A while ago, a papyrus was found which revealed that Jesus had an actual wife! Let’s say it again together. Jesus—had—a—wife! And, what’s so hard to believe about that??
Well, for starters, there’s no proof! Every Easter without fail, an ironic and convenient discovery about Jesus always turns up smelling of fake news. The sensational mumbo jumbo which real historians never even take seriously always arises reveling that Jesus was married, or had a “brother,” or a family, etc. More and more, these news outlets love to capitalize on sensational claims to boost their popularity and ratings instead of holding on to this thing we call: credibility.
Did Jesus Really Have a Wife?
There is no credible proof anywhere for Jesus being married, not in the Bible, not in the fake Gnostic Gospels, nowhere. The newspapers the other day reported that they found a tiny piece of papyrus which had Jesus saying the words, “My wife…” That’s all. The fragment was cut off, and part of the next sentence says something about “Mary.” For some people, this is all the proof they need. Nonetheless, no one can rightfully assume they know what the rest of the sentence reveals or what Jesus is even talking about. For example, the Church is considered the “Bride of Christ,” and so the meanings could be numerous.
“Oh, come on!! It’s obvious he had a wife! Look at the papyrus,” someone might retort. “The Papyrus clearly shows he had a wife. How much more proof do you need?”
What should be troubling for people who desperately want to believe this, more troubling than only having a fragment of the papyrus, is the problem of its dating. This tiny scrap of papyrus dates to the 4th century A.D., which almost certainly labels it Gnostic in origin.
What’s a Gnostic?
Gnostics were an esoteric group who believed in a secret, hidden knowledge (gnosis) that only the enlightened were privileged to. It was dualistic religion that belived there was an evil god who created this material world and a good God who created the unseen world to come. Thus, everything that we see around us is evil while everything we cannot see is good. Gnostics believed that the higher knowledge, which only they possessed, would free their spirits (good) from their bodies (evil) from the shackles of this material world (evil). That’s it in a nutshell.
What exactly does this have to do with this?
Since Gnostics believed everything material was completely evil, history would be included in that. Heck, they didn’t even believe Jesus had a body because bodies are evil. Rather, He was like a phantom or a ghost. Thus and consequently, Gnostics did not even attempt to write Gospel accounts of Jesus that were historically accurate. Exclamation point. Rather, they wrote truths regarding a higher knowledge that no one could understand anyway unless you were a Gnostic and were privy to this higher gnosis. So, a very odd group writing 400 years after Jesus died is supposed to be the grand proof?
Because the Gnostic Gospels aren’t reliable, and these stories that continually come out with this “proof” that is most often Gnostic, is not reliable. This is in stark contrast to the Biblical authors, all of whom were alive at the time Jesus, who followed Him and learned from Him for three straight years, or knew the people who did. Two out of four of the Gospel writers walked, talked, listened and learned from Jesus all-day, every day for three straight years. They were personally instructed by Him. Reason concludes therefore, that the Gospel writers of the Bible would have known the real Jesus and not people who lived 300-400 years later who never even knew Jesus.
Think about it this way. Who knows you best? Your parents? Your spouse? Best friend? If someone were to write a book on your life, who would be best to undertake this task and accurately depict you? Your family and friends who know you well or people who won’t live for 400 years from now.
It’s a no brainer!
Whether these claims arise from laughable books like the “Da Vinci Code” or from the news media, the continual “discoveries” about Jesus each Easter all have one thing in common: they are never credible, and no real historian takes them seriously.