There was a documentary a little while ago that proved the Da Vinci Code to be absolutely bogus. It is scary how a work of fiction, even proclaimed by the author as being such, can raise so much speculation.

Here is a sermon that I did several years ago:

WAS JESUS MARRIED ?

by

Alastair 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 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 ceremonial. This has caused many problems for Catholic missionary priests both past and present. In fact, the Catholic Church in Canada 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". 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. 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.

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 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 driven out of Israel 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, particular 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.

AMEN

 I led a study group of the Da Vinci Code novel 3 years ago, and we looked at it as fiction that raised interesting discussion.

What we discussed was the history & possiblity around the ideas, and other people's work on the topics raised, including Jesus &  Mary as a couple.

Overwhelmingly, what we came to was a sense that our faith was not destroyed by any of the claims, nor was it wavered.  In fact, in asking the questions, we were able to separate what was important about faith in God, and Jesus as his messenger vs. the layers of STUFF that got in the way of deep, confident faith.

We felt (and our group was women ages 20-50) that we had deeper faith after separating trivial doctrine from divine love.  We really enjoyed the book, and the journey it took us on, and learned a lot about other viewpoints.

An interesting discussion of the issue, JRT. On the question itself, rather than its impact, I don't really believe we can answer it definitively at this point in history. Most of the "evidence" is conjectural and based on a particular interpretation of scripture. Like many aspects of Jesus' existence, its a matter of faith rather than fact at this point.

I don't think the question is ultimately that important except, as suggested in your sermon, for the issue of clerical celibacy and maybe the broader issue of anti-sex attitudes in some Protestant sects. For me, Jesus is (a) a prophet/preacher (a "Rabbi" if you like) and (b) a heavily mythologized figure (the "Christ"). For the former, we know only the broad details of his life and teachings. The latter tells us nothing about the person, but rather uses him as a kind of living Parable. The birth narrative, the miracles, the Resurrection fall into this category. Neither of these views of Jesus would be upset dramatically by the discovery that he was married, although it might open some aspects to reinterpretation, which more literalist Christians always seem to have problems with.

Then again, as a UU with very liberal Christian roots, my views of Jesus may not be very reflective of how Christians might have to deal with such a revelation.

JRT

You raise some good points that I had not thought of.  The Pharisees called him a glutten and a drunkard they would not have chosen not to ridicule him for his unmarried state.

The Catholic Church's unmarried priests are a problem.  They are supposed to be like Jesus and have only one wife the Church or something.  It would not be at all surprising if that never existed that Jesus was in fact married.  

The whole women being subjective to men and this preoccupation with virginity could not have happened if certain details were different.

I saw the documentary before the movie.  The movie still made me think.

I was very disturbed even by the allegation that Jesus COULD have been married but now I am okay with it.  I am not sure that we really know WHO the historical Jesus was anyway.

I agree.  It was too long ago and it is possible that the evidence could have been buried because it did not fit with the whole Son of God literal theology.

Interesting thoughts.  When I was a literalist I had lots of difficulty with this interpretation.  Now I am revisiting it. 

Your new avatar is a bit scary. 

That's kind of where the Da Vinci code went with it, isn't it? I never made it through the whole book, but I read quite a bit about it.

I grew up in a fairly liberal family. Tom Harpur's column was required reading on Sunday morning when I was in high school and university. This was well before Pagan Christ, indeed even before For Christ's Sake. As a consequence, questioning and exploring faith wasn't a big deal. Of course, in my case it led me into Unitarian Universalism (which did cause some friction with my family), but that could change as I'm finding that there's probably more room for my views in the UCC than I thought there would be. Anyhow, I wasn't a literalist to start with and kind of grew into where I am now.

Read the explanation in the avatars thread on Relationships. It'll either make it less scary or more so.

Well, if Jesus was indeed a Jewish rabbi, then it is quite possible that he was married. After all, Jewish rabbis are expected to be married and have children! The fact that his wife wasn't mentioned in the biblical gospels does not necessarily mean that he didn't have one. Wives were regarded as chattel in those days, and not deserving of particular mention.

Or maybe Jesus was a homosexual?

