Biblical: Was Jesus a virgin?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Charger

Bear in mind, if Jesus was without sin, then he also was never guilty of lust. He could have been so focused on teaching that he trained his mind never to “go there.” That being the case, he wouldn’t have much desire to marry.

But surely marriage isn’t solely about sex - there’s friendship, support, and most importantly love involved, and Jesus (IHE) certainly believed in and celebrated such things. Indeed, that Jesus is capable of love is the very core of his being - I don’t think it’s much of a stretch from “he loved all people” to “he loved one woman, too”.

[DrDeth]

@blace81

The apostles often referred to Jesus as “rabbi” In accordance with Jewish custom, if Jesus was indeed a rabbi, he would have be married.
Interestingly, the few (3) Jewish scholars that I have spoken to concerning the issue all believe that Jesus was indeed an actual rabbi.

Indeed, it became Tradition for Rabbis to be married. But, for most purposes, Rabbis as an organized group * did not appear until after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, some 3 decades after Jesus died. True, many consider Shammai and Hillel (more or less contempories of Jesus; and in fact, many think that Jesus used many of Hillel’s teachings, and could be considered to be a student of Hillel) to be amoung the “first Rabbis”. If Cmkeller says there were Rabbinical schools/Yeshivas then, I accept what he says. But still, the Preisthood then was still active, powerful and ran the faith- not the Rabbis. And, in any case, what became a tradition many centuries later can’t be used to show that Jesus “should have been married”.

I also doubt if Jesus was a formally “ordained” Rabbi (yes, I know Rabbis aren’t really “ordained”, but the principle of “smitcha” is similar). However, many were still ‘teachers’ even though not “ordained”. Even today, I have heard those who are not actual Rabbis but still learned in the Law called “reb”, which is short for “rabbi”. Thus, one could call Cmkeller “reb” even though he is not a Rabbi. Calling Jesus “rabbi” would be a term of respect.

• “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a rephrasing of a famous quote by Hillel.

It was common then for most men (Rabbi or not) to be married, but not amoung Hermits, the Essenes and such. It does not seem that Jesus was married during the time of His teaching- that period covered by the Gospels. However, it is certainly not impossible for Jesus to be a widower. Many men married early, and many women died in childbirth. If Jesus had been married 10 years before His Ministry, and His wife died soon after, there would be no need to mention it in the Gospels, which are quite silent about the early years of Jesus’s manhood. And, even modern Rabbis can remain Widowers, AFAIK.

Thus, I doubt if Jesus was a virgin. OTOH, he could well have been celibate during the period of His Ministry. Some of His teachings are similar to those of the Essenes, and thus celibacy would not have been remarkable. The Gospels are silent on this.

Note- I have no doubt at all that Jesus had Brothers.

[Skammer]

As others have said, none of the canonical Gospels explicitly indicate that Jesus was never married or romantically involved. However, one would think that a detail like that would be mentioned at some point, especially when the other members of his family are referred to. Jesus seemed to have priorities other than having a wife and family. In fact, he was essentially homeless, which doesn’t exactly attract the chicks.

Assuming that Jesus was not married, it is also fair to assume that he was a virgin. In the Jewish culture of which he and his disciples were a part, sex was viewed as appropriate only between a man and his wife. That’s why prostitues were so looked down upon.

[Tomcat]

@chrisk

Umm… aren’t brothers, (or half-brothers at any rate) mentioned in one of the gospels?? They come and find Jesus when he’s in Nazareth speaking with some of his early disciples, and say that he should come and visit mom, because she misses him. He waves at the disciples and tells the brothers “THESE are my brothers and my mother.”

Just thought I’d throw that in because I remembered the line.

Close. He foresakes his family and says that everyone who does the will of God are his brothers and mother. Mark 12:18 They then call him crazy.

This links to my favorite biblical source. Sorta puts it all into perspective for me. The Old Testament ones are great…paying 40 shekels to dad for rapeing the daughter…love that one…

-Tcat

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@chrisk

Umm… aren’t brothers, (or half-brothers at any rate) mentioned in one of the gospels?? They come and find Jesus when he’s in Nazareth speaking with some of his early disciples, and say that he should come and visit mom, because she misses him. He waves at the disciples and tells the brothers “THESE are my brothers and my mother.”

Just thought I’d throw that in because I remembered the line.

31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived*, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said* to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He said*, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said*, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 “For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31-35)

There’s also this:

Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" (Mt. 13:55,56)

According to the Gospels, Jesus had at least four named brothers and an unnamed number of sisters.

Incidentally, the brother named Judas is also called “Judas Thomas” which means "Judas the Twin in Aramaic (“Judas Didymous” in Greek). Whether this was meant to indicate that Judas Thomas was literally Jesus’ twin brother is anybody’s guess.

[cmkeller]

DrDeth:

Indeed, it became Tradition for Rabbis to be married.

It’s Jewish tradition (in fact, a commandment) for anyone to be married. No need to single out Rabbis for this, except to contrast them with Catholic priests. In fact, there are some well-known Rabbis who never married - Ben Azzai is one mentioned in this context in the Talmud. It was no more a sin for him than it would have been for a layperson, nor was marriage a prerequisite for Rabbi-hood.

But, for most purposes, Rabbis as an organized group did not appear until after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, some 3 decades after Jesus died. True, many consider Shammai and Hillel (more or less contempories of Jesus; and in fact, many think that Jesus used many of Hillel’s teachings, and could be considered to be a student of Hillel*) to be amoung the “first Rabbis”. If Cmkeller says there were Rabbinical schools/Yeshivas then, I accept what he says. But still, the Preisthood then was still active, powerful and ran the faith- not the Rabbis.

