Perhaps for the first time in recent history, the Vatican and a majority of academics are in agreement. The Vatican raised doubts recently about the now well-known papyrus that alludes to Jesus having a wife, describing it as a fake. Meanwhile, scholars have also expressed concerns about the fragment's authenticity, noting its form and grammer look suspicious, as well as the fact that it was purchased on the market without a clear origin.
But this is nothing new. Attempts to link Jesus to a wife (and therefore make him totallyhuman) are perennial. Around A.D. 300, the church leader Arius started teaching that Jesus was created by God, and thus not divine. His teachings became known as Arianism, and giving Jesus a wife would further advance this theory. Arius lived in Alexandria, Egypt, ironically the same general area where the Gnostic gospels were found at Nag Hammadi, as well as the papyrus now in question.
Arianism was the main topic of debate at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, attended by the Emperor Constantine, and was decisively rejected by the majority of church leaders. But like any teaching, some continued to believe it. (For exxample, Mormonism has an Arian view of Jesus as an exalted man). So it should not be surprising that the so-called Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Thomas and this new fragment have similar theological underpinnings. But we have solid proof to the contrary:
- People who knew Jesus and spent time with him ------ his disiples, apostles and the authors of the New Testament books ------- regarded him as both human and divine. Based on his life and death, he was truly human. He also claimed to be God (e.g., "I and the Father are one"). If he was not divine, then his sacrifice on the cross would not have been sufficient payment and therefore useless. The early church leaders also carefully considered the apostle Paul wrote about it, so the issue was settled long before Arius came on the scene.
- Arianism and the Gnostic "gospels" came much later (approximately A.D. 140-400), after all of primary accounts were dead. There were a number of groups with their own philosophies/theologies often quite different from actual Christianity, and each group had its own ax to grind. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that someone would speculate that Jesus had been married.
- If Jesus had a wife, the apostles would certainly have known about it, because he lived and spent a lot of time with them during his three-plus years of ministry. Jewish writers tended to be euphemistic about sex, but they certainly didn't hide it, and if it were true, it would have come out. Jesus did meet and interact with women, which was very unusual for a rabbi of his day, but there are no hints of any actual relationships in the New Testament or any other writings from that time.
- Finally, Jesus had serious enemies who sought any and all possible grounds to denounce him. The only thing they came up with was a charge of blasphemy for claiming to be God. After Jesus' death and resurrection, his enemies felt threatened by the Christian movement, and could have sought to discredit it by providing evidence that Jesus was a womanizer or adulterer. But there was no hint of this.
Most assume that the above account amounts to religious fiction. However, some have taken it literally and alleged from the above quote that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' spouse or consort -------- this is the same line of thinking put forth in "The Da Vinci Code." If that were the case, then why would the disciples, who were married men with their own wives, object to him kissing her and "loving her more than them"? Even the Gnostic writings never claim that Jesus and Mary were married, nor do they claim that there was any sexual relationship or that any children were born to them.
If you're still skeptical, consider this: If you read a contemporary book about Abraham Lincoln, written by the descendants of John Wilkes Booth, claiming that Mary Todd Lincoln was not the president's wife, would you find that a trustworthy source? The Vatican and many historians believe the papyrus document is a fake. At best, the papyrus only offers us proof that one person who lived several hundred years later believed something that was widely believed to be untrue.
