Was Jesus Married?

[janelle]

A new novel forces people to confront a biblical puzzle. Was Mary Magdalene Mrs. Jesus?

By Deborah Caldwell



Before the “Left Behind” series catapulted to the top of the bestseller list, the idea that Christians could be lifted bodily into the clouds during the Rapture was an idea that only obscure theologians studied. These days, of course, lots of people believe that's what will happen the day the world ends.

Now a new novel is forcing people to confront another biblical puzzle. The DaVinci Code, a thriller by Dan Brown, tells the story of a Harvard professor summoned to the Louvre Museum after a murder there to examine cryptic symbols relating to DaVinci's work. During the course of his investigation, he uncovers an ancient secret: the claim that Mary Magdalene represents the divine feminine, and that she and Jesus had a sexual relationship.
Is it possible Jesus had this kind of relationship with her or that they were, as some suggest, married?

Karen Leigh King, a Harvard professor who is the world’s leading authority on early Christian texts about Mary Magdalene, gives “The DaVinci Code” a thumbs-up--but only as fiction. (“It’s a good read but historically way off.”)

“The book certainly fits our times…. Since the 1960s there has been a hostility toward traditions in Christianity that are anti-sexuality,” says King, adding that the novel also plays to interest in women’s issues.

But, she says: “there’s no historical information whatsoever that either of them was married, let alone to each other. When there’s an argument from silence, you can jump either way. On one hand, why not? Why shouldn’t they have sex? On the other hand, why every time you put a man and woman together do they have to have sex?”

The possibility of Jesus’ marriage fascinates people; biblical scholars say they are often asked by audiences and readers about it. In general, only the most liberal scholars even bother to entertain the question.

Here is what we can say about Jesus’ sex life:


Most mainstream biblical scholars do not believe Jesus was married to anyone, because the Gospels don’t mention it.

A few biblical scholars argue it’s likely Jesus was married--even though the Bible doesn’t mention it—because Jewish men at that time nearly always married. ThA handful of scholars argue that Jesus was married, probably to Mary Magdalene, in order to preserve a political dynasty and to continue a bloodline.

Conservative biblical scholars think the entire question is silly, since the notion simply isn’t in the Bible. “Mary Magdalene was one of several women who contributed to Jesus’ ministry and supported it,” says Darrell Bock, New Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.
And that’s it.

Even liberal biblical scholars don’t really think Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a sexual relationship—though they don’t entirely dismiss it, either. Marcus Borg, a professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University, for instance, had this to say about the possibility of Jesus and Mary Magdalene as sex partners: "It wouldn't bother me if he had a non-married sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. In some way I wish he was married because it would shake up our ideas about Jesus and sexuality."

According to the New Testament: The Gospels say Mary Magdalene was a follower of Jesus and that, according to Luke 8, she supported him out of her own means, meaning that she was probably wealthy. She was the first, or among the first, to discover the empty tomb. (Mark 16:9 says, "Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.") After the Resurrection, Jesus commissioned her to go to the other apostles with the news. Thus, she has been known traditionally as the “apostle to the apostles.”

But since the earliest decades after Jesus’ death, a parallel lore flourished, particularly in southern France, where in 1208 the people were condemed to death by Pope Innocent III for believing that Mary Magdalene was the "grail mother." In the parallel story, Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and she was pregnant with his child when he was crucified at Qumran, not Golgotha as it is usually thought. Mary delivered a child, and then she and the baby were spirited to France, where she died. This secret teaching—partially described in “The DaVinci Code”--is said to have been preserved by the Knights Templar, a monastic military order formed at the end of the First Crusade.

Outside France, historians and theologians for many years have debated if Jesus was married—to Mary Magdalene or to someone else. In 1970, for instance, a Presbyterian minister and scholar named William E. Phipps wrote a controversial book called Was Jesus Married? His conclusion is “yes,” because the vast majority of Jewish males of Jesus’ era married.

In the 1960s and 1970s, there was a rash of Jesus books and movies about Jesus, including Jesus Christ, Superstar, which made the assumption that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a sexual relationship. More famously, Martin Scorsese’s 1988 movie The Last Temptation of Christ includes a sex scene between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
ese scholars tend not to care one way or another whether his wife was Mary Magdalene.

