Was/Is Jesus Married?

[Rob Bowman]

David,

I'd like to add another reason to prefer the canonical Gospels as sources of historical information about Jesus' family to a source such as the Gospel of Philip: The canonical Gospels are written in the genre of ancient Greco-Roman biographies (bioi), in which one would expect to find factual information about the subject's family (as we do), whereas the Gospel of Philip is not an example of that genre at all.

On the canonical Gospels as bioi, see especially Richard Burridge's book What Are the Gospels? which has convinced many scholars to abandon the old critical claim that the Gospels are not biographies.

[David Bokovoy]

David,

I'd like to add another reason to prefer the canonical Gospels as sources of historical information about Jesus' family to a source such as the Gospel of Philip: The canonical Gospels are written in the genre of ancient Greco-Roman biographies (bioi), in which one would expect to find factual information about the subject's family (as we do), whereas the Gospel of Philip is not an example of that genre at all.

On the canonical Gospels as bioi, see especially Richard Burridge's book What Are the Gospels? which has convinced many scholars to abandon the old critical claim that the Gospels are not biographies.

And again, Rob, I'm not suggesting that the canonized Gospels are not more reliable than the Gnostic texts. I believe they are. But from perspective, it would be wrong to simply ignore these other early Christian traditions. They might reflect some historical realities.

[volgadon]

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.

And Luke also states that he is writing down oral traditions.

[DH]

What if he was? What is it to you? J/k.

Um, that seems to me like a rather rude response. What gives?

We don't know if Jesus was married during his mortal life, and we don't know if he is now. If marriage is indeed necessary for a fullness of joy, though, then it would seem logical to assume that he either is now married, or eventually will marry. Mazel tov!

[zerinus]

And Luke also states that he is writing down oral traditions.

I don't think so. Where does it say that?

[LeSellers]

I don't think so. Where does it say that?

Try this:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Enjoy,

Lehi

[zerinus]

Try this:

Enjoy,

Lehi

Sorry, I didn't get that. Missed the joke.

[volgadon]

How? You need to provide context to make your point credible.

I will expand on this, but I did provide one example.

[David Bokovoy]

Sorry, I missed that. Missed the joke.

[Tapir Whisperer]

Many LDS leaders have gone on record saying Jesus was not only married, but that he was a polygamist as well.

On October 6, 1854, Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde stated,

"How was it with Mary and Martha, and other women that followed him [Jesus]? In old times, and it is common in this day, the women, even as Sarah, called their husbands Lord; the word Lord is tantamount to husband in some languages, master, lord, husband, are about synonymous... Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife" (

Journal of Discourses

2:81).

In that same talk he went on to say:

"Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified" (

Journal of Discourses

2:82).

Apostle Orson Pratt agreed with his contemporary when he wrote,

"..One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus -- such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them -- namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were His wives" (

The Seer

, p.159).

On page 172 of the same book, Pratt wrote,

"We have now clearly shown that God, the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born... We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings' daughters and many honorable Wives to be married."

On July 22, 1883, Wilford Woodruff recorded the words of Joseph F. Smith in his journal. At the time Woodruff was an LDS apostle while Smith was a member of the First Presidency serving as second counselor to President John Taylor. Woodruff wrote,

"Evening Meeting. Prayer By E Stephenson. Joseph F Smith spoke One hour & 25 M. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides. He also refered to Luke 10 ch. 38 to 42 verse, Also John 11 ch. 2 & 5 vers John 12 Ch 3d vers, John 20 8 to 18. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary & Martha manifested much Closer relationship than Merely A Believer which looks Consistet. He did not think that Jesus who decended throug Poligamous families from Abraham down & who fulfilled all the Law even baptism by immersion would have lived and died without being married." (

Wilford Woodruff's Journal

8:187, July 22, 1883, spelling left intact).

[zerinus]

[Skylla]

Many LDS leaders have gone on record saying Jesus was not only married, but that he was a polygamist as well.

On October 6, 1854, Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde stated,

"How was it with Mary and Martha, and other women that followed him [Jesus]? In old times, and it is common in this day, the women, even as Sarah, called their husbands Lord; the word Lord is tantamount to husband in some languages, master, lord, husband, are about synonymous... Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife" (

Journal of Discourses

2:81).

In that same talk he went on to say:

"Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified" (

Journal of Discourses

2:82).

Apostle Orson Pratt agreed with his contemporary when he wrote,

"..One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus -- such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them -- namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were His wives" (

The Seer

, p.159).

On page 172 of the same book, Pratt wrote,

"We have now clearly shown that God, the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born... We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings' daughters and many honorable Wives to be married."

On July 22, 1883, Wilford Woodruff recorded the words of Joseph F. Smith in his journal. At the time Woodruff was an LDS apostle while Smith was a member of the First Presidency serving as second counselor to President John Taylor. Woodruff wrote,

"Evening Meeting. Prayer By E Stephenson. Joseph F Smith spoke One hour & 25 M. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides. He also refered to Luke 10 ch. 38 to 42 verse, Also John 11 ch. 2 & 5 vers John 12 Ch 3d vers, John 20 8 to 18. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary & Martha manifested much Closer relationship than Merely A Believer which looks Consistet. He did not think that Jesus who decended throug Poligamous families from Abraham down & who fulfilled all the Law even baptism by immersion would have lived and died without being married." (

Wilford Woodruff's Journal

8:187, July 22, 1883, spelling left intact).

