Guest editorial by Dr. Tony Nugent, symbologist and religion professor.
A 4th Century papyrus fragment, now being called The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife, has reignited the controversy over whether Jesus was or was not married. While many scholars believe the fragment authentic, and are awaiting further tests, the Vatican is calling it an “inept forgery,” and FOX newsman Shepard Smith comments that “Christian tradition obviously holds that Jesus never got married. I mean, whoever heard of Mr. and Mrs. Jesus?”
Karen L. King, Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School, presented the fragment at the September 18 meeting of the 10th International Congress of Coptic Studies in Rome. According to King, this fragment is a 4th Century Coptic work which was probably originally written in Greek in the 2nd Century. The text has eight partially legible lines, so that it reads:
1…not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe…2 The disciples said to Jesus, 3…deny. Mary is worthy of it…4…Jesus said to them, “My wife…5…she will be able to be my disciple…6…Let wicked people swell up…7…As for me, I dwell with her in order to…8…an image.
It is interesting to consider this tantalizing fragment in the light of passages in two other 2nd Century Coptic Gnostic Gospels——The Gospel of Mary and The Gospel of Philip, both of which refer to an intimate relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. In The Gospel of Mary, Mary Magdalene instructs the disciples concerning teachings which Jesus had revealed to her but not to them. Peter and Andrew say that they do not believe that Jesus really taught these things, but Levi says, “Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.” In The Gospel of Philip we find a related text which says, “The companion (koinônos) of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on the [mouth].” (Scholarly reconstructions of the text are bracketed.)
Considering these three texts together, we could conclude that in certain Gnostic circles of 2nd Century Christianity it was believed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, enjoying a relationship which was both physically and spiritually intimate. But if it really were the case that they were married, wouldn’t there be some evidence of this in the earliest Christian writings—those of the New Testament?
Nowhere do any of the New Testament writings say whether Jesus was married or single. At least not explicitly. In fact, they say nothing about Jesus between the ages of twelve and thirty. These eighteen “missing years” would have been the very time of life for a young Jewish man to get married and start obeying God’s commandment to “be fruitful and multiply.” In fact, marriage and offspring were expected. But if Jesus were married, what might be the reason for not disclosing it?
Early Christianity, like other spiritual movements in the Greco-Roman world, was a “mystery religion.” The Christian community required its inner circle to keep certain matters concealed and not reveal them to the uninitiated. This concealment begins with Jesus himself, who tells his disciples to keep to themselves what they know about his miracles and about him being the Messiah, the so-called “messianic secret.” He says to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of heaven, but for those outside everything comes in parables” (Mark 4:11). The fact that Jesus was married, and the identity of his wife as Mary Magdalene, may be secrets of early Christianity. But they may be secrets which biblical and other early Christian texts actually disclose in a variety of parabolic, allegorical, and cryptic ways.
Take the Gospel of John. Chapter 2 tells a story about Jesus turning water into wine at a wedding in the village of Cana. It is the first miraculous “sign” he performs. Though the text states that Jesus and his mother are guests at the wedding, they instead behave like the bridegroom and the bridegroom’s mother. In a 1st century Jewish wedding the groom’s family would host the wedding festivities. In the story, when the wedding party runs out of wine, the mother of Jesus, as would be her role if this were her son’s wedding, orders the servants to do whatever he tells them to do. He in turn orders them to fill six large jars with water. After tasting some of the water-turned-to-wine the wedding steward remarks that the “bridegroom” has kept the best wine until last.
The Gospel of John also provides a clue that the bride at this wedding is Mary Magdalene. This gospel is structured in a chiastic, or palindromic, form – ABCBA. As part of this structure, the text refers just twice to something that happens “on the third day.” One reference is in the first verse of chapter 2, “On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee…” The other reference is the first verse of chapter 20, the next to the last chapter of the gospel. The chapter begins, “Early on the first day of the week…,” which would be the third day after Jesus’ crucifixion, when he foretold that he would be resurrected. Then it reports that Mary Magdalene, alone among the followers of Jesus, comes to the tomb. After discovering it to be empty she encounters the resurrected Jesus in the garden. In other words, the wedding at Cana near the beginning of the Gospel is rhythmically paired with Mary’s encounter with Jesus near the end of the Gospel. The author may be cryptically communicating that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that it is as his grieving spouse that she comes and weeps at his tomb.
