Was/Is Jesus Married?

[Rob Bowman]

David,

On the one hand, you suggest that the canonical Gospels are not entirely adequate or reliable sources of information about Jesus because they depended on "oral traditions" and the first of them was "written some 30 years after Jesus' death."

On the other hand, you quote the Gospel of Philip as providing "historical evidence that Jesus had an intimate relationship with Mary [Magdalene]" and assert that it "preserves the beliefs and historical memory of a group of early Christians."

Ironically, zerinus gave away the problem when he asserted (incorrectly), "Whether it was written 30 years or 300 years later is irrelevant." The fact is that the Gospel of Philip was probably written about 200 years later than the NT Gospels. If the gap of 30 years between Jesus' death and the Gospel of Mark is a problem, what about the gap of roughly 200 (+- roughly 50) years between Jesus' death and the Gospel of Philip??

The Gospel of Philip is a Gnostic-like work known to us from a Coptic translation extant in a single fifth-century manuscript so worn that it has holes in many places, including the crucial passage that you quoted (which is the reason for all the brackets in your quotation). No historian thinks it provides credible historical information or authentic "memory" about Jesus or his original followers (or his family). The Gospel of Philip is full of esoteric statements that are entirely foreign to the first-century Palestinian Jewish worldview context of Jesus. Here is a sample:

"Light and darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, not the evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal" (Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. Robinson, 142).

Now, what is legible in the passage you quoted reads something like this: "And the companion of the . . . Mary Magdalene . . . her more than . . . the disciples . . . kiss her . . . on her . . ." (Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, 215). Assuming the somewhat common reconstruction that this passage states that Jesus used to kiss Mary Magdalene "on her [mouth]," some people have jumped to the conclusion that this text attests to a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. But that simply does not make sense of the passage or understand the religious-cultural context of the statement. If the author thought Jesus and Mary were husband and wife, why would he bother saying anything about Jesus kissing her? Immediately after this statement, the text states that the disciples asked, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" If the text reflects the view that Mary was Jesus' wife, why would it represent anyone asking such a dumb question? Were the men disciples jealous because Jesus was kissing his wife but not kissing them?

Ismo Dunderberg (Beloved Disciple in Conflict, 182) has pointed out that there are "kisses" between Jesus and other, male disciples in other apocryphal writings (e.g., in the first and second Apocalypses of James). Before anyone gets too excited about these kisses, we should remember that in Middle Eastern cultures (and others), then and now, male relatives and friends kissed each other (typically on the cheek) as a culturally normal expression of affection, similar to our bear hugs. If there is anything unusual going on with Jesus' kissing Mary Magdalene, it is because in some of the Gnosticizing traditions of the late second and third centuries there was a belief that Jesus' kisses imparted some sort of spiritual or mystical experience. That is, the Gospel of Philip may be attesting to the notion that Jesus was imparting advanced spiritual experiences to Mary that the male disciples had not experienced. It has nothing to do with Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene, an idea never mentioned in any ancient writing.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

CFR that wives called their husbands "rabboni."

Maybe not "married", but "sealed", perhaps.

I didn't say it was exclusive to women addressing their husbands, but that I wives would call their husbands "rabboni". Others were free to use the title as appropriate.

It's just one data point. I made no further claim.

Lehi

[volgadon]

Lehi,

CFR that wives called their husbands "rabboni."

I was going to ask the same thing. I donn't recall where Bruriah called R. Meir "rabboni", to name one example.

[David Bokovoy]

On the one hand, you suggest that the canonical Gospels are not entirely adequate or reliable sources of information about Jesus because they depended on "oral traditions" and the first of them was "written some 30 years after Jesus' death."

It's not just the late date, its the fact that the Gospels feature internal contradictions like the one I drew attention to in this thread. Still, perhaps you missed my comment "I believe the accounts are inspired and that for the most part, feature reliable historical information." My point, however, was not to question their accuracy but rather to illustrate why they contain so little information regarding Jesus' personal life.

On the other hand, you quote the Gospel of Philip as providing "historical evidence that Jesus had an intimate relationship with Mary [Magdalene]" and assert that it "preserves the beliefs and historical memory of a group of early Christians."

Ironically, zerinus gave away the problem when he asserted (incorrectly), "Whether it was written 30 years or 300 years later is irrelevant." The fact is that the Gospel of Philip was probably written about 200 years later than the NT Gospels. If the gap of 30 years between Jesus' death and the Gospel of Mark is a problem, what about the gap of roughly 200 (+- roughly 50) years between Jesus' death and the Gospel of Philip??

As you

[erichard]

erichard:

England(Rather Britannia) was a Roman Provence

This article says Britain was not a Roman Provence until 43 AD, and even then it took many years for Rome to completely dominate it.

