# Christians: is the idea that Christ married and/or had kids blasphemous to you? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 23, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541 "2005-10-23T17:19:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/21 "2005-10-24T04:10:03Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > Not blasphemous, but very problematic. If the Jesus depicted in the Bible was a father and/or husband, he would have been a very neglectful one, what with his itinerant lifestyle, lack of a steady paying job, allowing himself to be caught and crucified, and all. If Jesus had been married and/or had kids, it would have seriously interfered with his “mission.” That’s my take on it as well. Add to the problem of Jesus’ succession, which, given that he was thought divine would probably have been hereditary, and it’s just wasier for him to have been umarried and childless. ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/22 "2005-10-24T04:19:44Z")
Jesus was respectful to women (for the time) and liked kids. Doesn’t mean he had any wife or children himself, though. As a Catholic, the model of the Holy Family is Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and I don’t see why we’d have a problem if it was Jesus and Martha and little Moishe or whatever if that were true. We were taught to consider Jesus’ love life as much his hair color–who cared? Like our priests, his family was the human race instead of an earthly one, and all humans were his children. However, in a way, there is a major practical reason I’m glad it didn’t happen; consider what sort of problems Islam has had over the years over the succession (nephew vs. son-in-law, right?) to Muhammed. Christians have their own schisms and wouldn’t need blood relatives to fight over too. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/23 "2005-10-24T04:38:31Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It is currently common for Rabbis to be married, and it _could_ well have been back sometime after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. However, until then- there really weren’t any “ **R** abbis”- just plenty of “_r_abbis”. The term (with a “R” ) didn’t arise until the first century CE. And, “Rabbi as a profession” didn’t come around until the middle ages. Although the teachings of Hillel (who died around AD/CE10) were very “rabbi-like”- one could say “the 1st Rabbi” was Jonathan be Zakkai, who emerged as the leader of the Academy at Jamnia- which was after the destruction of the Temple- some 35 years after the death of Jesus. It wasn’t until after the death of Jesus- that there were organized “real” Rabbis. (Note that Jesus is spoken to with a the title- “rabbi”. which means “teacher”). Really, not until the _Mishnah_ was completed (around 200 CE/AD)- was “organized” Rabbi-dom established. > > So we can’t say that “an unmarried rabbi would have been a deviation from the norm” during the time of Jesus. There was no “norm”. Of course- it was the “normal” thing for all Jewish men- in fact nearly all men- of that period to get married. Religious zealots & prophets were a common exception. There was still a tradition of certain teachers ("rabbis’) who were sought out for their wisdom and learning to explicate matters of law. These people were the templates for what became modern rabbinic tradition. Because, even in the 1st century, such people were expected to exemplify the law. Because they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, they were expected to be married. There was no tradition for celibacy among religious leaders or teachers in ancient Judiasm and, in fact, it was seen as a defiance of the law. While there is some evidence that it may have been a voluntary (not mandatory) practice for some Essenes, in the mainstream an unmarried religious teacher would have been seen as extraordinary enough to at least engender comment if not outright demands for justification. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/24 "2005-10-24T04:56:19Z")
Another vote for improbable but not blasphemous. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/25 "2005-10-24T07:57:57Z")
I have a problem with the idea of Jesus abandoning His wife and/or children in that particular society to go bumming around to go bumming around the country for three years on a road trip with His buds and later leaving them without support after He ascended. Christ as deadbeat dad - I have a hard time seeing that as “sinless.” Or, what mutliple people have said in the thread already. The conspiracy theory, though, is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/26 "2005-10-24T11:30:52Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Where is this in the Bible? [Luke 10:38-42](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=10&version=31). The link is to the whole book of Luke. Scroll to the end to read 38-42. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/27 "2005-10-24T13:05:45Z")
I seem to recall that some Presbyterian minister wrote a book in which he supported the idea that Jesus had been married. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/28 "2005-10-24T13:51:21Z")
Blasphemy is an act or idea insulting or irreverent towards God. This is not. In myy view, it’s not blasphemous. It is, however, completely without Scriptural support, or support in any major Christian tradition. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/29 "2005-10-24T15:10:47Z")