The wedding theme, with its bride and bridegroom, permeates early Christian literature. Jesus tells a number of wedding parables, and in two of them he refers to himself as a “bridegroom.” The Book of Revelation tells us about the “marriage supper” of the “Lamb” (who is Christ) and his “Bride.” In its apocalyptic view the celebration of this messianic banquet at the end of the future millennial reign of Christ will take the form of his wedding to the church, imagined as the “New Jerusalem.” And the Gospel of Philip tells us that the holiest of all the sacraments instituted by Jesus is the “mystery” of bride and bridegroom in the “bridal chamber.”
The early Christian wedding motif has ancient Near Eastern and East Mediterranean roots — the hieros gamos (sacred marriage) ritual, myths of the Sumerian goddess Inanna and her beloved husband Dumuzi, and Greek Dionysian mysteries. The foundational text for this theme in biblical literature is the Song of Solomon (also known as the Song of Songs) in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The Song of Solomon begins with the bride saying, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!” The poetry gets steamier after this, with the male lover “thrusting his hand (yad, a euphemism in Hebrew) into her opening,” and we are immersed in images of wine and lovemaking in a luscious garden. Although the erotic wedding poetry of this text is allegorized and spiritualized in Jewish and Christian interpretations, it was originally understood as being beautifully true on the physical, sexual plane as well.
The Gospel of John, by having Jesus turn water into wine at his own wedding with Mary Magdalene, and then having their final encounter take place in a garden, is resurrecting ancient imagery from the Song of Solomon. Cryptically, as would be required when writing about a top-secret early Christian mystery, the Gospel appears to reveal that Jesus and Mary are lovers. Perhaps, as the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife might imply, the secret includes the knowledge that they were married.
Here we may be getting at the reason why orthodox and evangelical Christians respond so defensively when novels and films like The Da Vinci Code or The Last Temptation of Christ depict Jesus as married, or wishing he were. For centuries the church has cultivated the image of a neutered Jesus, with no human father and a virgin mother. Likewise the medieval church, without any biblical basis, cultivated the image of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. We tend to imagine holy beings as without genitalia or sexual impulses, and sexual beings as libertines or prostitutes. For those who ascribe to the view of St. Paul, marriage is only for those who cannot control their passions, and the church has regarded the only purpose of sex as being procreational. When Westerners encounter erotic images in Hindu temples of the god Siva they often regard them as pornographic.
Thus the wondrous beauty, delight, and spiritual depth of romantic sexual union are denied. As we have lost the sexual dimension of spirituality, we have also lost the spiritual dimension of sexuality. Reading texts that depict Jesus as sexually active and married appeals to our sense of something sacred that has been lost and is being rediscovered and reclaimed.
Dr. Tony Nugent is an ordained minister and retired professor of religion in Seattle, Washington
But, what about the Gospel of Brother Barsenuphrius from the 15th century? The one written November 16th, 1491 – from 2.33 – 5:22 in the afternoon, to be put a fine point on it.
No such thing as too many Gospels.
A pack of lies . Does any church subscribe to Mrs. ,and Mr . Jesus ?
My next article deals with the reaction of believers to such musings — and your comment illustrates my point beautifully. Thank you.
Valerie Tarico, I thank God that you have written such an article to be read and I would be happy share my thoughts about it.
First, let me start my emphasizing that Jesus started his ministry when he was thirty years just as you have said. “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,” Luke 3:23 NIV as you say that, he supposedly might have married Mary Magdalene between the age of twelve and thirty before ministry. Which I was to raise your appetite for more work, When was the first encountered of Jesus and Mary? Was this before he started his ministry or within the time of his ministry? Your answer should lead us to know that God is open to us (His believers) and that is why the bible depicts both the wrong and good events/deeds of the men involved in the bible.