Jesus died around 33 AD. The legend is that some of his disciples began in 35 AD to gather to Britain.

But even after Rome controlled much of England, that would not stop the gathering there.

Richard

[volgadon]

The Gospel of Philip is full of esoteric statements that are entirely foreign to the first-century Palestinian Jewish worldview context of Jesus.

I am not going to issue a CFR, but I would like to know what you base this assertion on.

[zerinus]

Fair enough. However, in terms of the New Testament Gospels, I would refer you to what I consider to be an extremely valid point raised by New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrmann:

[volgadon]

There are several explanations for this other than the

[zerinus]

Zerinus, do take a closer look at Luke's introduction. Luke has decided to set forth in writing traditions relating to Christ and the early church. This, far from proving your point, actually damages your theory.

Here is what Papias had to say on the Gospel of Mark. BTW, if you reject this source, you also reject the identity of Mark as an author, as that is where that notion comes to us.

According to Papias, Mark wrote down oral traditions he had heard from Peter.

Eusebius himself, who quoted Papias, regarded him an unreliable source. According to the Wikipedia article on Papias (from which you may have obtained your quote):

[Rob Bowman]

David,

Most of what you said in response to my post was irrelevant to the issue at hand or the points I made. The Gospel of Philip is simply too late chronologically and too distant culturally from the time and culture of Jesus to be taken seriously as a source of historical information about Jesus. The fact that it took over two centuries for the canon of the NT to become fully settled is irrelevant. Whatever few historical elements appear in Philip can be known as such only on the basis of earlier texts for which there is some plausibility in claiming historical connections to Jesus and the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

Your comparison of Philip to the Gospel of John is superficial to the point of absurdity. Both works talk about "light" and "darkness," for example, but in very different ways. In John, darkness and light are opposed to one another, and only light comes from God. In Philip, light and darkness are inseparable "brothers." In John, life overcomes death; in Philip, life and death are indistinguishable and their illusory polarity will ultimately be dissolved. The Gnostics liked John because it was easier for them to distort than the Synoptics, not because John was genuinely amenable to the Gnostic outlook. Philip evinces dependency on Johannine language and themes that have been reconstituted within a Gnostic (evidently Valentinian) worldview.

The reference in Philip to Mary as Jesus' "companion" is ambiguous -- possibly deliberately. The term is related to the Greek koinonia and has a similarly broad semantic range. For a discussion of the complexity of this term and of Jesus' kissing Mary from a scholar by no means favorable to an orthodox Christian perspective, see Jane Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament (New York: Continuum, 2002), 151-55. When the men disciples ask Jesus why he loves Mary more than them, Jesus' answer makes it rather clear that marriage had nothing to do with it: "The Saviour answered and said to them, 'Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.'" This is a Johannine-sounding statement that in its context in Philip means that Mary is closer to Jesus because she "sees" spiritually in a way the men disciples do not. In this context, the description of Mary as Jesus' "companion" probably means that she enjoyed an especially intimate spiritual connection to Jesus. It no more connotes a marital relationship than John's self-references as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You asked, regarding my statement that the Gospel of Philip's esoteric theology is foreign to the first-century Palestinian Jewish culture of Jesus:

I am not going to issue a CFR, but I would like to know what you base this assertion on.

The short answer would be, it is based on reading first-century Jewish literature and comparing it with Philip. Even Philo, the most Hellenized Jewish writer of the first century, does not come close to the esoteric, Gnosticizing theology of Philip and other second-century and third-century apocryphal gospels. The major Jewish religious movements in and around Palestine (Judea, Galilee, etc.) in the first century were the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (perhaps including Qumran), and Christians. Of these, the Qumran community is widely cited as the closest to Gnosticism -- but this is like saying that Kansas City is closer than Oklahoma City to Johannesburg.

[David Bokovoy]

]Most of what you said in response to my post was irrelevant to the issue at hand or the points I made.

It's extremely relevant, Rob for understanding the diversity of Christian perspectives regarding Christ that existed in the early centuries following the Apostles, and to show that in an effort to understand Christ and the rise of Christianity from a historical perspective, one must take into consideration and not simply ignore perspectives that do not reflect current orthodoxy, including the Gnostic Gospels.

The Gospel of Philip is simply too late chronologically and too distant culturally from the time and culture of Jesus to be taken seriously as a source of historical information about Jesus.

Interesting! In view of the fact that the first literary strands of Genesis were not written until the Neo-Assyrian era, i.e. at least a 1000 years after Abraham, do you adopt the same perspective when considering the biblical portrayal of this patriarch? With the separation of 1000 years, is the biblical view of Abraham not to be trusted as a historical account since it is too late chronologically and too distant culturally from the time and culture of Abraham?

