If Jesus Was Married?

[volgadon]

IMO, while your example was 'concrete', it was also anecdotal and not useful in making generalizations about the community at large. Bringing up Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai, had nothing to do with the discussion of the average age of marriage for jewish men is Jesus' time and was irrelevant.

Because he was not 'the norm'. There are always exceptions and he was one. But it is not a good idea to make judgments from studying exceptions.

You actually haven't shown Josephus to be an exception. You cite his collaboration with the Romans as evidence of that, whereas the example of Yohanan ben Zakay forms a counterpoint to your assertion. Nor do Josephus' politics show him to be an exception in such a fundamental aspect of life as marriage is.

The part I quoted was from a chapter titled 'The World of Jesus' by Roland de Vaux. The section was in reference to the Marriage at Cana, so it was the time period we are discussing. The book was compiled by the National Geographic Society and published in 1967.

Does de Vaux provide sources? Probably not, if it anything like that old National Geographic book on Greece and Rome. If that is the case I would have to disagree with the late, distinguished scholar. It is a generalised statement and not of much use. Biblical and Judaic scholarship has also not stood still since his day.

This is true, but as I've pointed out, the evidence supports the belief that it was more common for Jews in Jesus day and in Palestine to marry younger than what you've suggested--though there certainly were exceptions. If you don't wish to believe it, you have that choice.

The evidence does not support the belief. You have mainly cited general statements in secondary literature, or rabbinic statements used indiscriminately.

Here is more evidence in support of my position. Chapter 13 of version B of the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan states that R. Eleazar b. Hyrcanus, son of a well-off farmer, was unmarried at 28. This fits in better with the general evidence than the parallel statement in chapter 6 of version A, which states that he had a wife at 22. Although according to that same chapter, R. Akiva at the age of 40 goes to school with his son, so he can't have married much earlier than his 30s. In the Babylonian Talmud, t. Bava Bathra 91b, R. Yohanan recalls how in his youth 18 year old boys would stroll in the marketplace with girls. Marriage then certainly tended to occur above that age. The very value of the Testament of Levi lies in its being a Second Temple pseudepigraphic work. The author fleshed out the biblical account with details drawn from his own world. If he had a tradition that Levi married young, then why specify that age as 28 if the norm was lower? That is older than when I was married, and I married fairly late for a Mormon.

In the Tosefta, t. Sotah 7:20, the normal course of life is given as building a house, planting fields and only then taking a wife. Also in the Tosefta, t. Kiddushin 1:11, the obligations of a man towards his son are to circumcise him, to ransom him, to teach him Torah, to teach him a trade, and only then to have him marry. If the age was low then marriage would have come earlier in the list. In the tractate Semahot 3:7, the ages for various mourning practices are given. In it those between 20 and 30 mourn as groom, those between 30 and 40 mourn as father IF they have children. If not, they mourn as brothers. If marriage was at a young age, then why would there be a strong possibility of a man in his 30s being childless if he married young? Especially when the only effective means of birth control were abstinence and coitus interruptus. A man would have been in the 2nd decade of his marriage. It has also been shown that the usual age of marriage in Egypt of the same period was between 25 and above. Peasents had a brutish life anywhere. In Rome the norm was the late 20s and early 30s.

Also, the reference you linked to support your position cited the Essenes, but I question the wisdom of making generalizations about Jewish society in Jesus' time from the practices of the Essenes, who were a small, communal religious sect, outside the mainstream of Judaism. And while it is true that many Essenes did not marry, I must point out that some did.

The fact remains that a large group, that is, more than a handful of individuals, could be unmarried in its pursuit of Torah is telling. Also, the idea of a mainstream Judaism has been shown as mistaken by the likes of E.P. Sanders. There wasn't a mainstream Judaism, there were varying beliefs and practices among all groups of Jews.

A few surprises in what we have been given by William Barclay.

Marriage in the Jewish community at the time of Jesus, was a

marriage when very young. Mary the mother of Jesus was probably a

young teenager when she married Joseph, and he was probably under

the age of twenty.

We are dealing with the marriage age of men. Women married younger, sometimes even as prepubescant teens.

I have heard this a number of times and while looking for information on marriage age, came across it mentioned as well.

And I am certain that none mention primary sources supporting the notion that a man had to be married in order to be addressed by the honorific rabbi.

Edited July 13, 2011 by volgadon

[alter idem]

Volgodon; You gave me one reference for your position and I provided three, We questioned eachother's references.

Here's how I see it:

If we were playing poker, IMO, I've got a better hand than you... and you just might be bluffing.