Where did you copy and paste this from? That is not allowed.

Skylla

[David T]

Where did you copy and paste this from? That is not allowed.

Skylla

A quick search shows he pasted it from Bill McKeever's Mormonism Research Ministry website.

[David Bokovoy]

The context implies that he had something written to work from.

Actually, the context, i.e.

[Bill Hamblin]

Actually, the context, i.e.

[David Bokovoy]

Many LDS leaders have gone on record saying Jesus was not only married, but that he was a polygamist as well.

No way!!! Are you serious!! LOL!

[David Bokovoy]

Dissertation? Did I hear anyone say dissertation?

I love you, man! I'm going, I'm going.

[zerinus]

John 20:

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Since John was written some 30 years after Mark, and at least 10 years after Luke and Matthew, what makes you assume that John was not referring to these Gospels?

John 21:

24 This [John] is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Yes, yes, and Deuteronomy claims that its sermons were written by Moses, and 1 Enoch claims that is was produced by Enoch, and the Apocalypse of Abraham, and the Testament of Adam and Eve, and the Testament of Levi, and the Songs of Solomon, and the Davidic psalms, etc., etc., but none of these ancient figures truly wrote any of these texts.

I don

[consiglieri]

[Okay now, you don't need to tell me. You don't believe that Moses wrote the book of Moses, or Isaiah wrote the book of Isaiah, or John wrote the Gospel of John etc. But there are some people who don't agree, me included.

If you didn't have the title at the beginning of the four gospels, who would you think wrote them?

[zerinus]

If you didn't have the title at the beginning of the four gospels, who would you think wrote them?

I was referring specifically to the Gospel of John, and in that Gospel the context actually tells you who wrote it.

[volgadon]

I was referring specifically to the Gospel of John, and in that Gospel the context actually tells you who wrote it.

You mean a later insertion into the text does. Whether or not it is correct is a different matter.

[zerinus]

You mean a later insertion into the text does. Whether or not it is correct is a different matter.

I would rather the context of the book provide me with evidence of its origin than you do.

[volgadon]

The context implies that he had something written to work from. The Book of Acts is a continuation of the gospel of Luke, and begins as follows:

Acts 1

:

1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

None of which demonstrates your point. The "former treatise" says nothing of sources.

To suggest that he wrote all of that material entirely by relying on his memory, or what was told him by hearsay, without any written materials to refer to, is not a credible proposition.

Which is fine, because that is not my position.

Even assuming he had relied entirely on "oral tradition" to write the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, whose "oral tradition" was he relying on? Oral tradition is like Chinese whispers. No two people are going to remember or relate it the same. How could he have confidence which tradition was the right one? How could he say with confidence:

[zerinus]

None of which demonstrates your point. The "former treatise" says nothing of sources.

Which is fine, because that is not my position.

Your presentism is showing. Oral tradition was not considered Chinese whispers or hearsay in the Meditteranean world of the first few centuries AD. On the contrary, an oral tradition or teaching was highly valued. How could Luke have confidence in which tradition was the right one? You just provided the answer yourself. It had to do with the authority and reputation of him from whom the tradition was received.

Of course there were written accounts, mostly in aid of memory, but they were not original necessarily, nor were they more authoritative than oral tradition.

You are presupposing that oral tradition emerges only from written sources and that it couldn't possibly be the other way round. That, pure and simple, is nonsense, and has been shown so by quotes from the ancients. I also invite you to track down a copy of Martin Jaffee's "Torah in the Mouth", which deals with the relationship of oral and written tradition in the world of Jesus and the early Christians and Jews.

How is writing any more reliable? The students of Quintillianus disseminated two books of rhetoric based on lecture notes they kept. He had to edit them after the fact, to bring it in line with his intention. The "plain and precious parts" boils down to a correct tradition, and the spirit vs. the letter.

Do you imagine that the messengers carrying copies of the apocalypse used whiteout? Reading was a vocal, public activity. It is far easier to add or remove from it when reciting it, rather than rewriting a written record at any other time than when copies were made. If we look at Roman practice, decrees were not binding until they were promulgated publically.

I recall mentioning that epistles were a slightly different case.

The far better educated Josephus used Greek secrataries when composing his works. Seems more than likely that John used a Greek-speaker.

The bottom line is that this is an ignorant position you have embraced. Your last sentence fits it perfectly.

Frankly I find your comments so shallow, superficial, and lacking in substance that they are not worth the time spent replying to.

[volgadon]

Frankly I find your comments so shallow, superficial, and lacking in substance that they are not worth the time spent replying to.

Oh please. Couldn't be more transparent if you tried. I also find this funny coming from someone who used wikipedia.