A Papyrus Fragment Rekindles Interest In The Question

Was Jesus Married?

Ronnie Bray Considers the Evidence Before Discovery Of The Papyrus 1995 - 2012

NB: The following was written in response to Nathan Taylors, "A Married Messiah?" by Ronnie Bray, Director of the British Institute of Mormon Studies and takes a quite different view of the same subject. Taylors article, to which this is a response, insisted that Jesus was married.

WAS JESUS MARRIED?

A consideration of the evidence By Ronnie Bray Was Jesus married? An interesting question that has never been raised in the arena of scholarly Christology. Nevertheless, it raises interest by the very act of asking the question. There are three main schools of thought about the question: those who believe that he was not and could not have been. These are in the main from the mainstream of Christian scholarship. For them, the question is absurd. The absurdity may be seen as arising from the perspective that celibacy is the superior way of life, required by the Roman Church for several centuries. And while the Protestant churches have cast off many of the trappings of Catholicism in their brief history, they have never entirely divested themselves of Catholic attitudes to sexuality, especially sexuality and spirituality and the bearing each has upon the other. The second group are those who do not know whether he was or not. They are, probably quire rightly, confused by the issues, and who can fail to be confused? The issues are far from clear.

The final group is that which is in no doubt that Jesus was married. This is an interesting group because of its composition. It is not found in the mainstream of Christianity. In fact, many from this group do not belong to Christianity at all, but are what may be described as critics of Christianity (and most other religions), whose main purpose is to discomfort Christians by expressing volubly the unacceptable idea that Jesus was married and thereby enjoyed normal intimate relations with a woman. Some Jewish scholars present this perspective simply from the point of view that Jesus was a Jewish man although admittedly an extraordinary one. To this group also belong some early Latter-day Saint theologians and, it should be said, some later ones. Their purpose is dictated by the need to demonstrate that Jesus must have been married. This theological necessity is determined by the Latter-day Saint understanding of exaltation and Godhood. These three schools of thought are engaged in some sort of a debate without communicating with one another. Their positions are firmly entrenched and they do not yield. But, what evidence is there for these discrete positions? Tatian, a Gnostic, and Basilides, an Alexandrian theologian with Gnostic tendencies, are said by some, such as Donovan Joyce, in his book, The Jesus Scroll [Sphere Books Ltd. London, 1973, p. 86] to have been the founders of the idea that Jesus was not married. What, then, is the evidence for Jesus having been married or not married? Is there any evidence? It has to be admitted that the most often proposed argument in favour his having married is based on arguments from silence. For obvious reasons, these are

never satisfactory; one has to jump to too many conclusions to accept them with any degree of enthusiasm. Jesus the Jew Whilst the Judaic traditions required a father to ensure that his sons were circumcised, redeemed, acquire an education, a trade, and a wife, it is by no means certain that all Jewish boys were the beneficiaries of all these. Indeed, some might have none at all. Not all the Bnei Yisrael were deeply religious at the Meridian of Time, any more than the adherents or followers of any religion are. Sanders holds that Paul was probably a zealot who had no time for marriage.(See, EP Sanders, Paul OUP, 1981, Oxford) It could be argued that Jesus, like Saint Paul, had a specific and individual mission to perform, and that his mission precluded his marrying during mortality. That is, of course, highly speculative, and speculation is the enemy of scholarship that often leads us wide of the truth. One person, known to me only as Debbie22, gave this answer to the question of whether Paul; was married:
The Bible never says whether Paul was married or not. Some think that he was at one time based on what he said in 1 Corinthians 9:5, "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" If Paul was married at one time, his wife likely passed away considering he never mentions her in any of his writings. Paul declared that he had the gift of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7. [ 2012 Debbie22]

Some believe that the Apostle Paul was married because history tells us that a member of the Sanhedrin was required to be married. However, Paul never stated that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. He definitely seemed to be on the path, "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (Galatians 1:14). However, Paul might not have advanced that far before He converted to Christ. So, was the Apostle Paul married? It is possible that he was at one time, but again, the Bible does not specifically say.