Mark 14:48-52 (New International Version)

I think if it mattered if Jesus was married we would know.

Yup.  Just like buying a goat.  We don't know how many goats Jesus owned either.    The only problem is this is the religious system many women who believe they are still chattel adopted.

Serena

Perhaps the question is more if they were married, what effect does that have on your faith?  It effects me not one bit and I think, as was mentioned above, if Jesus was married, it would bring him closer to me rather than move him away or diminish him in any way.  But for others who perhaps look at every word as the "only truth", this little factoid could make the remainder of the Bible subject to debate.  I don't know, just a thought.

JRT

I will pass your sermon on to our Minister tomorrow.  I think it would make a wonderful WonderCafe discussion session.

IT

Russ

Serena, I kind of hope he wasn't married, only because if he was then it is quite likely that he also had children, and I wouldn't want any child to see their father go through what Jesus did.  Being a single, celibate mystic/sage was not uncommon in that day and age, and I think Jesus was probably one.  

Jesus wasn't an official Rabbi. People just called him Rabbi out of respect. It was not his vocation. He was not a scholar or an authority.

If he was a wanderer then it is plausible that he wasn't married. However, that doesn't mean he could not have been married. None of the gospels ever focus on his marrital status so it could go either way. Maybe it wasn't important to the early Christians.

I think a lot of people want Jesus to be virgin-born and have lead a virgin life. They care too much about trivial details like that and not about actually living like his example.

Not necessarily. Back in that time it may not have been odd at all. They did not live in the modern era. I agree that he wouldn't have had kids unless he was married first though.

Is this wedding actually in the bible or is it only in the movie?

That is supposed to be symbolic, not historical. She does it because she believes that Jesus is her king and is worthy of being annointed with such a lavish oil, even when she would be better off to sell it and use the money to live. That is how much she cared about Jesus.

How do we know that? 

I agree with this but that does not really answer the question why the Catholic Church called Mary Magdelene a prostitute and were trying to discredit HER.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=2&v=1&t=KJV

The wedding is actually in the Bible.

6.  Mary annointing Jesus' feet...a wedding ritual?

That is actually the traditional interpretation.  The one I used to believe.  Reading it with thinking in the back of your mind that Mary was doing this for her husband or betrothed is another way of looking at it and it COULD fit.

Bingo.

I don't think that its impossible for us to know the historical Jesus.... eventually.  But that will never be possible until we've given up the need for him to be historical at all. The search for the historical Jesus (a phrase, not to be confused with the book  ) is impossible since its always undertaken with an agenda - to prove or disprove "Christianity."

It certainly makes Jesus more human which is both a good thing or a bad thing.  I guess that Jesus being married could be viewed a number of ways.  It certainly puts to rest all those "purity after marriage" sects.  Or what about what Paul said that it is better to remain single like himself so he does not have the cares of the world and does not have to worry about a wife and children.  That would not fit with Jesus being married and having children.  Though "worrying" about a wife does not seem to fit within a society that valued women like goats.  Who would worry about a goat?

Hi David: Some of the researchers researching the historical Jesus, particularly the Jewish archeologists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, are genuine scholars without a hidden agenda, except, perhaps, to prove the fact that the founder of our religion was just an extraordinary ordinary Jew.

He took the trade of his father, which was carpentry. He didn't learn to read and write and he never had a synogogue. He was not called a rabbi in the official sense. The idea of calling a peasant "Rabbi" was probably a big deal.

Oh, that's right. Sorry. Well Jesus used to hang out with prostitutes and other people considered to be lowlifes at the time so maybe they assume that since he was one of Jesus' friends and a woman that she must've been a prostitute. Unless there's a verse in the gospels that explicitly states that she is a prostitute, which would make that the more likely reason.

Oh, it's the wedding where he turns the water into wine. Well I don't think that Mary is wondering about the wine because she was a busybody or managing it (why would a woman manage anything back then anyway?). I think that was done to give Jesus a motive to perform the miracle. I really doubt that the authors of the gospels actually cared about accurately depicting Mary's character (as if they would even know her character anyway).

I think despite your desire to change, you haven't totally come to accept the idea that the gospels are fictional. The way you state your questions makes this very obvious.

