Pat, it is past my bedtime and I am dealing with pregnancy-related crankiness, so my perspective is quite possibly a little off, but your last line just really rubs me the wrong way. I imagine it’s supposed to be funny, but I am not seeing the humor there.

Rest of it? Spot on. It is hard to find good news coverage meant for non-experts that doesn’t treat us like highly excitable puppies.

Actually, the Bible states quite clearly that Jesus did have a wife, see the following link for some references:
http://www.openbible.info/topics/the_bride_of_christ

But seriously, its more likely just another Gnostic “Gospel”. This is one of many “discoveries” has been known since at least the time of St. Irenaeus. They’re all frauds as St. Irenaeus spends a lot of link pointing out.

So, they are sure that Jesus was not quoting St. Peter asking the Lord to heal his (Peter’s) wife?

Third verse same as the first. Just last night I was reminded of just how bad it had gotten and just how sick…

everybody sing along.

Oh and see you all again in 6 months when the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing again.

Well, I say that Jesus probably invented the roundhouse kick, but the Bible is silent on this.

I agree with pittsburgh mama who thinks your closing paragraph is in extremely poor taste. To state that Jesus did not marry because he wasn’t that stupid is disgraceful. I think you should apologise for it.  And I’m not pregnant.

Although I sympathisize with pregnancy, lack of sleep, etc, as a wife of 41 years, I laughed. Imagine being married to somebody who IS God!

Let’s not forget that Yeshua and Mariam were very common names ‘way back then.’  Maybe, the papyrus is referring to someone else.  Or, am I missing something?

Dude!  You had me till that last sentence. LOL!
Love,
My husband’s wife

Very poor ending to an otherwise acceptable article.  How dare you put it that way.  The Bible tells men to love their wives as they love themselves.  Won’t be reading your blog or opinion on anything anymore!

C’mon people.  Loosen up a bit and smile…we need to laugh at ourselves from time to time.

There are a lot more serious things to get upset than the last sentence…

That last line? Seriously?

Maybe it’s easier for you to lighten up, Ray b/c you are not someone’s wife ;-)

First article I read from you….was great until the last line. I’m not upset..it was just the worst ending to a pretty good article.

And it came to pass that Jesus checketh out the local crumpet and marryeth a hot babe, providing 21st century believers something to pondereth and wondereth at. And lo he did have someone to seweth on the odd button and rubbeth his feet after those long treks through the desert. And behold she did nag him about being a long-haired, unemployed hippie who couldn’t affordeth a pair a sandals or a flagon of wine. And lo he hangeth his head and concedeth to her demands and took out the garbage.

Taking a wife would have been a stupid act for Jesus.  He knew He was to be crucified.

I heartily disagree… Jesus DOES have a wife.  Revelation 19:7, 21:2, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Matthew 9:15.

I agree with pittsburgh mama about your last line rubbing me wrong, and I’m definitely not pregnant.  The rest of the article is pretty good although I’m not a huge fan of editorial-esque articles.

Some people go through life as absolutely humorless curmudgeons. To the people objective to the last line: grow up and get a sense of humor, please.

I made the same comment elsewhere, but it would have been perfectly normal for Jesus, as a Jewish man,to have a wife & it would have been common knowledge, recorded in the Gospels & elsewhere, not hidden for centuries.

“The rest of the article is pretty good although I’m not a huge fan of editorial-esque articles.”

Is this your first time reading a blog - not just this blog, but any blog? Because they all usually have opinions thrown in there.

Way out of line in your closing statement!  Really disappointing.

“Jesus is God, so he couldn’t possibly have been that stupid.” Is drawing a lot of ire from women and men alike on here. Yet, I see what you mean. Jesus the second person of the Trinity came to spread the Gospel, and then die a miserable death for the redemption of mankind. What intelligent, loving, kind, honorable man would possibly be stupid enough to take a wife that would have to witness that? Not only would she and her presumable children have to watch their husband and father ripped to shreds, they would also be voiceless in society. A widow was without a voice or rights in that society. It is as clear as that. What loving man would be stupid enough to allow that to happen. If he had a wife, he couldn’t possible go on with his mission and be a loving God.