Recognising that it was not unusual for Jewish boys to have their education and religious and social duties overlooked by parents, together with the recognition that Jesus was by no means ordinary and that his unusual destiny was known to at least one of his parents, and probably to both according to the scriptural records, there is little room to feel sure that his life would follow the normative course for other boys of his generation. The Torah lays duties upon fathers to perform certain things for their sons. About Jesus, we can only be sure about his circumcision, although his religious education does not appear to have been neglected, as the interesting vignette of the twelveyear old discoursing with the doctors in the Temple reveals. If Jesus was married, why is there no reference to his wife or children? References to his family are limited to his mother and his brothers and sisters, although these have been carefully interpreted by Roman Catholics to be children of the reticent Joseph by a previous marriage. This is a legal fiction. Theological necessity produces many such fictions on the grounds that "It has to be because it must be!"

Similarly, if we have to have Jesus married we will read the evidence, such as it is, to reach that conclusion. This can not be done except at the cost of truth, so we need to be circumspect and honest. Orson Hyde taught that Jesus was married, and names Mary and Martha as having been his wives.(Journal of Discourses, volume 2, 10 June 1854) The reasoning behind his opinions is the same as that of Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln in their book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail Dell Books, who aim to embarrass Christians. What is the weight of their evidence? Are they using sound judgement or creating an image out of smoke? Both Hyde and Baigent, et al, claim that the wedding feat at Cana was one of Jesus marriages. As to details of his other alleged marriages they are all equally silent. Their reasons for Jesus being the bridegroom at Cana are slight and unsure. They point out that Jesus was summoned to the wedding, as a bridegroom would have been. However, wedding guests were also summoned or invited to the feast, as detailed in the parable of the wedding guests. Therefore, this construction is less than convincing. To support their viewpoint it is pointed out that Jesus mother asked him to supply the wine. Since the bridegroom had the responsibility to supply the wine, it is argued that the groom must indeed have been Jesus. However, it seems from the narrative that Mary approached her son in extremis, after the initial supply of wine supplied by the real bridegroom had been used up.

Although not clearly expressed in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, she was clearly asking him to use his supranatural power to provide further wine, and the story is included by John as one of the Seven Signs od the Divinity of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus understood the request not as a bridegroom who had failed to asses the number of guests expected at his wedding an unlikely event but as one who had been called upon to perform, not merely a miracle, but to take the opportunity to give one of the essential signs of his absolute Divinity. The synopticists are significantly silent about this event. If it had been the marriage of Jesus is it likely that it would have failed to have been mentioned, at least By Matthew who is at pains to demonstrate the Jewishness of Jesus as the promised mashiach? Some scholars confine Jesus to marrying that Mary, who is identified by the Roman Church as being the penitent woman, who appears to be a conflation of Mary of Bethany and the Magdalene. There is no textual or historical reason to confuse the women except, perhaps, to manufacture a type of woman who, whilst inferior to Mary the Virgin mother of Christ, is identifiable with all sinful women and apart from the "Blessed Virgin Mary" there are, in Roman theology, only sinful women. There are no reasons apart from doctrinal necessity that indicates anything other than that Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were other than upright and righteous women. Neither is there anything to suggest that Mary of Bethany was the husband of Jesus.

It is not insignificant that those that insist Jesus was married appeal to the Fourth Gospel, the only one in which the raising of Lazarus is told. Much is made of the fact that Mary remained in the house until she was called by Jesus through the voice of Martha. We do not know enough of the circumstances to determine why Mary remained in the house. It is true that a wife would not run out of the house to greet her husband until he bade her do so. However, it is equally certain that unless Mary was aware that Jesus was outside she would remain where she was unless she had good reason to do otherwise. We must remember that when we read the Gospels we are not reading biography. Although much of the content of the Fourth Gospel is historically accurate, other parts may not be so accurate as to be taken as verbatim accounts of events. The reason being that John is less concerned with what happened, than he is with the meaning of what happened. Therefore, who stayed where is of small importance and is unreliable in forming an opinion as to the marital state of either Jesus or Mary. Did she call him Lord? If she did, the word has a wide semantic range. In Aramaic, the language of Jesus and Mary, it is baal, meaning, lord, master, ruler, employer, or husband, or anything in between. The relationship between Jesus and the little family at Bethany was obviously such that they knew his mission and destiny, so that calling him master was not unusual or inappropriate, even for those to whom he was not married. Men also called him master, and it is not proposed that he was married to any that referred to him by that title.

