.

Jesus Christ does have a bride, The Holy Catholic Church.

Ran

 

[patrick457]

Just to keep you all updated on the fragment: here’s Mark Goodacre’s blog. Apparently, Andrew Bernhard of gospels.net think that the ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’ is a modern forgery dependent on Michael Grondin’s Interlinear Coptic-English Translation of the Gospel of Thomas. Meanwhile, Simcha Jacobovici is not too pleased with the accusations that the gospel is a forgery.

 

[farpinho]

Just to keep you all updated on the fragment: here’s Mark Goodacre’s blog.

The difficulty with scholarship in this generation is that we are still finding our feet. Most of us are digital immigrants who were not brought up with the internet, still less with blogging and social media. So there are always going to be contributions that are – shall we say? – a little unhelpful. But to the extent that scholarship is a collaborative, interdisciplinary business, the internet has facilitated fantastic advances in cases like this, where many pairs of eyes, from people with different areas of expertise, all over the world, are able to make their own contributions to a debate.