[janelle]

But serious inquiry into Jesus’ marital state—and more specifically into his relationship with Mary Magdalene—got a huge boost from the discovery of what is called the Berlin Codex. Discovered in Egypt in 1896, it wasn’t translated until the 1950s, along with the Nag Hammadi Codex, discovered in 1945, around the same time the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. These texts have become increasingly important to biblical scholarship, and they illuminate a different kind of Jesus from the one depicted in the Bible--a wisdom teacher and spiritual seeker. That kind of Jesus is appealing to Westerners inclined to combine elements of Eastern religions with Christianity--and so, what are called the Gnostic texts have also become hugely popular.
The two Codex discoveries included The Gospel of Mary, the Sophia of Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of Philip, among others. For a long time, they were considered unimportant. But in the last decade, biblical scholars have begun looking at these texts more closely. The Gospel of Mary, for instance, dates to about 125 C.E., according to King, which places it among the oldest texts of the early Christian church. By way of comparison, the Gospel of John was written in the 90s C.E.

Particularly in the Gospel of Mary, Mary Magdalene is depicted as having special knowledge of Jesus: "Peter said to Mary, 'Sister, we know that the Saviour loved you more than the rest of women." In the Gospel of Philip, she is described this way: "There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion." Some scholars point to these passages as possible proof of the Jesus and Mary Magdalene relationship.

A slightly more common view among liberal scholars is that whether or not Jesus and Mary Magdalene were intimate, she was as important as Peter. In fact, they say, Mary Magdalene was an apostle, but her story was suppressed by early church fathers who excised the Gospel of Mary from the Bible in the 5th century.

And that is the idea that “The DaVinci Code” may popularize.

“They didn’t attack Mary Magdalene because she was Mrs. Jesus,” says liberal scholar John Dominic Crossan. “They attacked her because she was a major leader, that she was up there with Peter and the rest and they fought like hell to put her back down in her place.”

Crossan does not believe Jesus was married. In fact, he considers the entire question an insult to Mary Magdalene, because it implies that she is important only through marriage. “To say Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is a putdown, unless you say she was clearly as important as Peter and that’s the reason she’s married to Jesus.”

Crossan believes, instead, that Jesus wasn’t married to anyone—because he was too poor to afford a wife and children.

In any case, many scholars agree that in the 4th Century, around the time Constantine converted to Christianity, church patriarchs began trying to suppress women’s leadership roles in the Christian movement. At the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., convened by Constantine, Jesus’ divinity was debated and voted on. Later, as the church evolved, the 27 books of the New Testament were canonized—and the Gospel of Mary and the others were thrown out.

Liberal scholars say that, among the reasons these other books didn’t make it into what is called the “biblical canon” are that they include clear evidence of Mary Magdalene’s importance in Jesus’ ministry, and that they portray Jesus less as the Son of God and more as a great teacher preaching about an interior spiritual path.But Bock, a conservative scholar, says there is an even simpler reason the books were axed. “It’s a later collection of material, probably belonging to a splinter group of Christians, and therefore isn’t very trustworthy,” he says.

He also says the theory of Mary Magdalene as a major church leader doesn’t hold up. “Anyone who argues that there were women who had a full-orbed ministerial role in the time of Jesus that’s equal to the Twelve Apostles is arguing beyond speculation. There’s really no basis for it at all. There certainly were women who participated in the earliest church and who were faithful. But the only office women held was deaconess in the early church period. And there is no trace of a ministry of Mary Magdalene in any of the biblical materials.”
Still, this much is known: In the 5th Century, not long after the Council of Nicea, Pope Gregory the Great delivered an Easter sermon in which he associated Mary Magdalene with sinfulness. He said that the adulterous woman in John 8 was Mary Magdalene, even though that woman is never named. And he said that the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet in Luke 7: 36-50 also was Mary Magdalene—but she, too, is not actually named in the Gospel. “They turned Mary Magdalene into a paradigmatic female sinner,” King says. Meanwhile, the church began describing Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a virgin. In the process, says King, “they molded the ideology of femininity in Christianity.”

Now, it seems, that ideology is being examined—and in some liberal quarters—debated, even within Christianity. Many of these liberal scholars say they wouldn’t mind if someone proved Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. If it could be proved, all kinds of questions about Christian women’s roles would be forced into the open. But at this point, the facts aren’t there.

“History for historians is more fun than fiction,” says Crossan. “Fiction for me is like playing tennis without a net. But history means you have to go with the facts you have.”

Nevertheless, popular culture continues to grab at bits of biblical text to answer perplexing questions. How will the world end? Left Behind takes a piece of I Thessalonians to answer. Those who are “left” alive on earth when the Lord “comes down from heaven” will be “caught up together in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” The word rapture doesn’t even appear in the text.