I like this statement from your article “But if Jesus were married, what might be the reason for not disclosing it?” Paul who wrote ¾ the New Testament talks about his celibate life and that of other apostles and I do not think he would have avoided writing about Jesus if he was married because in his writings he points us to the life of Jesus. “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?” 1Corithians 9:5
What would make Paul to quote the Lord’s brothers and avoid the Lord if he was married?
God does not intend to paint a good and enticing picture of who He is and conceal His bad side if He ever has but He reveals Himself to us just as He is. The same happens with Jesus’s life while he was here on earth.
The secrets that you wrote about quoting Mark 4:11 have been revealed (made plain) and that Jesus talks of immediately after the very statement, which you should know as a scholar of divinity. Deuteronomy 29:29 talks of the secrets that belong to God and the revealed things to us and our children; of which that was then but now we have the Spirit of God in us as believers of Jesus Christ. He reveals everything about Jesus from the God, the Father. 1 Corinthians 2:9-11, John 14:26, 16:13. What secrets are there in the heart of God that you need to know that you think is are kept away from you?
There are no longer secrets rather facts and words of faith that you should believe then you will be saved. John 20:30.
Other things that you are raising to justify that Jesus was married are vague and just need an open-mind if not common sense to understand…e.g Jesus attendance in the wedding at Cana.
Thanks and may the Lord Jesus reveal himself to you.
:). The scrap of papyrus in no way indicates that the historical Jesus had a wife (if there was a historical Jesus). If authentic, it merely suggests that some subset of early Christians construed him that way. A “gospel” was simply a religious literary genre, one that told a story of mythic importance to some group of people. I wonder what Brother Barsenuphrius had on his mind on that fine afternoon. ;)
And that is the real irony in the vehement responses people are having to the revelation of this text because all that they really had to say was, “Well, yes, but this is clearly a Gnostic text, and there is all sorts of crazy stuff that they believed in but were wrong about which is why they are not around today. Thus, although this text is interesting from a historical standpoint, it does not affect Christian belief.” Instead, people are reacting incredibly defensively to a *Gnostic* gospel, which almost suggests that they might be feeling very insecure about themselves and their believes.
Yes, even assuming the papyrus is authentic, it doesn’t really tell us anything about the historical Jesus — assuming there was one. It just suggests that some early variant of Christianity taught that Jesus was married.
Published the ‘Secunda Recensio’ of my Palaeographical Report of September 18, 2012 about Coptic Papyrus of the alleged “Gospel of Mary, wife of Jesus”. More than one score of objections and arguments based on evidences. Evidence about ethnic origin-cultural of the author of the Papyrus…
I have a different take on this article, being a survivor of a notorious evangelical Christian cult, the Children of God, now known as The Family International. The conclusion to this article, while making valid points, does not consider the thousands of deviant Christian sects, some of which are ‘rediscovering’ and ‘reclaiming’ sexuality as a form of religious control over followers.
David Berg, the founder of that notoriously secretive and abusive cult, was a sexual deviant who sexually abused two of his daughters, two of his granddaughters, and unleashed sexual doctrines on his followers that allowed and encouraged almost all sexual activity except male homosexuality. He is also the demented mind behind Flirty Fishing, which essentially was religious prostitution. The foundational sexual doctrine of the group was One Wife. Here’s a brief description of that in an article I wrote on the group in Cultic Studies Review (see: http://perry-bulwer.blogspot.ca/p/response-to-james-d-chancellors-life-in.html)
[William Sims] Bainbridge is even more mistaken when he declares that The Family “institutionalized nuclear family.” Certainly, the opposite is true. One of the most fundamental tenets of The Family’s theology is their One Wife doctrine based on a publication of that name, which remains required priority reading for new members: 16
“But God’s in the business of breaking up little selfish private worldly families to make of their yielded broken pieces a larger unit—one Family! He’s in the business of destroying the relationships of many wives in order to make them One Wife—God’s Wife—The Bride of Christ. God is not averse to breaking up selfish little families for His glory, to make of the pieces a much larger unselfish unit—the Whole Family—the entire Bride—the One Wife instead of many wives!17 One Wife is one of The Family’s foundational doctrines, out of which grew even more bizarre and controversial sexual doctrines, some of which are discussed later in this article. Far from institutionalizing the nuclear family, The Family’s leadership has never hesitated to separate husbands and wives or manipulate the parent-child relationship. If The Family places any importance at all in the nuclear family, it is only within the following context, described by Wendell W. Watters, M.D.:
…[S]o powerful is the family in human society that many revolutionary political movements have, in their initial stages, attempted to destroy its power to maintain the status quo, by appealing directly to children over the heads of their parents.
