D'Antonio writes "If Jesus had a wife, then there is nothing extra Christian about male privilege, nothing spiritually dangerous about the sexuality of women, and no reason for anyone to deny himself or herself a sexual identity."...I suppose that it should be added that there is nothing extra Christian about male privilege, dangerous about the sexuality of women, or shameful about sexual identity even if Jesus didn't have a wife.-anthony
Some of the comments in the articles on this 'discovery' make very little sense. I'm seeing a lot of people say the canonical books were chosen (and other books suppressed, such as this late, late fragment) in order for the Roman Catholic Church to prohibit priests from marrying on the basis that Jesus was not married. I think if the RCC was actually interested in doing that, they would not have left in one of Paul's letters where he directly mentions how Christian leaders have the right to marry (with Peter being his immediate example, no less).
Well obviously Jesus did have a wife... the bible mentions some sort of "bride" that Jesus is the husband of! ;)
So what if Jesus had a wife?
Meh. Not impressed. If it was First century Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek then I would be more interested....you know if it was from Paul's lost letter to the laodiceans or something...-mark Almlie
I suppose the true surprise about this Coptic fragment discovery is that it did not come out around Christmas or Easter.