Most of the Wife-o-Jesus articles don't include these parts

The only places I've seen them are the dead tree edition of one of the papers we get, and, strangely enough, the online NYT.

So, partly out of sympathy for Ms. King, here are some of the things that got dropped along the way:

In an interview, Ms. King repeatedly cautioned the fragment should not be taken as proof Jesus, the historical person, was actually married . . . Ms. King said she wants nothing to do with the [Da Vinci] Code or its author: "At least, don't say this proves Dan Brown was right."

I also like the descriptions of this extensive document:

[T]he faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card . . . The piece is torn into a rough rectangle, so the document is missing its adjoining text on the left, right, top, and bottom.

Much of the context, therefore, is missing.

Yeah, I guess it would be. But who needs context?