The fact that it took over two centuries for the canon of the NT to become fully settled is irrelevant. Whatever few historical elements appear in Philip can be known as such only on the basis of earlier texts for which there is some plausibility in claiming historical connections to Jesus and the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

In other words, everything that does not accord with your version of orthodoxy as interpreted via canonized sources is to be rejected.

Your comparison of Philip to the Gospel of John is superficial to the point of absurdity. Both works talk about "light" and "darkness," for example, but in very different ways. In John, darkness and light are opposed to one another, and only light comes from God. In Philip, light and darkness are inseparable "brothers." In John, life overcomes death; in Philip, life and death are indistinguishable and their illusory polarity will ultimately be dissolved. The Gnostics liked John because it was easier for them to distort than the Synoptics, not because John was genuinely amenable to the Gnostic outlook. Philip evinces dependency on Johannine language and themes that have been reconstituted within a Gnostic (evidently Valentinian) worldview.

And yet still, as you acknowledge, the Gnostics placed great emphasis upon the Gospel of John because they believed it was consistent with their other religious texts, including the Gospel of Philip. Apparently they were able to see something that you aren't.

The reference in Philip to Mary as Jesus' "companion" is ambiguous -- possibly deliberately. The term is related to the Greek koinonia and has a similarly broad semantic range. For a discussion of the complexity of this term and of Jesus' kissing Mary from a scholar by no means favorable to an orthodox Christian perspective, see Jane Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament (New York: Continuum, 2002), 151-55. When the men disciples ask Jesus why he loves Mary more than them, Jesus' answer makes it rather clear that marriage had nothing to do with it: "The Saviour answered and said to them, 'Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.'" This is a Johannine-sounding statement that in its context in Philip means that Mary is closer to Jesus because she "sees" spiritually in a way the men disciples do not. In this context, the description of Mary as Jesus' "companion" probably means that she enjoyed an especially intimate spiritual connection to Jesus. It no more connotes a marital relationship than John's self-references as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

And yet he kisses her, she is his "companion/consort" and the text defines marriage as one of Jesus' great mysteries. For someone who believes the book is entirely irrelevant for historical issues pertaining to Christ, you certainly are trying hard to twist the text's obvious implications. Why bother?

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You wrote:

It's extremely relevant, Rob for understanding the diversity of Christian perspectives regarding Christ that existed in the early centuries following the Apostles, and to show that in an effort to understand Christ and the rise of Christianity from a historical perspective, one must take into consideration and not simply ignore perspectives that do not reflect current orthodoxy, including the Gnostic Gospels.

The issue here is not the diversity of beliefs about Jesus in the centuries following the apostles. We have always known that such diversity of beliefs existed. The issue is which beliefs are likely to be the most historically grounded in factual knowledge about Jesus.

I stated, "The Gospel of Philip is simply too late chronologically and too distant culturally from the time and culture of Jesus to be taken seriously as a source of historical information about Jesus." You replied:

Interesting! In view of the fact that the first literary strands of Genesis were not written until the Neo-Assyrian era, i.e. at least a 1000 years after Abraham, do you adopt the same perspective when considering the biblical portrayal of this patriarch? With the separation of 1000 years, is the biblical view of Abraham not to be trusted as a historical account since it is too late chronologically and too distant culturally from the time and culture of Abraham?

First, I don't accept your dating of Genesis or of the sources that might have been used in Genesis. Second, my argument was not based on chronology alone.

You wrote:

In other words, everything that does not accord with your version of orthodoxy as interpreted via canonized sources is to be rejected.

This isn't a serious response to my comments.

[David Bokovoy]

First, I don't accept your dating of Genesis or of the sources that might have been used in Genesis. Second, my argument was not based on chronology alone.

Whether you personally accept the fact that the earliest strands of Genesis, i.e. the E and J sources, were first composed in the Neo-Assyrian era is irrelevant to the fact that this is certainly the case. The direct impact upon biblical texts by Mesopotamian legal sources and treaties suggests that clear parallels between J and the East Semitic sphere derive from Israelite contact with these traditions during the Neo-Assyrian era.

The J creation and garden story in Genesis 2-3 shares a variety of motifs in common with the Gilgamesh Epic, including the creation of humans from clay, a plant of life, a treacherous snake, becoming civilized and wise in association with a motif of sexual activity, as well as a general preoccupation with morality.

J

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You're just playing, right?