This is assuming that this is an historical event and that they were married, which is highly doubtful. If it's a fictional event, which I believe it to be then the traditional interprettation fits better. If they were married then the gospels would've said so but since they don't say so then it is best to assume that they were not, again, using reasoning that assumes the story to be fictional.

I thought Joseph being a carpenter was a mistranslation?  Or maybe I got confused with a history book I read ABOUT Jesus.  Joseph was actually some kind of teacher but without land which is why Jesus was smarter at 12 in the synogogue than the rabbis.

Could be.  That makes more sense.

Could be.  I guess you are right other than being a perpetual virgin her whole life they did know much about her.

Like a parable.  I am not sure if the gospels would have said if they were married because they also don't say how many goats Jesus owned.

I am analyzing the Bible the only way I know how.  From a literal standpoint.  I wonder though if the gospels are entirely fictitious or if they don't contain some hisotrical truth?  I am just not sure how to separate the two.

I've never heard of that before. Could someone else confirm this?

I doubt they knew about Mary's sex life. Also, if she gave birth to Jesus then she must've had sex. The virginity thing can't be true. How does Mary having sex make her a worse person?

I'm sure that if J.R.R. Tolkien wrote the gospels then we would have a number for that. However, trivial statistics like that are not important for the message. The gospels are not historical documents, they are mythos. The message is what's important, not the story.

I'm sure you've studied texts in ways that go deeper than a literal interpretation before. I've been expected to interpret literature symbolically and metaphorically since grade 9. I don't know how someone who has graduated from high school could not be able to do that. You do know how to analyze the bible from beyond the literal standpoint, you just have to change your attitude toward the bible from being a divinely inspired document into an anthology of artistic literature.

I think I read it on wondercafe and I read it in a book maybe the Historical Jesus by Crossen?

Giving birth to a human requires sex and it that is not a miracle or anything special.  Women have been giving birth for millions/billions of years.  Virginity makes it certain that God is the father of her child not a human.  Having sex makes her a bad person in that time period because she was not married.

I am not sure that I have.  I did get A's in English in High School and University so I must have done this without realizing it.

Alastair

I passed your sermon to our Minister and I think this just may be a topic for one of our WonderCafe's.  Should be a hoot.

IT

Russ

Serena

Something in the back of my mind says Joseph was a landless odd job man, rather than a "carpenter".

IT

Russ

I believe that the suggestion that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute comes from a sermon delivered by Pope Gregory (?) in the 6th (?) century.

RussP

Thanks. Let me know how it works out.

JRT

I shall and I think it will be fun.

The Bible study group is called The Heretics so that should provide some indication of just how lively it could get.

IT

Russ

 The Catholics fully (but quietly) recanted the bit about Mary M as a prostitute back in 1949 or something.  There is no evidence for it.

The Historical Jesus studies that I know of are all done by wonderful people who call themselves Christian.  The studies may not support old doctrine, but who cares anyway?  It doesn't change the bit about really good living that makes the world a better place.

There is a HECK of a lot of layered fabrication in the stories we know.  Read the bible verses (gospels side by side) and see what is said.  Anything else is made up or impossible to prove.  And then remember that the gospels were written years later by people with agendas (maybe good intentions though).  Now, our history is even weaker & more sparse.  

Still - does the message of the Kingdom of God - love, equality, compassion, spirit - does it suffer?  does it change?  That is the important question.

In Donkey Kong, Mario is a carpenter but then from Super Mario Bros. on, he is a plumber. However, his purpose is never to build houses or pipes, it's to save a princess from a monster, so maybe his original trade isn't important. The same for Jesus.

Whether he was a carpenter or a wanderer, I think it was to be made obvious that he was of peasant status and that the idea of him being considered a teacher by everyone else was supposed to be amazing, and a sign of his divinity.

 ah!!!  theology & donkey kong!  Love it!

The ancient Canaanite god "Shalem" was symbolized as a donkey, so maybe Donkey Kong isn't that far off the mark.  