I'll leave it at that.

[volgadon]

Volgodon; You gave me one reference for your position and I provided three, We questioned eachother's references.

Here's how I see it:

If we were playing poker, IMO, I've got a better hand than you... and you just might be bluffing.

I'll leave it at that.

Luckily this isn't poker. Quality counts not quantity. You can provide a hundred secondary or tertiary sources asserting that Jews married young, but they don't mean a thing when countered by actual sources from the period, or close to it. You are more than welcome to engage the several primary sources I've mentioned in my previous source.

[K-2]

“If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord” (TPJS 308)

Joseph Smith says here that Jesus obtained the fullness of the priesthood "by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord." One very prominent ordinance of the house of the Lord is the sealing in marriage of women to men for time and all eternity. Another important ordinance of the house of the Lord, by which the fullness of the priesthood is received, is the second anointing; an ordinance only given to married couples. If someone were to convince me that Jesus was not married, they would have to explain this statement of Joseph Smith to my satisfaction. Consequently, I'm interested in hearing any explanations that might be offered by other participants in this thread.

[fatherofone]

“If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord” (TPJS 308)

Joseph Smith says here that Jesus obtained the fullness of the priesthood "by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord." One very prominent ordinance of the house of the Lord is the sealing in marriage of women to men for time and all eternity. Another important ordinance of the house of the Lord, by which the fullness of the priesthood is received, is the second anointing; an ordinance only given to married couples. If someone were to convince me that Jesus was not married, they would have to explain this statement of Joseph Smith to my satisfaction. Consequently, I'm interested in hearing any explanations that might be offered by other participants in this thread.

what is the second anointing?

[K-2]

No time to explain -- you'll have to google it.

[fatherofone]

No time to explain -- you'll have to google it.

so its unknown if the church still does that, it sounds weird, no offense meant

[SAVELLI]

I "guess, speculate" that Jesus was married (widow, father). He was a very normal man.

He had none problem in the social relationship with women. He had marital experience and was not biased as may become some single man at the age of Jesus, who tries to live quite in monogamist life condition. As if looking women as "evil creature" instead as source of valuable and honest good feelings. As if an incentive to join, marry and have children.

We can see that Jesus accepted something that could be like "scandalous", with woman providing some special "attention" and "care" toward him and Jesus accepting that naturally. One event could be classified quite like somewhat "sensual", maybe a little scandalous... But Jesus didn't mind about that, probably because he knew something of that type when he was married.

It is interesting that this type of information, with quite embarrassing details, is provided only by John (the reliable gospel), as in 12:3. It is quite evident she was aware of his widow condition... and quite like was "courting him openly, in public" (one opinion). Both being free to marry.

Also it is quite evident that Mary, Jesus' mother, knew about the destination of Jesus' descendent and it is possible she took advantage of this information to "guide" Jesus. For example, the first miracle probably was an "attempt" to see if Jesus had changed of life and maybe would take care, directly, of his descendent. But it appears her efforts were in vain, in trying to use such information. Jesus had not changed and continued to live as widow. Not facing a new marriage. But continued to visit his descendent from time to time.

Edited July 17, 2011 by SAVELLI

[TAO]

so its unknown if the church still does that, it sounds weird, no offense meant

An apostle once said, those who have it don't talk about it. Those who talk about it don't have it ;-). It is something not to be talked of, sorry, my friend =P.

Edited July 17, 2011 by TAO

[Questing Beast]

You find "second anointing" weird? I find washing feet weird. And temple ordinances required to "save the dead"; or even the whole concept that we are either saved or hang together. I find a ton of religious dogma weird. The only thing that finally explains all of it, is to accept that dogma is manmade from the getgo. "God" works with us within our self-imposed religious paradigms. But "God" also works outside of religion, in fact within "all in all". There is no reasonable evidence to prove that Mormonism is "God's only true religion", anymore than any other religion can prove that their dogma is "the way"....

[thesometimesaint]

Questing Beast:

There is no scientific proof for the existance of any God, or Supernatual event. We all are free to believe or disbelieve, as we so choose. But I do find it interesting to bring up a nonbelief in God on religious(Mormon)discussion board.

[mnn727]

The Bible does not contain everything, and 'no evidence for somthing' does not mean its 'evidence against it'.

The Bible never mentions Jesus or the Apostles (hmmmm how shall I put this) excreting anything, does that mean they never did?

Edited July 17, 2011 by mnn727

[altersteve]

"God" works with us within our self-imposed religious paradigms. But "God" also works outside of religion, in fact within "all in all".

Latter-day Saints agree with you.

