Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? Were Gospels omitted from New Testament?

Great Debates
1

Last night I attended a Symposium at my school that brought together some very interesting ideas and notions presented by several leading biblical scholars. My wife and I sat with my collegue, a theology professor here at school. He invited us on a whim and I am very happy he did.

The notion that Jesus was married always quickly dismissed itself from my thinking because it went against the grain of what I have read and heard in the past. I have heard the notion expressed several times and in several theistic environments, but until a few weeks ago and especially last night, I must give it some further deliberation.

Recently popular culture has brought about many new books and theories that have many ministries up in arms and yet asking questions all the same. Several discoveries in the past have illuminated the point that Jesus very well may have been married.

Mentioned in the symposium were several ideas about the gospel of Marry being taken out of the new testament sometime in the 5th Century. The problematic idea centralized as being that Mary was as important as Peter, and infact she was an apostle.

Some people in the crowd were taken aback but when placed infront of you, on a LCD screen on the wall, it looks quite clear. Both Jesus and Mary came from Royal Blood, Jesus from the house of David and Mary from the line of Solomon.

Cite
Back to popular culture making these ideas widely known we get to the Da Vinci Code. After reading this and researching the cites it contains my interest was peaked, and last nights symposium made much more interesting.
Also scheduled for release next month is a new book, a detailed analysis of a married Messiah. The book, Hierogamy & the Married Messiah delves into the evidence that Jesus was married. When looked at objectively, there is direct and indirect evidence that Jesus’ union with Mary was very real, and how the implications of that fact will reverberate through the Christian society at large.

My questions lay in this: If Jesus were married, what would the implications be for Christian Society? The Catholic Church in particular, would this change the sanctity of marriage? Would priests be able to get married? Would that idea that sex is not a dirty term - but a meaningful act between people who love each other, ever be accepted?

2

If Christ had been married:

  1. Marriage would still be sacred. Why wouldn’t it?

  2. Priest might be able to marry. It would be hard to justify required celibacy.

  3. Sex is only considered “dirty” when done outside of marriage. I don’t see how that would change.

BTW, most religious scholars believe there is no evidence that Jesus was married. If you’re interested in alternative gospels, look at The Gnostic Gospels.

3

Those books were never part of any Christian canon of Scripture, and were mostly Gnostic texts. Gnosticism and nascent Christianity were diametrically opposed to one another, and were never the same movement. So to add Gnostic texts to Christian ones, and treat them as being co-equal is fairly absurd.

4

The gnostic gospels were mentioned last evening, and I am familiar with that book. Plus I mentioned some of them in my OP. However, :

I would not 100% agree with this statement. I would agree there are many religious scholars of notoriety that do not believe there is evidence Jesus was married. However there are many notable scholars who do believe it.

This Cite explains what some scholars are saying about what Christianity would be like if the gnostic gospels were included in the NT. It’s a good article, even for entertainment.

5

Well there would be whole movements based on the supposition that the divine essence entered into human bloodlines. That would have seriously augmented the idea of the divine right of kings. Genealogy would’ve taken hold of the Christian world in a way that the LDS can only dream of. :slight_smile:

It would be interesting to think what would happen to the concept of human souls. Since it would eventually be impossible to say that someone didn’t share a bloodline with the Christ the idea of “removing” a divine link would cripple war making. At least until someone disagreed.

It might also impact the view of women in society. Since they could equally possess this divine essence, the whole “Eve’s sin” thing might have been wiped away.

6

John was right. A few religious scholars believe that Jesus might have been married but, as John said, most don’t. Those who don’t include Elaine Pagels.

7

There’s no ironclad proof Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, much less that he married somebody.

I’ve read the Gospel of Mary, written about it, debated about it with professional Biblical scholars, and I can tell you I have never encountered anyone who gave it more credence than the three Synoptic Gospels and John. None of the coptic Gnostic texts warrant such consideration, as they were written later than John, and espouse a theology that was well outside of the mainstream, even before Nicea. The Gospel of Thomas deserves some note as it is likely a confabulation of Gnostic mysticism based upon an older document that may contain some of the oldest rendition of certain text found in the canonical Gospels, such as the Beatitudes.

