<side-note> If you’re fascinated by this, you should also look into learning more about Asherah (~Atirat) who, for quite a few scholars, may have been Ywhw’s wife… even in the biblical texts…
Spent an entire term studying the question.
Talk about throwing monkey wrenches into everything… 
</side-note>
Loopydude, to clarify, I too believe in good research and hard evidence and all the good stuff that comes with scientific and scholarly work. My giggles comes from the dogma beyond the hard data. We all know that just because someone writes something, that doesn’t make it true. But many people have a hard time applying this to the Bible. Thus my mirth/contempt.
As pissy as loopydude in this thread, I’ll agree with this:
I’m not at all Christian and I too hate the politizied and shitty scholarship as must as the next guy.
Does Phlosphr like bringing up heated topics he only knows little about? Yes, sometimes I do, but I also like talking about my kitten.
I went to a wonderful symposium last night that made me question some of the things I have read about the man they call Jesus. This isn’t a pissing match or a tongue in cheek, I know more than you do thread. It should be a PROVIDE SOME CITES SUPPORTING YOUR ANSWERS thread about whether or not Jesus may have been married when he was crucified.
Although your post had a facetious tone, some readers might think that “grail” is actually some mysterious word with a secret etymology. It comes from Old French “graal”, Latin “gradalis”, meaning “dish”. In some of the old tales, the grail was a dish used at the last supper, not the chalice we’re all familiar with.
On the other hand, I thought it was an entertaining read with some fun twists, marred but not ruined by clunky exposition and flat characterization. I’m discouraged, however, by people’s reaction to it as serious scholarship instead of pulp fiction. OK, maybe a cup could represent the eternal feminine principal of the cosmos, but couldn’t it also represent a cup? And it should only take anyone with Internet access a few minutes to debunk the Priory of Sion nonsense. Still, I don’t need to believe in the Force to enjoy Star Wars.
Interestingly (or not), the dust jacket of Brown’s book contains the “secret” message “Is there no help for the widow’s son?”, a masonic distress call said to have been the last words of Mormon prophet Joseph Smith. It could be a clue that his next book will deal with Freemasonry, LDS or both.
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/widowson.htm talks about alleged Mormon-Mason links. I won’t vouch for its premises or conclusions.
On the subject of John the Baptist – believe it or not, there is still a Middle Eastern Gnostic sect known as the Mandeans, Sabaeans, or Johannites, who believe John was a true prophet, or even the Messiah (I’m not clear on this point), and reject Jesus as a false teacher. Whether this sect can be lineally traced to John’s original following, I do not know. See http://altreligion.about.com/cs/mandeism/; i-cias.com - Encyclopedia of the Orient http://www.geocities.com/mandaeans/Sabians6.html.
I, too, have always seen a big problem with John 1:8: “He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.” Ditto with Mark 1:7: “And he preached, saying, 'After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.” And Matthew 4:14: “John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I have need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?’” All of these passages strike me as rather desperate counter-propaganda, directed against Johannites contemporary with the early Christians, who could always get up in their faces and argue: “How could Jesus be the Messiah? Everybody knows he went to John to be baptized.”
Typical. Debate goes the wrong way, so demand a bibliography as a way of diffusing an argument. Oh, and throw in an ad hominem (“pissy”) or two for effect. I’m at work. I can’t undig all my textbooks and quote them at the moment. My irritation isn’t with the OP anyway, it’s with the crap that inspired it.
Try this: Read some Marcus Borg (plenty of pointers here: http://www.united.edu/portrait/) with a good translation of the Bible in hand. Go grab a copy of the “Nag Hammadi Library” (Robinson) and “The Gnostic Gospels” (Pagels). Here’s a lovely little article on the subject (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1114/p01s02-ussc.html). There are oodles of new books out, given a recent revival of interest in Jesus and Mary, all ranging from the solid to the sordid.
In their “Hammer and the Cross Trilogy” of alternate-history novels (The Hammer and Cross, One King’s Way, and King and Emperor), Harry Harrison and John Holm have some fun with this. The point-of-divergence is sometime in the 9th Century, when England is being ravaged by Vikings. The hero, Shef, a Saxon thrall or slave, turns out to be a mechanical genius and starts to invent things, most importantly new weapons; he also abandons Christianity and converts to a new Norse religion, “The Way,” essentially the worship of the old Norse gods but more systematized. He also becomes a king, but I won’t spoil the books for you. In the third volume, King and Emperor, Shef and company wind up in a Cathar village in southern France where the people keep up their heretical religion under the noses of the local bishops (this, centuries before Catharism grew to dominate the whole south of France, provoking the Cathar Crusade). It turns out that the town and its religion were founded by Jesus himself, post-crucifixion. What’s more, these Cathars are keeping the “Holy Grail” as one of their own sacred relics – and in this case, the Grail is a ladder (Latin, graduale) which was used to take down Jesus’ (living) body from the cross.