> [@kaiwik](#): > > For myself, this falls under the subject of Information Not Needed For Salvation. I agree 100%. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/30 "2005-10-24T15:24:46Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > As a Catholic I find the idea heretical but not blasphemous. Actually, that does make me wonder where the division between the two is. Heresy=Something that contridicts Dogma? Blasphemous=Something offensive to faith? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/31 "2005-10-24T17:44:32Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > Actually, that does make me wonder where the division between the two is. > > Heresy=Something that contridicts Dogma? > Blasphemous=Something offensive to faith? Heresy means something which is contrary to doctrine. It isn’t necessarily a sin to have heretical beliefs since many times a given Church or dnomination will see an erroneous belief as being rooted in innocent misunderstanding or lack of education in the faith. Blasphemy denotes an _intended_ insult or defamation of God (this can include denial of God’s existence). So, while a married and procreative Christ is a heterodox notion in the context of most Christian teachings, it is also not patently insulting, defamatory and does not represent an attempt to negate or deny anything essential about God (at least not automatically), hence it is not really blasphemous. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/32 "2005-10-24T17:45:06Z")
I wouldn’t say he say Jesus was sexless, but it’s highly unlikely he did have a wife or children. No record we have notes a wife or descendants - and this would hardly have been secret knowledge after his death (and ressurection). Jesus was known personally by a number of people in the region, and we have some written records from _their_ followers. of course, to hear the tabloids say it, the man must have been busy with about half the women on the planet. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/33 "2005-10-24T19:29:00Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Not all Christian doctrines are explicit in the Bible and it is taken as a matter of course in most denominations that Jesus was an asexual entity and, as such, many would call it heretical to assert that Jesus was married or had children. Depends what’s by asexual. If He was tempted in every way that we are, presumably He had a sex drive and had to remain sinless in the face of that temptation. I would agree with the other interpretations above that He was about His Father’s business and wouldn’t have married or had children. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > So I guess the answer is that many Christian sects would say it was counter to their doctrines to say that Jesus was **marred** Quite so. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/34 "2005-10-25T01:21:20Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There was still a tradition of certain teachers ("rabbis’) who were sought out for their wisdom and learning to explicate matters of law. These people were the templates for what became modern rabbinic tradition. Because, even in the 1st century, such people were expected to exemplify the law. Because they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, they were expected to be married. There was no tradition for celibacy among religious leaders or teachers in ancient Judiasm and, in fact, it was seen as a defiance of the law. While there is some evidence that it may have been a voluntary (not mandatory) practice for some Essenes, in the mainstream an unmarried religious teacher would have been seen as extraordinary enough to at least engender comment if not outright demands for justification. Cite? I’ll point out that think that Jesus’s teachings were very Essene-like, and thus having Jesus be Essene-like isn’t much of a stretch. Besides- John the Baptist wasn’t married, AFAIK. And, how about Isaiah? You’re reading into the 1st century CE what was common practice much much later. True, it was the general practice then for most men to get married. But some were & some weren’t. It doesn’t seem to be a remarkable thing either way. Can you show me writings from the time of Jesus that mention as worthy of comment the fact that a Jewish holy man\* _wasn’t_ married? If Jesus had children they would likely have been either part of the early Church leadership or similar. We know that Jesus’s brother James was an important figure in the very early Church _because_ he was the Brother of Jesus. Thus- _ipso facto_- Jesus had no (surviving) children. It is unlikely he was married, but it \*is \*possible. I’d say that being a Widower would be more likely, as he began his Teachings (as far as we know) quite late in life. Jesus could well have taken a wife when he was 18, had her die in childbirth (quite common) and we’d never know, since we know almost nothing of his early life. I’d have to say that if he was still actively married at the time of the Gospels his wife would be at least mentioned. Unless you want to belief in vast conspiracies :rolleyes: , she isn’t- thus _ipso facto_- he wasn’t. If someone came up with evidence Jesus was married during his final years, I’d be very suprised. - and _not_ a member of the Preistly tribe. