Ok, I could have chosen my words more carefully. Instead of 'evidence' I could have said 'statements'. Since these statements appear in the Bible, I therefore consider them evidence, which then has to be interpreted. That was what I was doing in my articles, thus exploring a possibility. Nowhere did I say that Jesus WAS married; I was merely making a case for why this might have been so, presenting the evidence.

You quote the gospel (of John) and describe this as THE REAL EVIDENCE (I note the capitals). You therefore presume that the canonical gospels are the truthful accounts of the event (or is it just this gospel?). What is your EVIDENCE for this?

Let me quote the gospel of Matthew. As Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were approaching the tomb, “suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men”. (The text continues.)

Do you believe that is a truthful account, therefore the real evidence? If so, I would have to have serious doubts about you. But no matter about that. The important point is that the other gospels all have different accounts. Mark has “a young MAN, dressed in a white robe”. Luke has “two MEN in dazzling clothes”. John has “two angels in white”.

So, only one of these could be the correct account. How do we know therefore which one is the REAL EVIDENCE? Also, the other three know nothing about the earthquake, which you would have thought was worthy of mention if it had indeed happened.

At the crucifixion, Matthew also has darkness coming over the whole land, “the curtain of the temple was torn from top to bottom”, “the earth shook, and the rocks were split”, “the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many”.

The gospel of John, which you quote as REAL EVIDENCE, knows nothing of any of this. Luke and Matthew mention the first two items, but not the earthquake and the tombs opening and raised bodies wandering around. If this had actually happened, you would think it would have been worthy of mention. How could they not have known?

The most likely conclusion therefore is that Matthew made this up for theological reasons in order to dramatise the events. If that is the case, what other elements in the gospels do we have reasons to doubt?

You ask my what my motive is. It is to conduct an open-minded investigation into the origins of Christianity, being willing to entertain all reasonable possibilities. This is obviously not something you are interested in.