The present-day religious cults are noted for creating rifts between parents and their adolescent children. However, once a movement achieves its revolutionary goals, as in the case of Christianity and communism, it reverses this position and attempts once more to use the family as an ally in maintaining and extending its power. 18
That group published hundreds of documents on their sexual doctrines. The following two links show some of those documents and related art work. Warning: may be offensive to some.
I believe it was James Gardner (spelling of last name uncertain) who said/wrote that the wedding at Cana was Jesus’ wedding.
You’re welcome and I looked it up and I did spell his last name right: Dr. James Gardner, author of ‘Jesus Who? Myth versus Reality in the search for the Historical Jesus’ and editor of http://www.jesuspolice.com/
Sorry, for some reason that link isn’t working and I don’t see an edit button on my post either.
This one for his book does work though: http://www.amazon.com/JESUS-Reality-Search-Historical-Jesus/dp/1591139554
Pingback: Was Jesus Married? A Religion Scholar Decodes the Clues « Guyanese Online
Pingback: Was Jesus Married? A Religion Scholar Decodes the Clues | Daily Queer News
Haha. You know that Symbologist isn’t a real profession right? And this pseudo-history is exactly the kind of thing you’d expect from someone silly enough to have pretended they’re part of a profession made up in a Dan Brown book.
Haha., Lol., and all that attitude back at you. You’re wrong. Dan Brown didn’t make it up. For example: http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/davinci/robertlangdon/
Please don’t forget that the Council of Nicea in 353 a.d. decided exactly what books to place in the bible and disregarded many others…..
Jesus was a married man…..it fits with the times he lived in……he also came from a wealthy family and was descended from David….who was a king……
Jesus the nazarene was no more divine than the rest of us……instead the early church borrowed heavily from other pre existing “religions” e.g. mithraism to make itself more appealing to the roman culture paul invested in….
Religion is no more than a “God management” system……I have no religion…..I have faith in God.
If he was married or not that is of no importance.His teaching is what matters.He told us to do what Rabbis are telling us to do but not to do what they are doing .Why ?Because they were good teachers of the law which they never practiced.I
Again, a “best answer” and a “bottom line” comment to the whole pointless controversy. It comes down to a question of choice: whether to believe or not, and if one chooses to believe in Jesus then one has to live in obedience to the gospel teachings. A good discussion, probably not for this blog, would be whether it is even possible for anyone to be a true disciple of Christ based on the teachings of the gospels. I think a lot of people find themselves between a rock and a hard place; between the Jesus of the gospels and their fear of losing their guaranteed salvation a la Paul of Tarsus. The Church exists because the Jesus of the gospels does not; if he did there’d be no Church. And it’s the Church, not the gospel Jesus, that hands out cheap grace and “free” (but for a membership fee) salvation, so it’s easy to guess where the sheeple will always congregate!
“The Jesus?” Jesus is The Son of God. A righteous man! He’s NOT object. Its disrespectful to treat God’s Son that way. The Man who died for your sins something he paid for that you or anyone else could not owe. Without truly and believing in Jesus Christ there is no reconciliation with God whatsoever!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most likely yes.