And now, the ancient legend of Jesus’ marriage and the divine feminine reemerges. The question remains if it will become—like Left Behind--popular theology, as well as popular fiction.

[janelle]

Was Jesus Married?
All the available evidence points to an answer of "no."

By Darrell L. Bock



It has long been believed that Jesus was single. Every detail of Scripture indicates this. When he was in ministry, there is no mention of a wife. When he was tried and crucified, there is no mention of his having a wife. After his death, there is no mention of a wife. Whenever Jesus' family is referred to, it is his brothers and sisters who are mentioned, but never a wife. Nor is there any indication that he was widowed.
Attempts to suggest that any of the many women associated with his ministry were, in fact, his wife are empty speculation. This includes the woman with the alabaster container who anointed Jesus (read Luke 7:36-50). This woman's act was shocking and would not have been nearly so surprising had she been his wife.

We can contrast Jesus to the rest of the apostles, Peter, and the brothers of the Lord, all of whom are said to have had wives (1 Corinthians 9:5). This passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married-or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus, if he had been married.

It is often suggested that because Jesus was a teacher and functioned like a rabbi that he would have been married as well, since that was the Jewish custom. Sometimes it is noted that the apostles called him 'rabbi' (Mark 11:21).

However, two factors make this argument weak. First, Jesus was not technically a rabbi, nor did he portray himself as one. The apostles addressed him as such to say he was their teacher, not because he held any kind of official Jewish office. The Jews asked Jesus 'by what authority' he did certain things because he did not hold any kind of formal office within Judaism. He did not have an official position that would have permitted him to do things like act within the temple (Mark 11:28). As far as the Jewish leaders were concerned, Jesus had no recognized role within Judaism. Read another view on whether Jesus acted as a rabbi.



Second, the example of the call to be 'eunuchs for the kingdom' appears, in part, to be rooted in Jesus' own commitment and example not to be married (Matthew 19:10-12). In fact, the rationale for the Roman church's later view that priests should not be married partially stems from the view that Jesus was not married.
So if we ask what the hard evidence is that Jesus was married, there really is a very short answer. There is none.

So why remain single? What advantage is there to this? In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul elaborated on Jesus' theme about 'eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom.' Paul expressed his preference that people remain single. Paul explained that the present time of distress, by which he meant the difficulty of life until Jesus returns, made being single better when it came to serving the kingdom. The married person must worry about the affairs of earth: how to care for his wife and, by implication, his family. The unmarried person can serve the Lord without such distraction (1 Cor. 7:27-35).

Nevertheless, Paul also made it clear this was a choice, not a command: "But if you marry, you do not sin." (7:28). Paul himself chose to remain single, probably for the very reasons he suggests in 1 Corinthians 7. He understood, as Jesus did, that others were not called to be single (1 Cor 7:1-7).

Traditions encouraging a dedicated single life also existed elsewhere in Judaism. Members of the ascetic Jewish sect of the Essenes were known for their emphasis on celibacy (Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.5.21; Jewish War 2.8.2.121-122; Philo, Hypothetica 11.14-18). At Qumran, most appear to have been celibate, although a Dead Sea Scroll about the community suggests some possibility (1QSa 1:4-10) of marriage, woman, and children in the messianic times. For those Essenes at Qumran, the point of remaining single was also dedication to God.

So Jesus was single. His marital status was one dimension of his dedication to God. At least, that is how many Jews would have understood it. As Jesus faced rejection, it was of benefit that he did not have a wife or children. These are likely some of the concerns Paul alluded to in speaking of "worry for earthly things." Jesus had a singular focus on preaching the kingdom of God, and his choice to be single underscored that calling.

[curlymae29]

Thanks Janelle...I didn't get to watch! While I think it's a bad theory, I'm interested in how they came about it.

There are so many things I would like to say about statements above, but after the last thread, I'm worried about it. The last one turned out to be a disaster instead of a discussion.

[janelle]

The DaVinci Code is just a novel. We should all remember that.

"So Jesus was single. His marital status was one dimension of his dedication to God. At least, that is how many Jews would have understood it. As Jesus faced rejection, it was of benefit that he did not have a wife or children. These are likely some of the concerns Paul alluded to in speaking of "worry for earthly things." Jesus had a singular focus on preaching the kingdom of God, and his choice to be single underscored that calling."
================================================== ====================
Paul remained single. This is well known. Many people remain single and focus on their ministry to God. Look at all the Catholic priests and nuns. In this way they can dedicate their like to God.

