Jesus's Wife - a Radical Proposal

I've been pondering the way news stories work when it comes to anything to do with ancient archaeology and texts - especially in the Holy Land, largely in the Middle East, but also maybe more generally.

So when Atlantis was found using Google Ocean - note that the Telegraph here is using what I like to think of as the "Distancing Question Mark". So newspapers saying "Lady Gaga Stole and Ate A Horse" are at danger of libel action. Whereas, the theory goes, if the headline is "Did Lady Gaga Steal and Eat a Horse?" - hey presto, free from any need actually to be factually correct. Note also that the Telegraph uses the standard geographical size for any medium-sized entity - i.e. "the size of Wales".

But I digress. The "Atlantis Found" story was printed, quite straight, quoting Atlantis "experts". The fact it was, if we believe the Telegraph datelines, debunked the same day - proves just what a well-researched story it was. But Atlantis is sexy. Atlantis sells. If we ever do find Atlantis, I expect to see, on a stone tablet, a copy of the Atlantis Telegraph, saying "Sea Level Rise - a Left Wing Scam?"

In the same way, "more old scrolls found showing consistency with know Gospel versions" is not news. "Gospel of Judas shows he was a good bloke" - now that's news. Basically every time we find a Gnostic Gospel, somewhere under the sands of the desert or in some pot, the whole of Biblical scholarship is going to be "overturned". It's always a "bombshell". It always turns out that Jesus didn't have a real body, or he was married to Mary Mag. Or his dad was a Roman. Or he was in a civil partnership with Peter. Or all sorts of other things.

All based on - generally speaking - one scroll. Or as in the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" - a few words on a parchment.

So here's my thesis - radical it might be. But I'm going to stick my neck out here.

Based on four Gospels (five, if you include Thomas) and the rest of the New Testament and other early writings, and on the general agreement of those parts of the Church that had no vested interest in trying to synthesise the Apostolic tradition with Greek philosophy - I propose:

• That Jesus was probably not married (though it wouldn't matter all that much if he did, as it wasn't a sin), 
• That he never went to India, nor Glastonbury.
• That he had twelve close apostles - none of whom, as far as we can tell, were female or gay lovers of his. He had lots of other disciples - men and women.
• That one of his apostles betrayed him to an alliance of the Romans and the Jewish leaders.
• That he died, and was buried.
• That on the third day, he rose from the dead.
• That all the graves in the Palestinian territories and Israel marked "Jesus" are other people
• That he didn't leave any living descendants (although it wouldn't matter much if he had - as he had totally normal human DNA).
• That the church went and preached much of what I'd said above.
• That the Gnostics made stuff up to try and fit Jesus into other philosophies. Because they were so odd, and because the tradition said otherwise, they didn't last.

By the way - is it Jesus' or Jesus's? I realise I could just go all 19th Century and say Jesu's but that's just cheating.