WAS JESUS MARRIED ?
byAlastair MacDonald, July 1995
Some years ago following a scripture reading in which Jesus was addressed as "Rabbi", the minister made a comment to the effect that "at the time of Jesus all rabbis had to be married". I am convinced that he did it deliberately with me in mind because he knew that it was just the kind of comment that would stimulate my curiosity. Well it worked and for a year or two it simmered in my brain until I stumbled upon some information that pertained directly to the topic.
The most common way in which Jesus was addressed in the Gospels was as "Rabbi". In some translations the words "master" or "teacher" are substituted. The word itself in Hebrew does mean "teacher", but to use a different word than rabbi suggests to me that some translators may have been somewhat disconcerted by such an obvious reference to the Jewishness of Jesus. In addition, when the content of Jesus' teaching is examined, it is found to be for the most part in agreement with the Pharisaic teachings of his day. Even his frequent use of parables as a teaching method is typical of rabbinic practice at the time. As a consequence, quite a few modern Biblical scholars are in agreement that Jesus was a trained and ordained Rabbi and, as such, was himself a Pharisee.
Those Biblical passages which suggest a degree of hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees may be understood in several ways. In the first place, there were several "Bet's" or "schools" amongst the Pharisees. Jesus may have been a member of the liberal Bet Hillel which during his lifetime was in a minority position, in contrast to the much more conservative Bet Shammai. A second possibility is that the bitter struggle between the early Jewish Christians and the Jewish establishment, as represented by the Pharisees, led the writers of the Gospels to portray them in a very negative light. This was especially true following the destruction of the temple and the high priesthood in AD70 when the Pharisees did indeed take over the leadership role in the Jewish communities. In addition there may be some confusion between the Pharisees and the Sadducees who indeed could legitimately be described as legalistic and hypocritical.
Now back to the original comment about rabbis and marriage. In many societies a man is not considered to be fully adult until he is married. He would be excluded from full participation in "adult" institutions such as tribal or village councils and religious ceremonials. This has caused many problems for Catholic missionary priests both past and present. In fact, in Canada the Catholic Church has several times unsuccessfully petitioned the Pope for an exemption from the rule of priestly celibacy for those priests serving in the far North. The Jewish attitude at the time of Jesus was similar and is dramatically summarized by the first century rabbi, Eliezar Ben-Asai, who wrote "Whoever renounces marriage violates the commandment to increase and multiply; he is to be looked upon as a murderer who lessens the number of beings created in the image of God." These are strong words indeed! Of the several hundred rabbis known to us from that time only one is known to have been unmarried. More correctly, this rabbi had been married, lost his wife and refused to remarry. He was severely criticized for this by his fellow rabbis.
It is also worth noting that the anti-sex, anti-female pro-virginity attitude that quickly developed in the Gentile branch of the early church was the product of the strong influence of Greek philosophy and not the result of any authentic teaching of Jesus himself. The Jewish tradition, then and now, is strongly family centered and has even been described as somewhat "earthy".
Of course the traditional presumption has been that Jesus was unmarried. This really is a presumption since, of course, the Bible says nothing whatsoever one way or the other on the issue. However, considering the very strong views the Jews held on marriage, it is strange indeed that there is no record that he was ever criticized or questioned on this account. He was accused of being a glutton and a wine biber and of associating with low life. Why not an accusation regarding his unmarried state? The very silence of the Bible on this point is, in my view, highly suggestive that perhaps he was married. I am aware of the philosophical caution that "absence of proof is not proof of absence", this is merely a suggestion.
Although the Bible is not definitive, it is possible to speculate on a number of passages. I shall also refer to a number of non-canonical scriptures. I'll begin with the story of the marriage feast at Cana. We are informed that Jesus, his mother Mary, his brothers and a number of his friends were all present at the feast. The presence of close relatives suggests that it may have been a marriage in the family. However the last time I attended a wedding with both my relatives and my friends it turned out to have been my own!
Mary's behavior at the feast is also somewhat puzzling. She discovers that they have run out of wine. What a busy-body! What business is that of hers? Next she starts to order the wine steward and the servants about. Now she has become a meddling busy-body! The only reasonable explanation for her behavior is that she was in fact the hostess of the marriage feast. Is it at all possible that we are reading in a disguised way about the marriage of Jesus himself?