In our secular world today it is hard to understand why anyone would want to do that but we are looking at it from secular ideas. Some people want to focus on God and they give up worldly concerns.

[curlymae29]

Take a look at this:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Particularly in the Gospel of Mary, Mary Magdalene is depicted as having special knowledge of Jesus: "Peter said to Mary, 'Sister, we know that the Saviour loved you more than the rest of women." In the Gospel of Philip, she is described this way: "There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion." Some scholars point to these passages as possible proof of the Jesus and Mary Magdalene relationship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I wrong or isn't companion until recent years simply meant dear friends?

Also, what about Mary and Martha? Weren't they really close to him?

I'm still not seeing how they can constrew a marriage or sexual relationship.

There is a man in our church who is more or less our assistant pastor that I have known for years. If I leave church without what I call a Jesus Hugs from him then I feel lost. We have spent many hours talking. We have studied the Word of God together. In a group and alone now and before he became a preacher. I freely tell him I love him on a regular basis. That could be misinterpeted as a 'sexual relationship'. But it couldn't be future from the truth. He a close friend who is a strong Christian and I look to him for guidance and support.

[curlymae29]

Now take a look at this:

----------------------------------------------------------------
Crossan believes, instead, that Jesus wasn’t married to anyone—because he was too poor to afford a wife and children.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Where does the notion come from that Jesus was poor? Yes, he was born in a stable. The bible says that was because there was no room in the inns. Not because Mary and Joseph couldn't afford it. Is there any place in the bible that even hints that Jesus was poor? I'll agree that He had no importance in wealth. Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven! But where does the idea that He was poor come from?

Also from a biblical stand point...He couldn't provide for a wife and family? What? Matthew 14 tells us:

16Jesus replied, "They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat."
17"We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish," they answered.
18"Bring them here to me," he said. 19And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

[janelle]

The gospels are in every bible. Like the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each tells their own story about Jesus, of being with Jesus and one of the apostles. The accounts are a little different but then if all your friends were to tell me about you after you died I'm sure they would all tell me something a little different about you. The basics would be the same just the little things would be different.

I think all the apostles were what we would consider poor. That doesn't mean they were destitute just not having lots of money. Maybe some of the apostles had more money and came from richer families than others but Jesus identified with the poor of the world. He did not come to be a King but chose to be a common man.

[janelle]

Oh I see what you mean, sorry. Yes, the Catholic bible has more books in it than the Protestant one does. The Protestants threw out some books as not reliable enough to be included. The Pope and hiarachy of the Catholic church had them in the bible as true accounts.

Look on the web to find them. I think I had them on here before. I'll do a search.

[janelle]

LOL, the Catholic bible is the Holy bible but I'm hearing what you are saying. If people haven't been exposed to the Catholic church--the first church mind you--then it is foreign to them.

[ckerr4]

Books in the Catholic bible:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Wisdom
Sirach
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi


Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

This is the list of books in the New American Bible, which is a pretty standard Catholic bible. Preface to that bible:

Preface to the New American Bible




On September 30, 1943, His Holiness Pope Pius XII issued his now famous encyclical on scripture studies, Divino afflante Spiritu. He wrote: "We ought to explain the original text which was written by the inspired author himself and has more authority and greater weight than any, even the very best, translation whether ancient or modern. This can be done all the more easily and fruitfully if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text."




Early in 1944, in conformity with the spirit of the encyclical, and with the encouragement of Archbishop Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate to the United States, the Bishops' Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine requested members of The Catholic Biblical Association of America to translate the sacred scriptures from the original languages or from the oldest extant form of the text, and to present the sense of the biblical text in as correct a form as possible.





The first English Catholic version of the Bible, the Douay-Rheims (1582-1609/10), and its revision by Bishop Challoner (1750) were based on the Latin Vulgate. In view of the relative certainties more recently attained by textual and higher criticism, it has become increasingly desirable that contemporary translations of the sacred books into English be prepared in which due reverence for the text and strict observance of the rules of criticism would be combined.





The New American Bible has accomplished this in response to the need of the church in America today. It is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work. The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that "correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books," but that, "with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers" so that "all Christians may be able to use them."





The text of the books contained in The New American Bible is a completely new translation throughout. From the original and the oldest available texts of the sacred books, it aims to convey as directly as possible the thought and individual style of the inspired writers. The better understanding of Hebrew and Greek, and the steady development of the science of textual criticism, the fruit of patient study since the time of St. Jerome, have allowed the translators and editors in their use of all available materials to approach more closely than ever before the sense of what the sacred authors actually wrote.