[Questing Beast]

I said: "God" works with us within our self-imposed religious paradigms. But "God" also works outside of religion, in fact within "all in all".

Latter-day Saints agree with you.

I know. Then many of them say words to the effect: "I know this is the only true church". Sometimes "the Lord's" words in D&C 1 and the First Vision are referenced to show it. So the assertion that "everyone has the truth to some degree" is merely a dissembling tactic, or a denial thing to keep from exploring this further. If everyone has "the truth", it follows that no one has ALL truth. Even LDS people must admit this, or be shown that Joseph Smith said he had not given the Latter-day Saints even half of what he knew (had had revealed to him). Then we can show that the modern LDS religion is quite different from the one promoted and led by B. Young et al. the 19th century (polygamous) leaders and faithful. Gone are many doctrines, such as higher priesthood, greater glory attained because of earthly family size and priesthood eminence (leadership position); gone is polygamy; gone is the empirical adherence to the united order (implemented law of consecration), just to name the obvious parings away that have occurred. So the LDS faith does not have "all truth". To claim that it is the only church/religion which has access to "all truth" is an assertion only, and an annoying, priggish one at that to non Mormons. Nothing about the religion can be held up as evidence of truth for such an assertion. So saying "I believe that all religions have some truth" is a throw-away statement; it means nothing, because of the testimony which follows: "I know that this is God's one and only true church". And if it is not, then it is the same as all the rest....

[Rob Bowman]

I'm confused on one point. Several Mormons here have stated that they don't claim to know whether Jesus was in fact married or not. But LDS doctrine maintains that marriage for time and eternity is an essential, absolute requirement for exaltation. So how could Jesus have failed to get married? Was he an exception?

Of course, there's a larger question here. According to LDS doctrine, Jesus was a God before he received his physical body and became a mortal man. How did he attain Godhood without getting married -- or could he have gotten married before getting a physical body?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm confused on one point. Several Mormons here have stated that they don't claim to know whether Jesus was in fact married or not. But LDS doctrine maintains that marriage for time and eternity is an essential, absolute requirement for exaltation. So how could Jesus have failed to get married? Was he an exception?

That is why it is specualted on that Jesus was married. The issue is that there is nothing official on the matter.

Of course, there's a larger question here. According to LDS doctrine, Jesus was a God before he received his physical body and became a mortal man. How did he attain Godhood without getting married -- or could he have gotten married before getting a physical body?

I through this wrench back at you. In LDS theology we are all gods now.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

That is why it is specualted on that Jesus was married. The issue is that there is nothing official on the matter.

Why would there need to be any "speculation" on the matter, when you have prophets who talk to Jesus and can ask him?? Furthermore, if it is true that one must be married for eternity to qualify for Godhood, then Jesus must be married. This should not be speculative; it ought to be deductively certain based simply on believing what you say you believe.

I had asked: "According to LDS doctrine, Jesus was a God before he received his physical body and became a mortal man. How did he attain Godhood without getting married -- or could he have gotten married before getting a physical body?"

You replied:

I through this wrench back at you. In LDS theology we are all gods now.

First, let's get this point cleared up. CFR! Where in LDS theology are you officially taught that we are all gods now?

Second, the claim that we are all gods now doesn't clear up the matter. For this statement to be relevant to my question, you must be implying that Jesus, before he received his physical body, was "a god" in the same way that all of us are presently "gods." However, as I understand it, what you mean by this statement is that we are all gods "in embryo," with the potential to become exalted beings with the same powers and quality of life as Heavenly Father. It means that one day we may be able to exercise divine power to make and rule over worlds just as he does. But in LDS theology, Jesus was supposedly already a god in that sense long before he received a physical body; in fact, he was the God of the Old Testament.

If the preexistent Jesus Christ, prior to receiving his physical body, was a "god" only in the same sense that all of us are "gods" as you see it -- as "gods in embryo" -- then you have a much bigger theological problem. Such a claim implies that Jesus may still not have attained his exaltation in the highest degree of glory of the celestial kingdom. After all, you aren't even sure Jesus was married, and he had to be married to qualify for that highest degree of glory.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

If Jesus was married, and had children, why wasn't His wife ever with Him (even at the crusifixion), why did He place His Mother in John's care, and why are His children never mentioned?

Here is a quote from Eusibeus's History of the Church.

Chapter 20. The Relatives of our Saviour.

1. Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh.

2. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them.

4. And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor.

5. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.

6. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

7. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.

8. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus.

I don't believe Jesus had any physical children. Those who believe in Him are his children in a spiritual sense.