Completely untrue. The preisthood was in charge of performing Temple service, but Rabbinical Courts (Sanhedrin, Beit Din) were not composed exclusively of priests, and since the Roman conquest, which is pretty much what installed the priests in a secular leadership position (for collecting taxes, for example), the official priesthood hierarchy seldom overlapped with the main body of Torah teachers. Organized assemblages of Rabbis go back at least as far as the return from Babylon/Persia, and even if one does not take Scripture as history, the attitude is clear from the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles that the Jewish nation looked to prophets (who may or may not have ben priests) rather than priests for religious direction.

And Shammai and Hillel were hardly “among the first Rabbis.” They are considered to be leaders of the seventh generation of Rabbis since the return from Babylon.

However, many were still ‘teachers’ even though not “ordained”. Even today, I have heard those who are not actual Rabbis but still learned in the Law called “reb”, which is short for “rabbi”. Thus, one could call Cmkeller “reb” even though he is not a Rabbi. Calling Jesus “rabbi” would be a term of respect.

True enough, but irrelevant when debating a poster’s statement that someone was an “actual Rabbi”.

[Walloon]

@Skammer

As others have said, none of the canonical Gospels explicitly indicate that Jesus was never married or romantically involved. However, one would think that a detail like that would be mentioned at some point

One would also think the Gospels would say something, anything about his life between the ages of 12 and 30. But they don’t.

[cosmosdan]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Incidentally, the brother named Judas is also called “Judas Thomas” which means "Judas the Twin in Aramaic (“Judas Didymous” in Greek). Whether this was meant to indicate that Judas Thomas was literally Jesus’ twin brother is anybody’s guess.

Hmmmm that lends another possibility to the resurection doesn’t it and why Mary and the disciples didn’t recognize him at first. Perhaps they were not identical twins or Judus wore his hair differently

[CC]

@Walloon

One would also think the Gospels would say something, anything about his life between the ages of 12 and 30. But they don’t.

Which would be my point - that it’s all well and good to talk about marriage and so forth, but let’s talk about a 12 year old boy and sex. Even the most religious and fervent of lads gets a boner once in a while, thinks about young what’s her name down the lane, and spills a bit of seed. Is that not sex? Come on. Even a kid who grows up to be a rabbi, or even the savior of the world, has to whack it once in a while, doesn’t he? Why would we assume otherwise?

[DrDeth]

@cmkeller

It’s Jewish tradition (in fact, a commandment) for anyone to be married. No need to single out Rabbis for this, except to contrast them with Catholic priests. In fact, there are some well-known Rabbis who never married - Ben Azzai is one mentioned in this context in the Talmud. It was no more a sin for him than it would have been for a layperson, nor was marriage a prerequisite for Rabbi-hood.

Completely untrue. The preisthood was in charge of performing Temple service, but Rabbinical Courts (Sanhedrin, Beit Din) were not composed exclusively of priests, and since the Roman conquest, which is pretty much what installed the priests in a secular leadership position (for collecting taxes, for example), the official priesthood hierarchy seldom overlapped with the main body of Torah teachers. Organized assemblages of Rabbis go back at least as far as the return from Babylon/Persia, and even if one does not take Scripture as history, the attitude is clear from the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles that the Jewish nation looked to prophets (who may or may not have ben priests) rather than priests for religious direction.

And Shammai and Hillel were hardly “among the first Rabbis.” They are considered to be leaders of the seventh generation of Rabbis since the return from Babylon.
.

Well, I am not going to argue how the Historical version of this varies from the Traditional version, OK? It’s not important here.

But let us tear apart the whole “Jesus was a rabbi, thus he HAD to have been married” bit.

1. Jesus was certainly a “rabbi” (as in teacher) but not nessesarily a Rabbi (as in “formal smicha”).

2. The difference between the two was not as significant before the destruction of the Temple. Some Traditions developed afterwards.

3. Even if he was a Rabbi, he could have “and then at some later point turned anti-Pharisee in his philosophies”. Until we find “Yeshuah ben Joseph” in a list of graduates from a yeshivo (highly unlikely), we’ll never really know.

4. Even so, some Rabbis, rabbis & just plain Jewish men did not marry, even as cmkeller has said: “It’s Jewish tradition (in fact, a commandment) for anyone to be married. No need to single out Rabbis for this, except to contrast them with Catholic priests. In fact, there are some well-known Rabbis who never married - Ben Azzai is one mentioned in this context in the Talmud. It was no more a sin for him than it would have been for a layperson, nor was marriage a prerequisite for Rabbi-hood.”

5. We have no idea what Jesus did in his late teens and twenties. It is quite possible that he did marry, and his wife died in childbirth or something. If so, and it was a decade before His Ministry, there’d be little reason to mention it. And, not that I am a conspiracy nut or something, but to have an overly devout follower of Paul delete a single word “widower” from a Gospel manuscript is far more likely than to have Jesus married during the very brief period of time recounted in the Gospels, and *all *evidence of that to be removed. :dubious:

So, the whole:
“1.Jesus was a Rabbi,
thus
2 He had to have been married during the time of the Gospels
thus
3. They covered up His whole marriage” bit is a logical falsehood. Both 1 & 2 are unproved.

Personally, I have serious doubts that Jesus was a virgin. But some of the sects around that period did believe in Chasity, and some holy men did live as “hermits in the desert”. Thus, to have Jesus be chaste in the brief period covcered by the Gospels isn’t much of a stretch. Then again, Jesus might have “had relations” with Mary Magdalene. Who knows?