Phipps [cant find any reference to this writer ] argument from silence is flimsy and easy to controvert. He writes as one who believes the Gospels to be biographical which they patently are not. Each of the Gospels was written for a particular purpose, the material in them being handled towards specific ends. This does not detract from their value, rather it ensures that readers understand the various points of view of the believing communities. The title, rabbi, meant teacher. In the time of Jesus mortal ministry Judaism proper was not yet formed What was present is proto-Judaism, an intermediate stage of development that bridged the chasm, between ancient temple worship and Diasporic Jews that had no Temples. The great age of rabbinism had not dawned, although it was under way. Reading back present forms into ancient ones is liable to lead us further from the truth rather than toward it. Appeal to the authority of Celsus is self-defeating. This pagan philosopher mounted a bitter attack on Christianity and would be likely to say anything that put Jesus in a bad light, such as the kissing of a woman on the lips, whether married to her or not. His True Discourse (c. 178) is the earliest known literary wallop at Christianity, and we know it only through fragments and by references to it in Origens response. To Celsus, the doctrines of Incarnation and Crucifixion were repugnant. He was the first anti-Mormon author! [Sadly, not the last]. The Gospel of Phillip is part of that literature of which there is a mountain known as the pseudepigrapha, meaning writings claiming to have been written by famous people, but which are known to be or are suspected of being spurious. Although useful

in demonstrating what some Christians thought and believed, as an index to the mainstream of early Christian thought it is unreliable. Its main use is to show what later Christians, and sometimes non-Christians or heretics, thought the Church ought to teach. Writings in the name of some famous figure from the past were more likely to be accepted as authoritative by believers. You need to be circumspect when appealing to them for they are not trustworthy. Likewise when relying on tombstone inscription to determine who was buried in them or what the inscriptions really mean. Martha and Jesus were common enough names and we need not imagine that because the location seems right, that these inscription refer to characters from the pages of scripture. Dr Udleys assertion that Simeon ben Jesus [Simeon the son of Jesus] was Bishop of Jerusalem until his death in AD 106 beggars belief. One would expect that a Master of Theology would be aware that Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 by the Roman Army under General Sylvius, and that the Jews in Jerusalem were either slaughtered or taken into slavery, the city ploughed up, and that was the end of the Jerusalem branch of the Church of Christ. It disappeared from the stage of history. One is led to suspect the Doctors credentials! [Addressed to Nathan Taylor] Well, thats a pretty good hatchet job on your essay! It still does not address the question. Of whether Jesus was married. The answer to that question is, "I dont know!" I do know that we should be. Section 131 of the Doctrine and Covenants makes that abundantly clear, and we have no excuse for non-compliance once we are aware of the doctrine.

I know that Jesus will have to become married if he is not already. Could he have been married before he came to earth through the Incarnation? "And the Word was God." The scriptures are silent, and the inferences we may draw may give us comfort, but may not be reliable. The indices of his marital status are too slight to be safe. The argument from silence is never satisfactory. Silence can be understood in so many ways and contrarily by all sides. I hope that you find my response of interest and that it will spur you to a more profound study of a fascinating subject. I thank you for this opportunity to respond. It was the kick from behind that I needed to get writing again. I have been static too long. Feeling sorry for myself, I shouldnt wonder. Thank you for providing the impetus to open a few books and brush away the cobwebs that have bound up my grey matter for far too long. Ronnie