Suffice to say, Mary of Magdala, if she existed at all, was likely as important a member of Jesus’ following when he was alive as any other. She says and does more than many of the 12. Indeed John especially elevates her status as the outspoken witness of the Resurrection, and the only named follower (besides the “beloved disciple”) to stand in public to witness the Crucifixion (the Apostles hid like cowards). Her misidentification as a reformed prostitute is unfortunate enough.

But then the liberal revisionists want to do further violence to the character by promulgating these absurd theories, based on little more than specious and selective speculation about what a rabbi and Messiah is supposed to do with his seed (never mind that Jesus was possibly a former disciple of John the Baptist, who himself was described as an ascetic, maybe an Essene). This is “Mary as Jesus’ Bride” nonsense keeps popping up every so often (G-d knows why), and I wish it would go away, already. Folks have sexualized and fantasized about the poor woman enough; we don’t need more of this pseudohistorical claptrap to appreciate how important she was, and how much credit she deserves. Feminists and the like would do well to show a little scholarly restraint in this regard.

8

This paragraph, as written, doesn’t really make sense… what, exactly, was placed in front of you on an LCD screen?

Also, as I’m sure you’re aware, the house of David and the line of Solomon are the same thing. What were they trying to point out here?

9

Loopydude, what is the basis for this statement? Didn’t John, imprisoned, send disciples to Jesus to ask him if he “were the one”?

10

Oooh, I love this topic! There’s so much nonsense in it but it’s all so much hoo-boy FUN!

To start with, check out Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by BBC journalists Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln (Delacorte Press, 1982). Read about the true circumstances of Jesus’ “death”! His flight with Mary and their resettlement in Gaul! The connection between the bloodline of Jesus and the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks! The confusion in Arthurian legends between the phrases “san greal” or “holy grail” (whatever a “grail” may be) and “sang real” or “royal blood”! The medieval Jewish principality in Septimania in southern France! The Gnostic Cathars and the crusade to wipe them out! The true nature and origin of the Knights Templar! A secret society, the Priory of Sion, keeping the holy-royal bloodline alive into modern times! The mystery of the coded parchments discovered beneath the church of Rennes-le-Chateau by Abbe Berenger Sauniere in 1885! NOON BLUE APPLES!

Read The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland by “Prince Michael of Albany” (a Belgian born with the name Michael Lafosse), who claims the crown of Scotland through his descent from Bonnie Prince Charlie, not to mention Jesus and Mohammed! Check out his “Royal House of Stewart” website at http://www.royalhouseofstewart.org.uk/.

And even wilder and weirder are the books of Prince Michael’s “Historiographer Royal,” Laurence Gardner, such as The Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Genesis of the Grail Kings, Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark, and Realm of the Ring Lords! (Paging all Tolkien fans!) Learn how the Hebrew prophet Moses and the “heretic pharoah” Akhenaten were really the same person, and of earth’s only true royal line, descended from (or gene-engineered by, this part isn’t so clear) the extraterrestrial or extradimensional “Annunaki” who were worshiped as gods in ancient Mesopotamia!

The best source of all for “Grail Blood” stuff, and anything even tangentially related, is the magazine Dagobert’s Revenge. (Dagobert II was a king of the Franks who was murdered under mysterious circumstances.) The website is at www.dagobertsrevenge.com, which is offline today, but I’m sure that’s temporary – it’s been up for years.

The disinformation website also has a good review, with links for further research, at http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id96/pg1/:

11

Oh, and you can also find a good review of the subject, 'Those whacky Christ kids!" at Jonathon Vankin’s conspire.com – http://www.conspire.com/priory.html.

12

Loopydude said:

Then why was the Gospel of Mary taken out of the New Testament? And why is she not included as being one of the desciples? What better way to flaten the status of a woman than to take her out of the Bible as playing an important role in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Further adding to the dominence of a patriarchal society. Was society always dominently patriarchal in your opinion?

13

Mary Magdalene was not one of the named twelve apostles, but clearly she was a follower of Jesus. Most of the Twelve are not described as having huge individual roles. Peter clearly is mentioned as important, and John was there at the cross. Other than that, I don’t see their stories as eclipsing other followers’ (such as Mary and Martha, etc.).

John the Baptist announced Jesus’ coming and knew that He was the Messiah. Jesus was John’s younger cousin but not his disciple.