We also know that there were a number of female disciples of Jesus - Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, the sisters Mary and Martha, Joanna, Susanna and Salome are all named. Whenever the female disciples are mentioned in the Bible, Mary Magdalene is always the first named. In the literary tradition of the time the first named is always the most important. Mary Magdalene is even named ahead of Mary his mother. Even the name Mary Magdalene may be informative. Mary "of Magdala" seems not to be correct since there is no solid historical or archaeological evidence that there ever was such a town. Another possible interpretation of the word "Magdalene" is that it is derived from an Aramaic word meaning roughly "the most important". Early Christian writers have sometimes referred to her as "Mary the Great" and also as the “Apostle to the Apostles”. Why should such importance be attached to this woman?
Here is an interesting take on the story of Mary and her sister Martha. Martha is scurrying around preparing a meal and is getting a little overheated because Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus listening to him teach. Martha comes to Jesus and asks him to tell Mary to get up and help her.
The fact that she asked Jesus rather than going directly to her sister says something in and of itself. In that culture a married woman could be directed only by her husband. To go to the wife directly when her husband is present would be an insult to the husband in that very patriarchal society. We can draw each of us our own conclusions here. And yes I do believe that Mary the Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are the same person.
Christian, particularly Catholic tradition, has been very unkind to Mary Magdalene. She has been variously identified as the woman taken in adultery or the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears and dried them with her hair or possibly both. She is portrayed as a great sinner who became a great saint. The Gospel of John says that Jesus cast seven demons from her. Some might jump to the conclusion that demonic possession is indicated here. However, we must examine this in the context of the times. Disease was thought to have been caused by invisible demons. We know today that this is wrong - disease is actually caused by invisible germs or viruses. It seems that we have renamed the demons! John is simply saying that Jesus cured her of some unspecified disease. As for the charge that she was a prostitute, that
first appeared in a sixth century sermon by Pope Gregory.
Scripture does indicate that she should be ranked on a level with the apostles among the disciples of Jesus. She was the first to the tomb to do what a wife was expected to do for a deceased husband. When she encountered the risen Jesus and finally recognized him, she called him "Rabboni" and "Lord". "Rabboni" is the familiar or affectionate form of "Rabbi", and "Lord" or "Master" is how a Jewish wife would have addressed her husband in that very patriarchal age. Jesus also warned her "do not embrace me". All this is certainly suggestive of a close relationship between the two but stops short of anything definitive.
There are other sources we can turn to for further light on the subject. Almost everyone is aware of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. However, very few are aware of a second major find. Just two years earlier in the Sinai Desert at a place called Nag Hamadi an entire library of about fifty ancient manuscripts was found sealed in a jar in a cave. The Nag Hamadi Library includes the only known copies of the Gospels of Thomas, of James, of Philip and of Mary as well as many other documents.
A passage in the Gospel of Philip states that the three most important women in Jesus' life were all named Mary. They were Mary his mother, Mary his sister and Mary Magdalene his companion. I find, as I am sure you do too, the use of the word companion to be most interesting since it suggests something more personal and more equal than a rabbi / student or a master / disciple relationship.
The Gospel of Mary is a gospel about Mary Magdalene rather than a gospel authored by her. It opens with the apostles bewildered and grieving after the final departure of the resurrected Jesus. Mary assumes a leadership role by comforting and encouraging them. They in turn ask her to reveal to them any teachings that Jesus had imparted to her in private and not to the whole group. The question seems significant in and of itself. She does answer their question but encounters disbelief on the part of Peter. He as much as accuses her of lying saying "Has the Savior spoken secretly to a woman and not openly so that we would all hear? Surely he did not wish to indicate that she is more worthy than we are?" Mary, quite naturally, is very upset by Peter's attack but is defended by Levi (probably Matthew) who says "Peter, you have a constant inclination to anger and you are always ready to give way to it. And even now you are doing exactly that by questioning the woman as if you were her adversary. If the Savior considered her to be worthy, who are you to disregard her? For he knew her completely and loved her devotedly." Once again we are teased but the record stops just short of being unequivocal. We don't quite get a glimpse of the wedding ring!