Where the translation supposes the received text--Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be--ordinarily contained in the best-known editions, as the original or the oldest extant form, no additional remarks are necessary. But for those who are happily able to study the original text of the scriptures at firsthand, a supplementary series of textual notes pertaining to the Old Testament was added originally in an appendix to the typical edition. (It is now obtainable in a separate booklet from The Catholic Biblical Association of America, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064.) These notes furnish a guide in those cases in which the editorial board judges that the manuscripts in the original languages, or the evidence of the ancient versions, or some similar source, furnish the correct reading of a passage, or at least a reading more true to the original than that customarily printed in the available editions.





The Massoretic text of 1 and 2 Samuel has in numerous instances been corrected by the more ancient manuscripts Samuel a, b, and c from Cave 4 of Qumran, with the aid of important evidence from the Septuagint in both its oldest form and its Lucianic recension. Fragments of the lost Book of Tobit in Aramaic and in Hebrew, recovered from Cave 4 of Qumran, are in substantial agreement with the Sinaiticus Greek recension used for the translation of this book. The lost original Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees is replaced by its oldest extant form in Greek. Judith, 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther are also translated from the Greek.





The basic text for the Psalms is not the Massoretic but one which the editors considered closer to the original inspired form, namely the Hebrew text underlying the new Latin Psalter of the Church, the Liber Psalmorum (1944,1 19452 ). Nevertheless they retained full liberty to establish the reading of the original text on sound critical principles.





The translation of Sirach, based on the original Hebrew as far as it is preserved and corrected from the ancient versions, is often interpreted in the light of the traditional Greek text. In the Book of Baruch the basic text is the Greek of the Septuagint, with some readings derived from an underlying Hebrew form no longer extant. In the deuterocanonical sections of Daniel (3:24-91, chapter 13 and chapter 14 [these are Azariah, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon respectively in WORDsearch]), the basic text is the Greek text of Theodotion, occasionally revised according to the Greek text of the Septuagint.





In some instances in the Book of Job, in Proverbs, Sirach, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zechariah there is good reason to believe that the original order of lines was accidentally disturbed in the transmission of the text. The verse numbers given in such cases are always those of the current Hebrew text, though the arrangement differs. In these instances the textual notes advise the reader of the difficulty. Cases of exceptional dislocation are called to the reader's attention by footnotes.





The Books of Genesis to Ruth were first published in 1952; the Wisdom Books, Job to Sirach, in 1955; the Prophetic Books, Isaiah to Malachi, in 1961; and the Historical Books, Samuel to Maccabees, in 1969. In the present edition of Genesis to Ruth there are certain new features: a general introduction to the Pentateuch, a retranslation of the text of Genesis with an introduction, cross-references, and revised textual notes, besides new and expanded exegetical notes which take into consideration the various sources or literary traditions.





The revision of Job to Sirach includes changes in strophe division in Job and Proverbs and in titles of principal parts and sections of Wisdom and Ecclesiastes. Corrections in the text of Sirach are made in Sirach 39:27-35; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44:1-17 on the basis of the Masada text, and in Sirach 51:13-30 on the basis of the occurrence of this canticle in the Psalms scroll from Qumran Cave 11. In this typical edition, new corrections are reflected in the textual notes of Job, Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach. In the Psalms, the enumeration found in the Hebrew text is followed instead of the double enumeration, according to both the Hebrew and the Latin Vulgate texts, contained in the previous edition of this book.





In the Prophetic Books Isaiah to Malachi, only minor revisions have been made in the structure and wording of the texts, and in the textual notes.





The spelling of proper names in The New American Bible follows the customary forms found in most English Bibles since the Authorized Version.





The work of translating the Bible has been characterized as "the sacred and apostolic work of interpreting the word of God and of presenting it to the laity in translations as clear as the difficulty of the matter and the limitations of human knowledge permit" (A. G. Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 6, [1944], 389-90). In the appraisal of the present work, it is hoped that the words of the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu will serve as a guide: "Let all the sons of the church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected."





Conscious of their personal limitations for the task thus defined, those who have prepared this text cannot expect that it will be considered perfect; but they can hope that it may deepen in its readers "the right understanding of the divinely given Scriptures," and awaken in them "that piety by which it behooves us to be grateful to the God of all providence, who from the throne of his majesty has sent these books as so many personal letters to his own children" (Divino afflante Spiritu).

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm

The other gospels mentioned are apocryphal - studied, but not included in the bible.