Iirc, the parchment in question was dated to the 9th or 10th Century AD.
So all it really proves is that someone from that time period was considering that Jesus may have been married. Nothing more, nothing less.
Facts and common sense say that if this is truly “evidence” of Jesus being married, and represented knowledge that had persisted for nearly 1000 years, there would be a heck of a lot of other evidence out there that Jesus was married as well.
However, this IS an important document, but is only relevant to how Christ was perceived and interpreted in the 8th-9th centuries.
Well put. If Jesus had been a fraud, or married, or sinful, there would have been many historical tidbits, not necessarily biblical, that would have amplified such.
Even the Jewish historian Josephus had nothing negative to say about Jesus, other than the fact that he claimed to be the Messiah. Had there been other eyewitnesses with contrary stories this would have been recorded somewhere.
re: “Iirc, the parchment in question was dated to the 9th or 10th Century AD.
So all it really proves is that someone from that time period was considering that Jesus may have been married. Nothing more, nothing less.”
Exactly. Agree with you completely.