1. This Jesus could have been the other Jesus spoken about in the bible. Huh? The other Jesus. If you’ve read Col 4:11, you’d know that Jesus was not a unique name. If you do a lot of research, you would find that Jesus was a fairly common name. This Jesus was also known as Justus. Who knows maybe this fragment is about him, not Him.
2. This fragment is not a part of the cannon (your bible). Therefore, no one from the Evangelical world (past or present) has validated it. The church Fathers obviously didn’t know about it or they dismissed it as fact. So far, we don’t know of any Jewish Rabbi’s that have supported this document. With that being said, I do not think the document should be dismissed. I think this document should be throughly investigated because it could provide insights into the society of that day. This will provide everyone with a fuller idea of what went on. New information shouldn’t bring fear to us (Christians). Rather it should be embraced. Archeological research has yielded information that has allowed society to see that the things that the bible speaks about actually happened. Research and validation has also shown that some “finds” have been fraudulent. It seems easy for unbelievers to support something that doesn’t support Christ but dismiss the things that supports His life.
3. The Gnostics have written other text that were contradictory to the Scripture. These writings have been bebunked already. However, they have provided a peak into what was going on at that time. Therefore, they do have some scholarly benefit. I didn’t provide any links to their writings because I do not want to support sending traffic to their works. The Gospels of Judas and Thomas are some recent examples of “finds” that have appeared. Once you start reading the “Gospel of Judas,” you’ll quickly realize this is contrary to Scripture.
4. The professor who “found” the document has, if the reports are true, always believed Jesus was married. Therefore, her research could have been biased. Let me give you a modern-day example of “Unfair and Unbalanced” reporting. In the political realm, Fox News appears to mostly say negative things about President Obama. The prism they look through is clouded by their desire to counter his agenda. Conversely, MSNBC seem to report more favorably towards President Obama but negatively against Republicans. Good reporting should be neutral. The same thing applies in research. If the researcher only look at what supports their belief, everything else will be neglected. Time should tell if she looked at all the evidence prior to releasing her findings. The Shroud of Turin has been investigated for a long time and has not provided any conclusive evidence. This might be the case for this discovery also.
You will start to hear things about Mary the “missing apostle.” Some will talk about Mary deliberately being taken out of the Last Supper painting. Don’t fall for the loud noise of controversy. Remember, that painting was made nearly 1500 years after Jesus’ life. It’s only an artist’s rendering of an event. Ok, that had nothing to do with what we’re talking about but mark my words…it will come up as a justification for Jesus being married.
My preliminary belief is this. This fragment, that has no context to judge it by, could be an original. So, I believe this Jesus could be married. The fragment speaks to him, not Him. I pray you don’t decide to stop following Christ because of a fragment that has not been verified. Our faith should be written in stone, not sand. Do not let this new wave of “information” wash away your stand with Christ.
In His grip….
Oops. I forgot one thing. This document doesn’t have any context in which it was written. If the text is taken out of the context…you’re left with a “Con.”