Moreover, who kows what esoteric mystical sect Joseph and Jesus may have belonged to? There were several in existence at his time and place, and more in nearby Egypt. The "Journey to Egypt" could be an allusion to an excursion into Egyptian mysticism. Some of these mystical schools were very secretive, and the members of one of them may well have called themselves "carpenters," alluding to building a new "Temple," similar to the way that members of the Society of Freemasons call themselves "masons."

The theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married has been hotly debated ever since Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Baigent, Lincoln & Leigh was written in the early eighties. There were hundreds of follow-up books. Some of the best on the subject are those by Margaret Starbird, published by Bear & Co.

This is wishful thinking directing the information.

Again it appears that Killer gives the killer reads and is the closest to what we know about the historical Jesus and how the community reread him.

One of the advantages is to read what the texts say and then go from there - It is Mark that uses the term Rabbi which Matthew and Luke change to Lord. So the issue of Rabbi may not mean what we mean.

My teachers all were part of the dead scroll studies, q and thomas and Nag Hammadi  so here is what is accepted scholarship.

Jesus was born and raised in a small hamlet of Galilee, Nazareth and we know nothing more.  What we do know his had brothers and sisters - two brothers James and Jude became leaders and yet some of his family were opposed to him ( "who are my brothers and sisters passage gives us picture of this)  He spoke Aramaic and maybe some Greek as this was used.  He know scriptures but not necessary by reading them in Hebrew but from hearing them.

The so called hidden years are an invention - when we actually compare Jesus sayings with what we now  of the centers pf wisdom, of his day,it turns out that no apparent influence can be detected.  He grew up and around the carpenter's shop of his father in Nazareth.  We do not know for sure his father was a carpenter but we know Jesus was a peasant ( blue collar)  He was not born to a virgin.

We have become intrigued his sex life and less with his wisdom. We know nothing about his sex life but it is fun to sensationalize which says more about us then what we know.

To have Jesus married is not supported by any existing first century documentation, which renders it highly improbable.   There were teachers ( cynics) who were not married and the texts like one in Luke suggest a rejection of family relationships in favor of mission.

Mary Magdalene has got a bad rap over the years - she was a leader in the early community - an equal with Peter and James - the connection of Mary with the 'fallen' woman is a misread of the texts - as well the other Mary is the only woman named as offering perfume on him.   I the 6 century the pope made a connection to the prostitution and I like Killer's riff - it shows the inclusive nature of Jesus in a sermon.   A sermon is just that - it can a willful misreading for the sake of purpose.  Of course there was an anti Mary trend in the early church to counter her leadership role - so it was not anti sex in the puritan sense.

Oh yes, Pan, it is wishful thinking. (I wish it were true  )

Jesus probably was a mystic, but this doesn't necessarily mean that he belonged to a secret, mystical school. Mysticism always was and still is an open traditon within the Jewish mainstream. It is far more likely that he belonged to this offcial mystical school rather than a secret one.

Pan

But does it REALLY matter whether Mary was virgin?  God being God could just have easily exchanged Joseph's sperm with his.  Or caused the sperm to explode, cloning.

There is no proof one way or the other.  There is no body to conduct DNA testing on.  There is only the text writen by someone at sometime well after Jesus' death based on hearsay, with a wee bit of Scottish embellishment.

IT

Russ

Serena

There is a verse in the NT that says Jesus is the son of Joseph the carpenter. I also read that there was a town or city four miles or so from Nazareth where both Joseph and Jesus may have worked. Carpentry in those days wasn't just woodworking; it involved stone work, maybe tiles etc.

If Jesus grew up as a normal child in a normal holy Jewish family  I presume Joseph knew the Torah, oral Talmud or whatever, then there may have been lots of visitors,neighbors,learned rabbis sitting around discussing the holy books and Jesus learned from them all. There were Jewish scribes who knew how to read and write.

Jesus may have belonged to a sect such as the Essenes where the men didn't get married. I don't believe he was married because the OT often refers to "the wife of so-and-so". There would have been nothing wrong in saying "the wife of Jesus" if he had a wife. So...he kissed Mary M. on the lips?  I didn't marry all the men I kissed...... Then too the disciples ask why he loves Mary M. more than them? If she was his wife or lover it would have been a pretty stupid question don't you think? Jewish home and family life is/was very important and yet Jesus seems to be wandering around like a lone wolf saying he has no home. Or perhaps Mary M. was ugly so he stayed away! How could she wipe his feet with her hair? I think she simply had long hair and it was falling about his feet.