@John - that’s how I chose to read the line as well!

@John,Irene

Yep, that’s how I read the last sentence, too. It might be helpful to others to situate the “offending line” in the context of Saint Paul’s teaching: 1Cor 7:32-35.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, but I was just making a silly wife joke.  Ya know, ‘cause they’re funny.

Guess it is just sort of hard for a seminarian to pick up on the funny wife jokes, guess it’s all the discerning celibacy gets in the way…

@Pat Archbold - well, alrighty then - you’re a jackass.  I’m kidding.  I’m kidding.

Thanks for debunking a pop story!

The really sad part of the so-called momentous discovery is the number of secularists and fallen-away or poorly catechized Christians who have seized upon this with great enthusiasm to discredit Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular. I am appalled by the apparently great number of people who cannot distinguish between the concepts of “authentic” (yes, it is from the fourth century A.D.) and “true”. One does not necessarily follow the other, but try telling that to those who are eager to follow anyone but Jesus Christ and His Church. This is no doubt another Gnostic text used with great effect by Satan to deceive once and now again. God have mercy upon us all.

Don’t ditch the author for one line in the article.  Would you dump your child or spouse for a mistake or off-color comment?  This guy is on our side of the debate, struggle, fight, or whatever you want to call it.

Vocations are vocations. Jesus Christ did the will of His Father in heaven perfectly. If Jesus Christ’s Father willed Him to be espoused, Jesus would be espoused. What is different, an very,very important is that Jesus Christ is the REAL PRESENCE in the Blessed Sacrament. All others who choose to believe serendipity, assumptions, incantations and other inventions cannot be stopped. You and I have Jesus Christ in the REAL PRESENCE. Go ask HIM.
Patrick, will your son become a priest?

AnneG: Imagine being married to somebody who IS God!
Love it. and God’s grandchildren are gods, too. There is still the problem of infinity, of the Infinite Being bringing forth finite beings, which God has done with each and every man. So, how does one square the need of God for a wife with the fact that there are no infinite women for wife? What’s an Infinite Supreme Sovereign Being to do, but to create man in His own image, male and female, He created and endowed them with HIS unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I think it is great that we are concerned with this since we have managed to master all of the revealed scripture in our lives.

I do agree that the last line by the author was insensitive. However, according to the Wikipedia website, while the gnostic Gospel of Thomas “contains a possible allusion to the death of Jesus, (it) doesn’t mention his crucifixion,resurrection, or final judgement, nor does it mention a mesiannic understanding of Jesus.“So, can we possibly believe as reasonable Catholics that Christ was not crucified, or rose from the dead, or was our Messiah? The Wikipedia website goes on to state that neither “The Lord’s Prayer”  or forgiveness” were mentioned. In fairness, it does state that this gnostic “gospel” emphazied love of the poor and friends”, but also emphasized “secret knowledge.” While it’s true that Jewish men typically were married, Jesus was not simply another man. Christ did many thing that were contrary to Jewish law. He associated with tax collectors, lepers, and Samaritans (people who were the outcasts of Jewish society). With due respect to Kathleen (and I’m certainly no bibical scholar!) none of the Gospels say a word about Christ being married.  The idea that Christ had a wife sounds too much like the premise of the “Da Vinci Code”, by Dan Brown. In honesty, I haven’t read the novel, but from what I understand, it’s a clever weaving of fact and fiction-I imagine primarily fiction.  I enjoy Tom Hanks as an actor, but he is well known as a Catholic who dissents from core Church teachings.  Respectfully, Tim Donovan

Yup. Can’t get past the last line. And then seeing your explanation that it was just a “silly wife” joke doesn’t help. You have an opportunity wiht your column to lift up marriage and the dignity of man and wife. You’re just spouting more of the same disrespect for marriage that we can get in the world. That is just sad.

Tim Donovan,
That none of the Gospels, nor any other sacred scripture mentions Jesus being married was part of my point.It would have been common knowledge & there would have been no reason to hide it for centuries.

I am completely offended by the last line. Change it.

Your poor wife!

Scripture tells we are all sons and daughters of God, so perhaps God is married after all.

No—God seduced Mary and Joseph had to marry her to save her honor (and possibly from stoning). Jesus never married—he was into free love.