Come to think of it, whether Jesus died on the cross or not, a ladder would indeed have been necessary to take him down – unless the customary practice in such cases was to take an axe or saw and cut down the cross at its base, which would damage the body even further.
I must have heard about these guys, but I don’t recall it. Very interesting.
As for the rest, yeah, I mean, in relative terms, a large amount of space is taken up by various assertions of Jesus’ superiority to John the B. Isn’t it rather self-evident? Aren’t we dwelling on the obvious here? And years (decades!) later, why are Paul and his followers still spending time setting John’s disciples straight? Why does John still have his own disciples at all if he made such a fuss over Jesus? To the well-trained redaction critic, this just screams “tension”. Given that, I don’t even know how original Borg’s hypothesis is, but he’s the first scholar I came across who laid it out.
John must have been a big deal in his day. Maybe even more so than Jesus during the same period. Josephus mentions him, and according to the translations that survive, Josephus records that many Jews considered the defeat of Herod’s army a punishment for the beheading of G-d’s good prophet. I dunno. This passage may have suffered the same mangling and forgery that the “Testimonium Flavianum” did at the hands of Christian apologists (perhaps the Johanine apologists!), but interestingly, you don’t see Josephus claiming Jerusalem fell because, say, Caiaphas sent Jesus away to be crucified. Jesus did prophesize the Temple’s destruction, did he not? Hence, in the eyes of somebody, anyway, The Baptist seems like he was a very important guy all on his own.
It was never in the New Testament. Not even those who wish to claim it was an important work will claim that it is older than the late second century–by which time all the works eventually accepted as Scripture had been written and circulated for fifty or more years.
There seems to be a misunderstanding among some writers that all the Christian writings floated around with equal distribution and importance until a canon was organized in the fourth century. This is not the case. We have compilations of writings by several authors dating to the late second century that provide the basic lists from which the canon would eventually be compiled. (Not every list includes every “canonical” work or excludes every non-canonical work, but the general shape of the canon can be seen within about 150 years after the time of Jesus.) The Gospel of Mary does not appear on any of those lists. (And for those who would like to imagine some great conspiracy that removed the book and then changed the lists, it should be pointed out that we have copies of those lists in multiple translations held by quite a few different Christian groups–several of whom look upon the others as heretical or schismatic. What are the odds that every group decided to put aside all their doctrinal differences and go back and change the lists to agree on that one point?)
By the time the Gospel of Mary was written, the feud between the Gnostic groups and the “mainstream” church was over 100 years old. There is no chance that that work would ever have been accepted as scriptural.
According the bible, Jesus’ marriage is yet to come. Or perhaps you haven’t heard of the Wedding Supper of the Lamb.
It seems to me that that settles the issue. If you believe in the bible and a simple, direct reading of it, then there isn’t a whole lot of scope for argument.
If on the other hand you don’t believe in the bible, then, as ** Ghanima** has already suggested, this debate is little more than a frivolous discussion on the relative merits of various theories on fictional characters.
This is an utterly ridiculous argument. You’re trying to impose an allegorical image from Revelation onto the historical figure of Jesus. That’s nonsense. It doesn’t “settle” anything. Revelation has nothing substantive to say about historical Jesus, it only speaks in highly symbolic terms of “Christ.” Using the wedding symbology from Revelation to try to prove Jesus wasn’t married is just as absurd as using that very same passage to prove that Jesus was a lamb.
The fcats are that the Gospels are silent on Jesus’ marital status and sexuality in general. As a Rabbi and as a thirty year old male, it would have been all but required for him to be married. Such was the custom. It was not seen as virtuous for a grown man not to be married and it would have been unusual enough that someone in the gospels should have commented on it. I see no reason why Jesus couldn’t have been married. the Bible doesn’t actually say that he was celibate, that’s just tradition. So there’s no Biblical reason why he couldn’t have been married.
OTOH, if he was part of an ascetic sect like the Essenes, he may have remained celibate but the Gospels don’t say that.
I thought I might get a bite from you DTC. It is undoubtedly superfluous on this board to mention that one chooses what one believes. I have merely pointed out that Jesus’ marriage is in fact mentioned in the bible. There are those who do take some meaning from that and do not dismiss it into the realm of fantasy.
All I am saying is that a straight and linear rendering of the bible reveals that no marriage was mentioned in his 33 years on earth, he lived and behaved as a single man might, a wedding is mentioned later at some time in the future. Whether one takes this as literal or figurative in some way, the references in Revelation (and other places) are weakened by the suggestion that he was married on earth. There is no historical conjecture that he was married to my knowledge. The natural assumption therefore is that he was not married. For those who are so inclined, this has some theological significance.
To raise such an argument and consequently find little supporting evidence is to create a problem of ones own choosing. And as ** Ghanima** has succintly and humourously suggested it is a rediculous and trivial exercise for those who do not believe the bible anyway. (Forgive me Ghanima if I have extended your delightful argument beyond what was intended.)
