Jesus was married and had a wife blah blah blah

You must have seen it by now, the Jesus was married bunkum based on an ancient Papyrus:

Well if you are interested in this nonsense then save yourself some time and follow Dr Jim West on Twitter and keep up with his blog posts on this.

Here are some links for your convenience:

No, People, a 4th Century Scrap Doesn’t Prove Jesus Had a Wife

A Further Thought on the ‘King Papyrus’ (Or Jesus’ Wife Snippet or Whatever)

NBC News Roundup of the ‘Jesus’ Wife’ Papyrus

One Final Observation on the ‘Wife of Jesus’ Fragment

And Now The Motive For the Announcement of the ‘Jesus’ Wife’ Fragment May Be Coming to Light

And yes the outrageous rumours are true Jim has indeed been cited over on the BBC.

You’ll not go far wrong tracking Jim’s thoughts on this…..

Tags: , ,

3 Responses to “Jesus was married and had a wife blah blah blah”

  1. jemima101 Says:

    I also go back to a discussion we had at housegroup on this, If Jesus had been married it means he deserted his wife for his Ministry, and knew she would be left a widow in an era where they lived a precarious existence. Doesn’t really equate with anything we know about Him ,does it?

  2. Roger Pearse Says:

    It’s a curious item. Obviously it tells us nothing about Christianity or Christ. But … trying to find a positive side … it might cause people not otherwise aware of Egyptian papyri to take an interest in the subject. Papyrology could really use more public interest, involvement and funding.

  3. fr. Richard Says:

    To be frank, there is very little in the Bible that we can say constitutes a biography of Jesus. It is obvious three of the Gospels work from a common source – sayings of Jesus and the odd miracle woven into a slightly different fabric by each Gospel author: some, plain & unadorned; others with a good deal of embroidery. The forth Gospel, likewise is rather thin on the ground when it comes to facts about Jesus’ life. And we have to remember two centuries past after the writing of much of the NT before we have surviving material; so who knows what was removed here or there to present a more unified whole for stylistic or theological reasons?

    An interesting book I read by a RC writer called (I think – I’m writing this on the train and can’t check references) ‘The Biblical Doctrine of Virginity’ presents a thesis suggesting in the O.T. virginity – or non-marriage – was something to be ashamed of (think of Jeptha’s daughter’s lament); only Jeremiah was asked not to marry and that was because his celibacy was prophetic: there was no point marrying because of the turmoil to come etc. Whereas in the N.T. celibacy was seen as a sacrament of the New Kingdom and the belief – evident in the Gospels and epistles – that the Kingdom of God was imminent, therefore marriage was superfluous.

    Hence it is possible to understand why the authors of the N.T. might casually forget to mention Jesus’ marriage, if indeed there was one (and let’s remember that marriage and family life was a big part of Jewish life, then as now). It is almost inconceivable that a man in his 30s would NOT be married in Jesus time.

    I’m open minded on the topic – but then I take much within the hallowed pages of the Bible with a pinch of salt.

    As for the comment above about Jesus being single in light of his ministry: we know for a fact St Peter was married – tho’ this is not plainly stated, but just mentioned in passing, when it is noted Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law. So evidently an itinerant lifestyle was not forfeited for the married. Moreover, the very fact Peter’s married state is seen as unremarkable (in that it is incidental to the story being told) suggests whether a key figure in the Gospels and Jesus’ ministry was married or not was not something for explicit comment.

    The beauty and power of the Christian Scriptures lies in the fact of their ambiguity. It is possible to get them to say whatever anyone likes! Evidently some folk in Egypt decided (or MAY have decided) Jesus was married – just as to some Jesus was a warrior, others a social worker, others a political maverick or what you will. At the end of the day we approach and comprehend religion from the point of view of meeting our own needs; truth and objective reality are secondary to these needs, no matter how we like to convince ourselves otherwise…

Switch to our mobile site