My apologies to Duncer for swiping this off his thread in Chatterbank - I hope he doesn't mind - but I thought perhaps R&Sers might find it interesting.
I read that today too. If the texts prove to be genuine (which is exceedingly difficult to do) then it would rather undermine the church's misogynistic view of women and completely negate the perverse practice of celibacy within the clergy.
I suspect that the church will do what it always does when it is presented with any suggestion or evidence that its teachings are incorrect – it will simply ignore them even if they prove to be genuine.
In the bible it doesn't say he was married, but then again it doesn't say he wasn't married.
Unless someone comes up with some photo's of Mary Magdalene in a white frock and veil or an ancient wedding/stag do invitation, we will never know.
It would have been strange if he wasn't married: he was a rabbi and they were obliged to be married. Just because the bible doesn't mentiion it doesn't mean a thing.
Duncer, you’re incorrigible – but you make me laugh. Thank you – I need a laugh right now. :o)
Mrs O, oh, we do smut too, you know. ;o)
Infomaniac, quite right. There is some evidence that he may well have been married - or at least that he and Mary Magdalene were 'an item'. There is a rather plausible theory that the wedding at Cana may have actually been his wedding to Mary.