See John chapter 12  verse 7 about Mary anointing the feet of Jesus. Judas was complaining about the cost and Jesus said: "Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this". Perhaps it was some kind of a ritual meaning she knew he would die?

There was nothing wrong with Jesus talking to the kids or touching them. Many of  the families  would have known each other well and no doubt grew up together. Its the Jewish lifestyle to this day. The Jewish children are especially loved and treasured by the whole community.

Just because Mary took an interest in the wine doesn't mean it was Jesus wedding. Jesus would have been at a wedding every other week. The Jews have big weddings and the women would have  played the  hostess role regardless back then. As I told you its not like Mary was in a stranger's place. She probably talked to the women who were there every day. The women all run around and make a fuss to ensure everything is going  to be O.K.

Jesus wasn't a rabbi. Its just that he had so much biblical  or God knowledge people called him rabbi or it was a term of respect. Its as silly to stereotype the characters in the bible as it is to stereotype people in real life. My daughter was married by a rabbi who was single in his 40's. Nobody wanted him....aw.

Regarding all the books you are reading why are you so sure that what the various modern day authors write is the gospel truth? I read a lot but I take it with a grain of salt. For me  a lot of the NT may be literally true. I sure wouldn't classify it  all  as fiction or a fairy tale.

My lucky 7 cents worth....

Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born to a virgin.  So how do we know that He was not born to a virgin? (other than the fact that we know that babies come from sex.)

Do you really need a better argument than that Serena? Honestly, what theory are you going to trust more? Universally accepted biological concepts or books written decades after the death of Christ that are teeming with mythical embelishment?

Great essay that one by Alastair McDonald!I could even say impecable!Very scholarly and yet easy to read and understand!
I would recommend it to almost everyone!I practically find nothing that can be contested on scientific,historical or even spiritual grounds.I think we should all say:Congratulations!Good for you!Keep up the good work !The world has a whole lot to learn from you!!!!

As Russ says the issue of virgin birth is a side issue - it does not matter.  Yet we must not make it supernatural and this is where it matters -  the myth of the birth is a creation of the early community to make Jesus into to the Christ - it is a faith story and as such it works.  However when it comes to a biological question it is better to see Jesus as a man and thus conceived in the normal way.   He was open to God and God worked through him - that is the importance of the myth of birth - we see, as christians, in Jesus a window into God -

We know he was NOT part of the essene community but part of John the Baptist movement - and went in a different direction.

What is the truth about the gospel of Mary?  Was there a conspiracy to keep the truth from the public?  Our conclusions must be based on a careful examination of the evidence. A study of the Gnostic gospels was an integral part of my Ph.D. studies.

The Da Vinci Code portrays the Christian church as covering up Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene and denying His appointment of Mary as the leader of the church. The problem with this theory is that there is absolutely no evidence for it, not even in the gospel of Mary. The gospel of Mary nowhere states that Jesus appointed Mary as the leader of the Christian church. The gospel of Mary nowhere states that Jesus and Mary were romantically involved.

The gospel of Mary was not written by Mary Magdalene or any other the other Mary’s of the Bible. The Gnostic teachings found in the gospel of Mary date it to the late 2nd century A.D. at the earliest. As a result, there is no validity to its teachings. Similar to the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Philip, and the gospel of Judas, the gospel of Mary is a Gnostic forgery, using the name of a biblical character in an attempt to give validity to heretical teachings. The only value in studying the gospel of Mary is in learning what heresies existed in the early centuries of the Christian church.

retiredrev

Agreed!

There are so many new books, dvd's, ideas,  and movies about the life of Jesus. I haven't seen a lot along these same lines about the Old T.....?  I wonder why not and if it will be in the works for the future? Would the Jews object strongly I wonder although I do believe the movie producers (like Spielberg ...?) are Jewish themselves if I'm correct?

There aren't any movies deeply challenging the beliefs of the world religions in general or I haven't seen them. Christianity seems to be the one that gets beat up on the most.