Church-bride

Anyone reading this a master of ancient languages? Is the original word “bride” or “wife”? CAUSE…we all know that Jesus refers to himself as the bridegroom and his Church as his bride. Ground-breaking discovery.

http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2009/joseph-and-mary-in-bed/

Why are “trolls” so obsessed with sexual issues that they have to post on Catholic sites? It always amazes me.

Before the Cannon of Scripture was closed by the Catholic Church, i am sure that this ‘account’ of Jesus’ life was addressed.  Although history does not tell us about EVERY “gospel” or “apocrypha” we know that there was GREAT discussion and examination of them all.  The fact that this is NOT in the Cannon of Scripture should tell us something.  IT WAS NOT HELD to be true.

@Kathleen—
Isn’t the sexuality of Jesus what is being discussed—or why is everybody worried about whether or not he was married?
.
Jesus is a myth in any case:
.
Jesus Has No History
No Primary Source (First-Person) Accounts of Jesus Exist
There is No Evidence for the Story of the Birth of Jesus
There is No Evidence for the Story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus
The Jesus Mysteries Hypothesis: Jesus was Another Mystery Religion God-Man
History Led up to Christianity
Jesus and Other God-Men are Personifications of the Sun

Sorry. There is nothing you or anyone else could ever say to convince me that Jesus is not the risen Lord. We have been through too much together. My experience cannot be denied.

Neither can mine.

@Rita—
There are plenty of first-person accounts of Jesus—the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, for instance.  All were people who were with Jesus day in and day out, eyewitnesses to His life—how much more “first person” do you need?  There are also quite a few sources for the birth of Jesus, both Christian and secular, if you care to look.  Jesus frequently talks in the Bible of the Church being his “Bride”—could this fragment be referring to that?  Could be—it’s hard to tell by the fragmentary nature of the bit of papyrus found.  Without the rest of the fragment, it is hard to tell.  Wouldn’t you agree that is a reasonable assumption?  It seems curious that athiests will deny all evidence for the existence of God but will latch on to the flimsiest of assertions and theories that try to deny His existence.  I thought athiesm was supposed to rely on reason and rationality, but the evidence seems to show otherwise.

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts and were written 36-65 years after Jesus’ supposed death. None of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses, Matthew is written completely in third person (e.g. Matthew 9:9), and the author of John claims he is not the disciple John (John 21:24). The followers of Jesus were Aramaic speaking peasants from Galilee, lower class men that are not educated and could not have written the gospels in Greek. All the gospels were written anonymously and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were simply applied to the unnamed writings by later readers and named after characters in the stories.
Acts 4:13 even says Peter and John were uneducated and ignorant men.
.
Many credit the voice in their head as the voice of God. That voice however is just unfiltered thought. It is the same “voice” that speaks when people talk to other gods or when children talk to their imaginary friends. It is the same “voice” that can send people to the psychiatric ward, it does not matter what name you put on it. If one actually convinces themself that the voice in their head is “evidence” for God then they must also believe in most other gods and every imaginary friend ever conceived by a child.
.
Also, if God existed why would his communication abilities be limited to the same level as imaginary friends? In the Bible God speaks aloud, either projected from a bush, through the mouth of a donkey, or even face to face.
.
Maybe if you read more than one book in your life, you might be able to think for yourself instead of giving debunked “evidence.”

Thanks TC, but my question wasn’t answered—Isn’t the question of Jesus being married relevant to Jesus’ sexuality?

Well, after a few hours, no one has answered my question. Therefore it is asserted that the question of Jesus being married is really a question as to whether Jesus had sex. This offends Christians as much as burning the Koran offends Muslims.
.
Fortunately Jesus Christ is a fictional character and the Church (who edits this fiction) can make him a virgin if it wants too.