Returning to the Gospel of Mary, we are told that Jesus often preferred to walk and talk with her to the exclusion of the other disciples and that he frequently kissed her on her …?… Here there is a word missing in the manuscript. We could guess and fill in words like cheek or lips. Missing words are not all that unusual in ancient manuscripts. They naturally tend to deteriorate along the edges with an effect quite similar to tearing a strip from the edge of the page of a book.
The gospel goes on to record that the disciples ask Jesus "Why do you love her more than all of us?" His reply is rather enigmatic "Why do I not love you like her?" Perhaps in answering their question with another question, Jesus is pointing out to them that although he loves them as disciples, he loves her in a different way. Once again much is implied but little is specified.
In 2012 the discovery of a small fragment of a previosly unknown gospel was announced. It has been named the “Gospel of Jesus' Wife.” A partial sentence on this fragment has Jesus say "Jesus said to them, 'my wife' …." The fragment written in the Coptic language of Egypt is thought to be a translation of a Greek text from the second century.
In addition to these ancient records, we can also turn to some not so ancient traditions. There is a strong tradition in the south of France that Mary Magdalene was the first Christian missionary to that region. This is attested to in a stained glass window in the Cathedral of Marseilles that depicts Mary consecrating a bishop! From the fifth through to the eighth centuries this same region of southern France was ruled by the Merovignian dynasty of kings. This unique and most interesting family claimed an incredible family tree. To begin with, they claimed descent from the Tribe of Benjamin which was almost annihilated by the other Jewish tribes. But, more to the point of this investigation, they also claimed lineal blood descent from Jesus through the children of Mary Magdalene. This claim was never disputed by the Church at the time. The descendants of the Merovignian family still reside in France and continue their claim.
While we are talking family here, let me interject another aside. The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews and most, if not all, claimed a blood relationship to Jesus through his brothers and sisters. The Acts of the Apostles makes it quite clear that the first bishop of Jerusalem and the first head of the early church was James the brother of Jesus and not Peter as we are frequently encouraged to believe.
At this point my own opinions should be patently obvious. I consider the marriage of Jesus to be not just a remote possibility but a very real probability. The most likely candidate for Mrs. Jesus is, of course, Mary Magdalene. The question of children seems to be much less certain and in that respect at least I must withhold judgement.
Why then has the possibility of a married Jesus never been given serious consideration in the mainline Christian tradition? I can only reply with the old adage that "history is written is written by the winners." Christianity is not now nor has it ever been monolithic in belief or practice. If the Jerusalem Church, the earliest Christians, had survived the setback of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the face of Christianity today would be vastly different. Instead, rejected by their Jewish brothers and persecuted as heretics by the Gentile Church, they disappeared from history after about 400 years. Modern Christians, for the most part, are the spiritual heirs of Paul who brought a strong flavour of the Greek philosophy of dualism to what was originally a small Jewish cult. This philosophical influence has infected Christianity with a strong anti-sex, anti-woman, pro-virginity emphasis which persists in most churches right to the present day. Admitting even the mere possibility of a married Jesus flies in the face of this patriarchal agenda. Is it any wonder then that it is not just given no consideration but is actively denied?
I'd like to leave you with one last question. What, if any, would be the ramifications of a married Jesus to the Christian Churches today? As a former Catholic, I can see one major upset --- the long overdue demise of the celibate male clergy. Ask yourself in all seriousness, "What would be the impact of a married Jesus in my faith?" To answer for myself, I would have to say that it would place a renewed emphasis on the humanity of Jesus. He was not an other-worldly paragon of sanctity and virtue - he was one of us in every aspect of his life. It would also have the effect of raising the status of both women and marriage within the Christian community, particularly in those communities presently of more traditional or fundamentalist bent. By and large, it would tend to cancel out some of the more negative aspects of Paul.
In closing, let me say to those of you who may be feeling a little uncomfortable with these speculations that they are just that - speculations. In all the ancient documents no marriage certificate has turned up --- yet.
I commend these thoughts to you in the name of Jesus, our brother and teacher.
.
