"Published here for the first time is a fragment of a fourth-century CE codex in Coptic containing a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples in which Jesus speaks of “my wife.” This is the only extant ancient text which explicitly portrays Jesus as referring to a wife. It does not, however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married, given the late date of the fragment and the probable date of original composition only in the second half of the second century. Nevertheless, if the second century date of composition is correct, the fragment does provide direct evidence that claims about Jesus’s marital status first arose over a century after the death of Jesus…" (Prof. Karen L. King, Harvard Divinity School).

Prof. King "is neither a papyrologist nor a Coptic linguist" (ibid.) She is, however, a professor of history specializing in comparative religion and Christian history at Harvard Divinity School and she consulted recognized experts in those fields. The papyrus "is dated on paleographical grounds," (ibid.) which is always notoriously uncertain – and "Coptic palaeography is notoriously difficult to date" (ibid.) If we assess "notorious" generously as, say, a 60% probability, then the doubly notorious dating of this papyrus has a 36% chance (.6 x .6) of being correct and 64% chance (1 - .36) of being wrong, suggesting that 3^rd-4^th century C.E. is perhaps twice as likely.

Prof. King's logic is, in spots, in error. When she states, "It does not [emphasis added], however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married, given the late date of the fragment and the probable date of original composition only in the second half of the second century," that is a non sequitur. That it is mentioned in the 2^nd century CE says nothing about whether it was an issue before that; only that it was an issue at least by the date of this papyrus. Silence, in this case, is no evidence of previous absence. The papyrus most certainly does provide evidence that, at whatever time the original text was written, the 2^nd-4^th century gentile Christian writers believed that their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) "Jesus" was married to their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) "Mary." The question is the reliability of this evidence. The even greater question, unanswered in this papyrus, is whether this 2^nd-4^th century Christian – Hellenist Roman – tradition hearkens back to earlier accounts by unemployed Hellenist (Greek speaking) Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Jews (which would lend it greater authenticity than syncretizing later, Hellenized, Christian accounts with their own further redactions reflecting the tradition of Zeus).

The professor seems to correct her own oversight, with a more logical statement, in a later paragraph: "The earliest and most historically reliable Christian literature is utterly silent on the issue, making the question impossible to answer one way or the other" (ibid.). This statement is logically true with respect to Christian documents. However, DSS (4Q) MMT (Mi•qᵊtz•atꞋ Ma•as•ëhꞋ ha-Tor•âhꞋ) paints a picture of 1^st century BCE-CE Yᵊhud•âhꞋ that constrains a RibꞋi to near certainly married. While there are rare instances of later rabbis (note the difference) who remained unmarried, I can't think of any unmarried RibꞋis. Even if there were, they were so rare that any objective scholar would rate the probability that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was married as nearly certain. This papyrus, then, becomes corroboratory evidence that such beliefs existed early on – and, likely, earlier on. This would also suggest that, unsurprisingly, the Hellenists (Christian Church), characteristically, redacted marriage out of the earliest – Judaic – tradition.

"What can be said securely is that our fragment contains the first known statement that explicitly claims Jesus had [a] wife. It consists of a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples… [What is c]ertain is that Jesus speaks of his mother and his wife, one of whom is referred to as Mary. The worthiness of this Mary is a topic of discussion. Jesus argues that some woman (most probably his wife) is able to become his disciple… He says that he dwells or exists “with her,” and goes on to mention “an image.” " (ibid.)

A word needs to be said regarding the logical fallacy of Christian speculation about this "image." Christians have a theological need to spiritualize whatever seems inconvenient, spiritual Jews, spiritual Israel, etc. However, spiritualizing marriage in defense of Catholic celibacy contradicts the Judaic norm, which was "rabbis are married, have a wife, kids and family." This was even more true of the 1^st century RibꞋi. Any browse through Tal•mudꞋ and other Judaic literature of the period reveals that marriage and family are routinely used as examples, paradigms, analogies – not spiritualized "images." This Christian distortion is simply Christian wrong-headedness based in an ignorance of Judaism – 1^st century and otherwise.