I’m surprised by the comments of “True Democrat,” who apparently denies the existence of God, and insults the writers of the Gospels as being uneducated men. Many people in our nation today aren’t well educated. As a former Special Education who is now partly disabled myself, I find it offensive that “True Democrat” would hold uneducated people in such low regard. Many people, even with severe disabilities, have made important contributions to our nation. These include Helen Keller, her teacher Anne Sullivan, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (who had polio), former Senator Robert Dole (whose arm was severely injured during World War 2), among others. Does being uneducated make one less of a human being? I’m not suggsting that “True Democrat” believes this. However, some prominent philosophers do. For instance, Princeton Professor Peter Singer believes that it should be legal for newborn babies with disabilties to be killed. I would submit that everyone is uneducated or disabled in some manner. I know people who are partially blind and work full time jobs,or who have severe depression and yet still contribut to society. One of my pyschology professors was learning disabled. A Democratic Congreswoman from Wisconsin has severe injuries from the Gulf War, I believe. Former President Gerald Ford had dyslexia. Abraham Lincoln suffered from bouts of depression, as did Winston Churchill. “True Democrat” is certainly entitled to his opinion, as is “Rita,” that Jesus is a fictional character. But, I find it strange that they would bother writing on a Catholic website. Respectfully, Tim Donovan

Tim, you miss the point. Uneducated people of the era could not read or write, so they did not write the Gospels. There is NO WRITTEN ACCOUNT OF JESUS DURING HIS SUPPOSED LIFE TIME.
.
If your brains were dynamite, they wouldn’t even ruffle your hair.

Wow, it really is an obsession with trolls.
Atheist sites must have little traffic.How long can you talk about something or someone who does not exist with others who hold the same opinion?

“How long can you talk about something or someone who does not exist with others who hold the same opinion?”

.
Kathleen, you should know.

Kathleen—
ROTFL! Well, I’ll tell you something that should be of vital interest to you. You are a sad strange little person, and you have my pity.

Again, it must be a slower day than usual in the atheist chat rooms….
God must have a purpose to bring them here.

God seduced Mary and Joseph had to marry her to save her honor (and possibly from stoning). Jesus never married—he was into free love.
.
Jesus Has No History
No Primary Source (First-Person) Accounts of Jesus Exist
There is No Evidence for the Story of the Birth of Jesus
There is No Evidence for the Story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus
The Jesus Mysteries Hypothesis: Jesus was Another Mystery Religion God-Man
History Led up to Christianity
Jesus and Other God-Men are Personifications of the Sun
.
Therefore I assert that the question of Jesus being married is really a question as to whether Jesus had sex. This offends Christians as much as burning the Koran offends Muslims.
.
Fortunately Jesus Christ is a fictional character and the Church (who edits this fiction) can make him a virgin if it wants too.

May I suggest some resources for further study by the Jesus skeptics and the Christian apologists?  Unfortunately, none of the authors are Catholic and generally I have found Catholic writers lacking in strong scholarship on the historical reliability of the New Testament and the historical accuracy of the Jesus figure recorded therein.  However, these books (all of which I have read are good starting material) as they seek to apply generally accepted historical research methods and rational models in their approach.  Some of their conclusions I do not agree with and may not be consistent with Catholic teaching, but they are a start.  The texts will follow in the next post.

From my prior post, I offer the following books:
On the historical reliability of the New Testament, see Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels; Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability ofnthe Synoptic Jesus Tradition; Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus.

On the reliability of the Gospel authors as witnesses to the life of Jesus, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gispels as Eyewitness Testimony

On the distortion of the Jesus of tradition by modern skeptics, see Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels; Komoszewski, Sawyer and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture.

I do not consider it reasonable to suggest that Jesus did not, in fact, exist and that the New Testament portrait of Him constitutes reliable historical evidence.  One needn’t believe Jesus is God (although the evidence strongly supports it in my view), but Jesus was born, was crucified and did rise from the dead.  I worship Him accordingly.

Apologies for the error in my last post.  Of course, the charitable reader would assume that I meant to say that I do not consider it reasonable that “the New Testament portrait of him does not constitute reliable historical evidence.” I do believe that the reasonable person must confess the historical accuracy of the New Testament accounts of Jesus.

To “True Democrat.” Quite an uncharitable and mean-spirited comment statign about my post that “if my brains were dynamite, they woouldn’t ruffle your hair.” Although we obviously disagree, and each one of us has a right to our opinions, I don’t believe that I’ve used such vitriolic language to attack you or anyone else on this blog.  Tim Donovan