[aside]Anyway, Diogenes, as one who gives the bible little credence, what is it to you? What exactly is the fascination with such discussion that we see you here so often in these debates on the veracity and interpretation of the bible?[/aside]
Never mind the Wedding Supper! Tell us about the Wedding Night! With Jesus! And the Lamb! (Oh, I am SO going to Hell . . .)
But as the four Gospels exist, Mary Magdalene does play a major role in the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And it certainly doesn’t explain the exalted status of the Virgin Mary, either. If the early church wanted to “flatten” the status of a woman as you say, they did a poor job of it.
I’m not a Biblical scholar, but. . . We know nothing about the life of Jesus from the time he was 12 to when he began his ministry at age 30. Maybe he was married and widowed in this time. No, nothing in the Gospels alludes to this, but then nothing in the Gospels alludes to anything in that 18 year gap in his life story.
Phlosphr, the clergy in the Roman Catholic Church were able to marry for the first thousand years of the church’s existance. Several of the popes were married. The prohibition of marriage for the Catholic clergy did not come from scripture but from historical developments in the church. More here.
Revelations is not a “simple, direct read.” The bride wore the righteous acts of the saints. Seems pretty likely that this wedding was completely symbolic. I don’t give the Bible, especially the NT much more credence than DtC. That doesn’t mean I haven’t studied it or don’t find it interesting. It is still completely possible to evaluate what was said and come to the most likely conclusion, without believing it is factual. Did the OP specify that only *believer’s * should have an opinion here? 
No I didn’t. I would like perspective from everyone: Christians, atheists, agnostics, scholars, the easter bunny…anyone and everyone.
Diogenes sums it up quite nicely here:
This is the core of what I am asking. The 18 year gap the gospels do not cover - not being a biblical scholar I do not know the reasoning for this - but a good explination from those of you in the know would be nice.
Why don’t the gospels go into the romantic side of Jesus? Was there such a side? As love is central to many a man and woman’s desires…why was that not included in the gospels?
I am explaining to you that no, Jesus’ marriage is not mentioned in the Bible. The “wedding” in Revelation symbolizes the ultimate union of Christ with humanity. it is not a prophesy of some literal future wedding for Jesus and it’s ludicrous to suggest that this passage from a highly stylized apocryphal text has anything to say about the marital status of the historical Jesus. that is not it’s intent and it’s obtuse to insist otherwise.
Which means nothing. It was taken for granted that 30 year old Rabbis were married in 1st century Palestine. it went without saying.
Cite? What do you know about how a "single’ man would have lived in hat time and place? Nothing in the Gospels is at odds with the behavior of a married man. There is no Biblical reason to insist on the celibacy of Jesus.
Nonsense.
How so? How is an allegorical reunion of God with humanity “weakened” if Jesus was married? (and what “other places” are you referring to? Ther are in fact no “other places” or any places which say anything about Jesus’ marital status).
Your knowledge is not very deep. There has been “conjecture” about Jesus being married since at least the third century and probably sooner.
No, the natural assumption for a Rabbi in 1st century Palestine is that he [iwas* married. A single Rabbi would have been quite unusual. Unusual enough to have drawn comment. Jesus apparantly did not. So all things being equal, it’s more probable that he was married than that he wasn’t.
It’s a pretty shaky theology which is founded on arbitrary assumptions unsupported by the Bible.
Why do I have to believe in the literal truth of the Bible to be interested in it? More importantly why do I have to “believe” the Bible in order to correct ignorance about it?
One reason would be that in the traditions of the Middle East and the Mediterranean basin, the notion of the romantic, life-inspiring love was not a tradition. While romantic love was recognized, it was not considered the motivation for great deeds. (Some people actually go overboard and claim that there was not even a concept of romantic love prior to the beginning of the late Medieval period in Europe, but I think they overstate their case (or fail to adequately define their terms).
I think DtC is too firm in his contention that, had Jesus not had a wife that would have been remarked upon. Paul notes that he had not married, but Luke makes no mention of it in the Acts of the Apostles. I suspect that there is some leeway for individuals behaving outside the norm and not having every idiosycracy recorded. However, it is true that marriage has been considred the norm for Jewish men for a very long time extendeing back before the first century.
The following is based on a hypothetical assumption that Jesus was married:
Romantic love as we think of it now was not the ideal in ancient times, as least as it pertained to marriage. Marriages were not about “love” they were about politics and money and property and children. Two people falling in mad love was not considered very important at the time. A “good marriage” had more to do with social status, wealth, dowries and the like. It was nice if the loved each other but not necessary, and love could even be a nuisance if one fell in love with a person not arranged for betrothal.
So if Jesus was married, it’s possible that those who wrote the gospels simply didn’t think his marriage was very important or noteworthy. They were more concerned about his teachings and theological significance than an unimportant (by their standards) wife.
Some would also argue that the role of Mary Magdalene (if she was his wife) was played down to emphasize the authority of the Apostles. That her own authority was diminished for political and sexist reasons. It’s possible.