"Brown University Professor Leo Depuydt, in an analysis also published Thursday by the Harvard Theological Review, remains unconvinced and argues the text contains grammatical errors that a native Coptic speaker would not make."
Well, perhaps a native Coptic speaker didn't write the document.
What possible difference does it make whether Jesus was married or not, or whether he had brothers or sisters? We are all children of God and we marry. Jesus was the only begotten Son of the Father. If we discovered evidence that Jesus was married, would that cause Christianity to collapse??
Mary was certainly one of Jesus' main confidants, and there were times when the apostles were clearly agitated because Jesus showed more of a deference to her than them (according to a number of apocryphal documents). The scripture states: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:16-17) Thus, despite what the Watchtower authorities say, becoming angels in heaven is nothing compared to this exalted potential. My point is that if we marry, and yet have the potential to become like Christ, then why couldn't Christ have been married? Paul also wrote: "Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." (Hebrews 1:4)
So when Jesus said that there is no marriage or giving in marriage in the resurrection, this didn't mean that there would be no marriage in Heaven, but that marriages themselves couldn't happen in the resurrection; they have to happen either in this life or before the resurrection. Thus, if Jesus were to have a spouse in the world to come, he would have had to sanctify that marriage before his resurrection. It might also be the reason that Mary was the first one he appeared to after his resurrection.
.