14

The source of the hypothesis is none other than Marcus Borg, who is arguably the premier scholar on the subject of the historical Jesus. Look him up. I don’t have the cite in front of me (like I said, Google Marcus Borg if you want to know that badly), but a reasonable summary of Jesus’ early adult life has him embarking on a religious quest, leaving Nazareth and heading for the wilderness to become a member of John’s following. It cannot be argued that the traditional beginning of Jesus’ ministry is his Baptism by John, who Jesus himself praises highly. Subsequent to his Baptism, Jesus makes off with some of John’s disciples (John 1:37, etc.). Later, there is probably an open rivalry between Jesus’ disciples and John’s (John 5:33, some interesting stuff in Acts 18 and 19), necessitating Jesus’ (and later, his disciples’) assertion that He, not John, has the authority. Now why would Jesus have to do that, if John had already stated clearly that Jesus was the one for whom the path should be made straight?

It’s certainly a more plausible idea than “Jesus was fucking Mary”.

15

The sentance above should have read “It cannot be argued that the traditional beginning of Jesus’ ministry is NOT his Baptism by John, who Jesus himself praises highly.”

16

Okay, thanks for the pissy but vaguely informative reply. I am familiar with Mr. Borg through his column in BR, but I haven’t read anything else by him. I’ll not venture to question his conclusions without first hearing him out, though John 5:33 does not at first glance seem to support the rivalry thesis.

Lest anyone get any ideas, I’m not the one advocating the idea that, as you say prosaically put it, “Jesus was fucking Mary.”

17

As a born and raised heathen, I am really having a giggle over this thread. It’s like listening to people argue over the intricacies of the relationships on their favorite soap:

A; “First Jesus went to Gaul, then he met Mary and they had sex…”
B: “No, they didn’t!”
A: “Yes they did, they were very close and the screen panned up to the romantic view, and you just knew…”
B: “If Mary was so important, she would have had more screen time.”
A: “That was an attempt on the part of the editors to de-emphasize the role that Mary had in the original script!”

Whatever, you kooky Christers.

18

The Gospel of Mary was never in the New Testament. It was not considered for canonization because it was filled with Gnostic heresy. That was reason enough without the specious “patriarchalism” canard.

There is evidence of scriptural tension in what little has been preserved of Mary’s story, and certainly her misidentity with the reformed harlot is evidence enough of traditional tension. Those point to the ill effects of patriarchalism, to be sure, but whatever violence the textual sources suffered to downplay her role (if that occurred) was likely done before the canon was settled upon. Certainly, the love shown to Mary in the Gospels of Mary and Thomas (Mary kisses Jesus on the lips, in Thomas, I believe) would be a bone of serious contention, but the big, big issue was the Gnostic concept of Jesus’ spiritual nature, and the dualistic view of G-d in general. Forget about the rest; with those problems, the Gnostic “gospels” were never in the running. All that was left to be done with them when the canon was debated was to have them, and their believers, stamped out. Not even Arius was that far out.

19

I’m not at all a Christian. However, I hate politcized and shitty scholarship as much as the next guy.

20

Hmmmm, the Dan Brown books say that Jesus and Mary M were married but they also include an all-powerful Illuminati and hypersonic aircraft owned by those Swiss gnomes at CERN. Also in common with the other books and articles linked on this page is writing so appalling I could not finish the books, and crap like this is right up my alley. The writing is SO bad it made me think even I could write a bestseller, and you folks know how improbable that is.

My wife managed to finish both and launched into one of her rabidly anti-LDS rants, claiming they believe that Jesus was married because they cannot imagine a righteous man who is not and that, because Brown wrote about it, he must also be a Mormon. “It’s in their book–read it!” I tried, but as most who try reading the Book of Mormon find, it’s not an easy read and as I am planning neither a conversion nor a pogrom I patted her on the head and said, “Whatever you say, you prejudiced lunatic. Just quit poisoning our children’s minds against their Mormon friends.” But she did call Orson Scott Card’s Mormonism correctly based on one of his books, so even crazy people can be right sometimes.

“The original book spawned several television documentaries and brought contemporary occult subcultures into the mainstream (even influencing conspiracy theorists like Robert Anton Wilson)…” Don’t the people who take Wilson seriously hear how far his tongue is stuck in his cheek? Doesn’t the fact that he is a talented writer tell them there is no way he could believe that crap? (Is there one–ONE–conspiracy writer who can write a coherent, linear sentence?)