From the Jewish standpoint, the problem with "Jesus"-the-NOT-married has always been that, according to the Christian New Testament, he was addressed as "rabbi." According to traditional Jewish law, rabbis are REQUIRED to be married--and back then especially--would be expected to be fathers of offspring.
In more contemporary times (the last couple of hundred years), sometimes the title "rabbi" has been informally--and, MUCH more recently--formally conferred on males who were not married and/or were not fathers of offspring...and in some, very limited instances, informally on females who had attained great and insightful learning, or (in the last thirty years or so) had been ordained as part of one of the modern, non-Orthodox, Jewish movements (Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, etc.).
But more than two thousand years ago, in the MOST traditional of Jewish communities? By Jewish knowledge and insight, anyone who was referred to as "rabbi," particularly in what were considered to be definitive accounts (Christian or not), would have been--at the very least--a married male, or that title would never have been applied.
This isn't definitive, and it's coming strictly from the perspective of those who are Jewish and/or Jewishly learned, but it's a very strong "opinion" nevertheless.
I read the article and it seemed to be the opinion of one person. While I think there is a good chance the fragmant is a fake, I doubt the issue has been settled this quickly. Even if it is authentic it doesn't prove Jesus was married -particularly in view of its late date and even if Jesus was married it isn't exactly a make or break thing for Christianity. Some Christians would have to reshape their thinking, but for the most part, it wouldn't make that much of a difference.
Considering that it came 400 years later and is not in context, it doesn't. Why would someone who lived 400 years later know more about Jesus than someone who lived 30 or 40 years later? We don't know what point the author was trying to make or what context the remark was in. It is a pretty big leap, IMO
My point is, it could be a genuinely ancient document, written by genuinely ancient people, who were genuinely forging a document in order to promote their own brand of christianity, which is what most of the New Testament is composed of. And it doesn't prove that Jesus was married.
The Gospel of Mark dates back to about 70 A.D., which would have been roughly 40 years after Jesus's death. That could have been written by an eyewitness or based on eyewitness accounts. Ditto for the "Q" source (if you accept that) which is hypothesized to be a source of both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew.
Some (not all) of the material in the Gospel of Thomas could go back as early as 30-60 A.D.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2012 07:14PM by summer.