Hi retiredrev,

You wrote: 

"The gospel of Mary was not written by Mary Magdalene or any other the other Mary’s of the Bible. The Gnostic teachings found in the gospel of Mary date it to the late 2nd century A.D. at the earliest. As a result, there is no validity to its teachings. Similar to the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Philip, and the gospel of Judas, the gospel of Mary is a Gnostic forgery, using the name of a biblical character in an attempt to give validity to heretical teachings. The only value in studying the gospel of Mary is in learning what heresies existed in the early centuries of the Christian church."

I was going to post something very similar to this but hesitated, hoping someone with a higher scholastic pedigree would take a crack at it.  Thanks!

Now could you give us your thumbnail on the rationale behind the documents and writing  that were chosen for the New Testament?  Maybe in your spare time!

God bless,

P.S.  By questioning the gospel of Mary, I am in no way trying to diminish the wonderful and essential work of women in the development and history of the Christian faith.  Nor am I trying to deny the injustices and wrongs paid women by the patriarchal bias of the Christian church up to the mid to late 20th century.  Consider me a Galatians 3:28 kind of guy. 

I heard that the virgin birth thing was partly an example of Christianity absorbing some of the popular myths of the region about the genesis of Gods. Apparantly, virgin birth was one way to talk about this.

The Catholics took it waaaay over the top, in my opinion. Not only does Mary have to be a virgin when she gives birth to Jesus, but she has to be born without sex HERSELF (to St. Joachim and St. Anne). Who knew?

I like Russ's point. Seriously, if this is God we're talking about, there are several ways to preserve the "Godhead" of Jesus without involving a virgin birth. I believe I appreciate the mythos that virginity carries with respect to divinity, but it has always confused the issue for me.

Thanks stardust and retiredrev for posting what you know about the "other" Gospels. I've always heard that the four gospels we have were written a few hundred years after the life of Jesus though. How did they get chosen (if the gospel of Mary, etc. didn't)?

Have just gone back and read the sermon in its entirety, and I found it extremely interesting! I was aware of the influence of Paul on early Christianity, but didn't realize that the history of the Christian religion could have been quite different if Jerusalem had not been defeated and the Christians there essentially wiped out.

And of course, I think I've said before, that Paul's emphasis on celibacy is one of his more nutty teachings. His dislike of women probably was Greek too...we wouldn't want the WOMEN mucking about and tainting the purity of religion with their words, oh no!

What is the point of the myth if it is not true?

Kappa: your quote:

I've always heard that the four gospels we have were written a few hundred years after the life of Jesus though. How did they get chosen (if the gospel of Mary, etc. didn't)?

You are referring to the Canon meaning those books which were chosen to comprise the NT. This is a loaded question as there's so much controversy about it and about the dates too. Everyone says it was decided by the Catholic church at the Council of Nicea in 325. It is said that out of possibly 100's or 1000's of writings the Catholic church chose which ones were truthful and many  that were considered heretical were burned or destroyed like the Gnostic scriptures. However, I've been researching on the net and I can't find support for this belief in 325 at the Council of Nicea. You're as intelligent as I am so you can google for yourself. There were later councils so maybe it did happen at one of them. I haven't checked them.

There is a lot of quite confusing information. Here is one take on it:

Quote:

Canon of the NT

http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html

The 'canon' is a term that refers to the ‘standard,’ or ‘rule.’  The early church fathers, in an effort to preserve the integrity of the ancient writings and the doctrines of the Church, 'canonized' the books that were recognized as 'inspired' by God.  When the writings were ‘canonized,’ this simply means that the church accepted them as the ‘official’ documents that were prescribed by God.  It is important to realize that they were not simply ‘appointed’ as official, but that they had been recognized for some time by the majority of the Church at the time as the inspired word of God and used as such.  The canon simply documents this recognition. 

Quote:

In particular, we have noticed that there is serious confusion regarding the development of the New Testament.

Even most Christian "leaders" have fallen for the misconception that a bunch of people sat around a big table during some grand "council" (such as the Council of Nicaea) called by Rome and picked out which books would go into the Bible.

