Over at Smithsonian a video snippet. In it King talks about the notion of Jesus being married to Mary and about the fragment, of which she admits wondering about the authenticity. But she completely bypasses and utterly ignores the fact that the thing lacks provenance.
This is the central issue. And it is one that we ignore to our peril. Until the question of provenance is settled, the object remains completely meaningless. The context of the sentence itself is indeterminate and the wider context of the historical and archaeological setting are completely lacking.
These questions must be answered or this will simply devolve into a money making scheme by whoever brought the thing to light.
- No, People, a 4th Century Scrap Doesn’t Prove Jesus Had a Wife (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)