What is your point? I do not know of any historians or historical Jesus scholars who think that the Gospel of Philip preserves historical data regarding the family relationships of Jesus. The issue here is not merely chronological distance or the cultural developments between Jesus and Philip, but the fact that Philip represents a cultural-religious-philosophical divergence from the religious and cultural context of the historical Jesus -- and is demonstrably inferior to the much earlier and culturally consonant sources of the canonical Gospels. I don't know of any historians who think otherwise. Do you?

The issue of the historical reliability of the Genesis patriarchal narrative is unfortunately made extremely difficult by the fact that we are looking at a period for the patriarchs nearly two millennia earlier than Jesus, for which our archaeological and literary evidence is much sparser and subject to far greater disputes over every imaginable question. The dating of Genesis is far less secure even among scholars that accept the general approach and method reflected in your comments. Several of the points you make about the origins of Genesis have been effectively challenged by conservative scholars (Jewish and Christian), but I'm really not interested in this diversion from the issue. Suppose I grant your premise for the sake of argument. Genesis remains by far our earliest and most relevant narrative about the patriarchs and therefore, for better or worse, our best source of information about them. An apples-to-apples comparison here would require the loop of your analogy to be finished by claiming that we should not limit our knowledge about the lives of the patriarchs to Genesis but should entertain as historically valid narratives the legends that are told in Jewish or even Islamic literature that date from a millennium or more after Genesis was written, on anyone's dating of Genesis. But no historian would agree with that claim, either.

[volgadon]

volgadon,

You asked, regarding my statement that the Gospel of Philip's esoteric theology is foreign to the first-century Palestinian Jewish culture of Jesus:

The short answer would be, it is based on reading first-century Jewish literature and comparing it with Philip. Even Philo, the most Hellenized Jewish writer of the first century, does not come close to the esoteric, Gnosticizing theology of Philip and other second-century and third-century apocryphal gospels. The major Jewish religious movements in and around Palestine (Judea, Galilee, etc.) in the first century were the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (perhaps including Qumran), and Christians. Of these, the Qumran community is widely cited as the closest to Gnosticism -- but this is like saying that Kansas City is closer than Oklahoma City to Johannesburg.

Unfortunately I ran out of time to post further, but I intend on pointing out that the kind of symbolism you consider foreign to Jewish Palestine of the 1st century was not quite as foreign as you make it out to be.

[Vance]

Deleted.

[volgadon]

Eusebius himself, who quoted Papias, regarded him an unreliable source. According to the Wikipedia article on Papias (from which you may have obtained your quote):

[Vance]

Let's pretend that Moses wrote the book of Genesis in approximately 1350 BC. That's at least a 400 to 500 year difference between Moses and Abraham. So why do you accept Genesis' portrayal of Abraham as historically accurate when even by a misinformed conservative perspective on the text's origin, there's just as much cultural and chronological separation between Genesis and Abraham as there is Jesus and the Gospel of Philip?!

Very interesting point.

[volgadon]

Did you mean, "Jewish Palestine of the 1st century was NOT quite as foreign as you make it out to be"?

Oops, you are right. I'll edit immediately.

[zerinus]

Then you are left to explain why Eusebius saw fit to include as reliable testimony on the compostion of Mark the words of a man of small mental capacity.

Also, I've known the quote about Mark some time before wikipedia existed.

Doesn't matter what he called them. The fact remains that he described oral transmission of the deeds and saying of Christ being written down at a latter date. Raymond E. Brown seems to have negelected "deeds".

You haven't gotten round any of the difficulties in your criticism.

Papias may be one piece of evidence, and the Gospel of Luke and Book of Mormon are other evidences; and I find the latter two the most reliable of the three.

[seriously honestly]

One of the biggest failings of the Christian world was to dehumanize Christ. He was born into a family. He had parents Mary and Joseph. Possibly brothers and sisters; aunts, uncles, cousins. In the ultimate heresy we have stripped all that away to leave just a mother and child.

What do you mean "possibly"? This information can be found in the Bible.

[thesometimesaint]

seriously honestly:

I'm not saying that information can not be found in the Bible. I am saying that to a enormous extent the Christian world has shrank the Holy family to just mother and child.

[seriously honestly]

seriously honestly:

I'm not saying that information can not be found in the Bible. I am saying that to a enormous extent the Christian world has shrank the Holy family to just mother and child.

Ah, gotcha.

However, I don't believe He was married, and definitely did not have children.

[thesometimesaint]

seriously honestly:

I believe that circumstantial evidence shows that he was married, but fully realize that the Scriptures are silent on whether for sure one way or the other. I think it is one of the cases where the subject doesn't effect the Divinity of Christ or the truth of the Restored Gospel. So has no effect on my salvation.

As to him having children while on earth. It is a big "I don't know." However he did love children. So it wouldn't surprise me if he did.