First of all, the canon of the New Testament was not even remotely on the agenda at the Council of Nicaea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

But that hasn't stopped Dan Brown, the author of the Davinci Code, and many others from trying to promote the claim that that New Testament books were not decided upon until the 4th century during the Roman Catholic councils.

So does this claim have any merit whatsoever?

Well, for starters, Dan Brown is not a religious expert in the least. In fact, Dan Brown admitted in court that his wife did most of the research for the Davinci Code:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/mar/12/books.danbrown

The truth is that the Davinci Code is interesting fiction, but the facts about the New Testament tell us an entirely different story:

Fact #1) Paul's letters were already considered scripture in the mid 1st century. Take a look at how the apostle Peter himself called Paul's letters Scripture:

2 Peter 3:14-16

So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).

First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 50)

2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)

3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)

4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)

5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)

6. Egerton Gospel (?50s)

7. P. Vienna G. 2325 (?50s)

8. P. Oxyrhynchus 1224 (?50s)

9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, ?50s)

10. Sayings Gospel Q (?50s)

11. Miracles Collection (50s)

12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)

13. Cross Gospel (50s)

Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]

14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)

15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)

16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)

17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)

18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)

19. Dialogue Collection (70s)

20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)

21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)

Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]

22. Gospel of Matthew (90)

23. Gospel of Luke (90s)

24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)

25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)

26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)

27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)

28. Shepherd of Hermas (100)

29. Letter of James (100)

30. Gospel of John I (early second century)

31. Letter of Ignatius, To the Ephesians (110)

32. Letter of Ignatius, To the Magnesians (110)

33. Letter of Ignatius, To the Trallians (110)

34. Letter of Ignatius, To the Romans (110)

35. Letter of Ignatius, To the Philadelphians (110)

36. Letter of Ignatius, To the Smyrneans (110)

37. Letter of Ignatius, To Polycarp (110)

38. First Letter of Peter (112)

39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)

40. First Letter of John (115)

Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]

41. Gospel of John II (after 120)

42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)

43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)

44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)

45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)

46. Letter to Titus (after 120)

47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)

48. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, 112 (140)

49. Second Letter of Clement (150)

50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)

51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)

52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)

53.Gospel of Peter (middle second century)

We must keep in mind that we actually have no solid evidence as to just who the gospel writers were . The names were assigned about 100 years after the fact based on legend.

 Modern analytical bible scholars have intensively studied the text of those epistles that are generally attributed to Paul. By closely examining vocabulary, grammar and thought themes they are in agreement that the following epistles are genuinely from Paul. They are 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two more letters, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are in dispute. Hebrews does not reflect Paul’s style and content whatsoever. Ephesians does not reflect the style of Paul but is very much Pauline in content and is thought to have been written by a close follower of Paul’s. The Pastoral letters (Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) are attributed to Paul, but someone writing in Paul’s name wrote them around AD120, some 60 years after Paul’s death. Each letter uses vocabulary Paul is not known to have used; each has a different concept than Paul had of key matters such as faith; and each refers to Paul’s close friends Timothy and Titus in formal rather than friendly terms. They assume that Christian churches are governed by the kind of carefully organized authority structures that developed decades after Paul’s time. They are similar in style and in content and in the issues they raise. Scholars generally believe them to have been written by the same person. In addition two of Paul’s epistles are thought to be composed of what were originally several smaller letters. In particular Philippians is composed of three and 2 Corinthians is composed of six. Chapter 16 of Romans seems to be a later addition but genuinely by Paul.

If Jesus and mary Magdeline were married and had children, what is your seven degrees of separation?

If Jesus had brothers and sisters, wouldn't he have distant relatives on earth now anyhow, even if he was not married, or if he had no children? This would be especially relevant if we believe that he was not, in fact, born to a virgin.

Thanks for your clarification on the origins of the gospels and the rest of what we call the New Testament, stardust and JRT. I appreciate learning all of this, and shall buttress it with some internet sleuthing of my own. I only asked for some scholarly comment here because I'm not certain how to evaluate the authenticity of internet sources on the subject. I guess I could question whether both of you have got it "right", but I trust that you are posting in good faith, with the intention of spreading knowledge.