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/35 "2005-10-25T01:54:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Cite? > . Can you show me writings from the time of Jesus that mention as worthy of comment the fact that a Jewish holy man\* _wasn’t_ married? > . And by this, I mean something along the lines of a quote from Josephus like “And what was even more shocking about this so-called John the Baptist- is that he remained unmarried all his life, in direct contravention to accepted custom and practtices”. You won’t find it, though. The whole myth of “Jeus was a rabbi, and Rabbis were expected to be married” is a myth started by the “Mary Magdalene wa the secret wife of Jesus” tinfoilhat crowd. Anyone who knows much about the 1st Century AD (and DtC does know quite a bit about that period, I might add) should know that there really weren’t “Rabbis” until somewhat after the death of Jesus, and more likely- until the destruction of the Temple. Oh sure- as Judaism spread, there started to be early Synagogues possibly before Christ. And- sure, there were teachers- “rabbis”- at those. But per The Oxford History of the Biblical World (pg 438) “but in the earliest centuries of the rabbinate and the synagogue they functioned largely indepentdent of each other” and …“that the synagogue… existed … before 70 CE…”. But really- while there was the Temple- there was the Priesthood. What we think of as a “Rabbi” wasn’t around until CE 200- and many of the trappings and traditions came much later. Trust me- if you know anything about Paul-if Mary Magdalene _had_ been married to JC, Paul would have mentioned it. Far better than have Jesus running around with a unmarried woman! :eek: In fact, rather than supress a “secret marriage” Paul would more likely have made one up. The fact Paul never mentioned Jesus as married- while the fact that Jesus did “consort” with an unmarried woman _is_ mentioned- should be evidence that Jesus wasn’t married. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/36 "2005-10-25T02:12:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Luke 8:21 > Christ replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.” > [@](#): > > 1 Corinthians 7 > It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband… Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. Christ was sinless so obviously would not have had children or sex outside of marriage. The problem with that is that marriage is shown as a practice because there is so much immorality; of which Christ has none. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/37 "2005-10-25T05:29:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Cite? There is ample rabbinic commentary on this. > [@](#): > > The Rabbis of the Talmud, unlike the Church Fathers, never attached any stigma to marriage. Being opposed to asceticism and celibacy as alien to the spirit of Judaism, they did not regard a person who had never married as superior to one ‘who had contaminated himself by marriage’. On the contrary, they declared that true manhood can be realized only through married life: ‘He who has no wife is no man’ (Yeb. 63a). Marriage was natural in purpose, but divine in origin. As a divine institution it was viewed by them in a twofold light: Firstly, as a means intended for the propagation of the human race; secondly, as an ideal state for the promotion of sanctity and purity of life. Whilst prizing chastity above all other virtues, they refused to ascribe anything degrading to the marital union per se. Prenuptial connections, whether in the case of men or women, they did truly condemn. Not only was harlotry prohibited by them on the basis of Biblical commands (Lev. XIX, 29, and Deut. XXIII, 18), but they even went so far as to forbid the private association of sexes.4 Yet the regulated sexual relations between husband and wife were raised to the dignity of a positive command. Thus it is the unmarried man who was said by them to live in unchastity — at least in the inescapable unchastity of thought if not of action; whereas the married man [page xxxi] alone could live in purity. No wonder that they regarded marriage as a holy state, entrance into which carried with it forgiveness of sins.5 For this reason they encouraged early marriage, declaring eighteen to be the ideal age, although realists as they were, they insisted on a man being in a position to provide for a wife before venturing into matrimony.6 ([Introduction to the _Seder Nashim_](http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/nashim.html) > [@](#): > > "Celibacy was, in fact, not common, and was disapproved by the rabbis, who taught that a man should marry at eighteen, and that if he passed the age of twenty without taking a wife he transgressed a divine command and incurred God’s displeasure.(George Foot Moore, [_Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim._](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565632869/102-8271933-7008925?v=glance)) > [@](#): > > I’ll point out that think that Jesus’s teachings were very Essene-like, and thus having Jesus be Essene-like isn’t much of a stretch. There are some similarilties with the Essenes but also some notable differences, especially with regards to ritual purity. The Essenes were far more ascetic and isolationist than Jesus was. Jesus even drank wine which was a big no no for the Essenes. It could be argued that Jesus actually had more in common with the Pharisees than with the essenes (in fact, there are some who argue that he _was_ a Pharisee). In any case, he didn’t follow any of the other ascetic proscriptions or purity rituals of the Essenes so there is no reason to extropolate celibacy just because he may have shared some other values with that sect. > [@](#): > > Besides- John the Baptist wasn’t married, AFAIK There is no evidence that John the Baptist wasn’t married and some of what we know about Ancient Jewish ascetic practices suggests that its practioners separated from their wives only after they had fullied their obligation to procreate. > [@](#): > > And, how about Isaiah? Isaiah was married and had two sons (Isa. 7 and 8). Perhaps you were thinking of Jeremiah? He was ordered by God not to take a wife or have children because God was about to punish Israel…includiing the children (Jer. 16:3-4) > [@](#): > > You’re reading into the 1st century CE what was common practice much much later. There was never a time when celibacy was considered a virtue in Judaism and marriage and procreation have always been perceived as being mandated by law. It’s one of [613 Mitzvot](http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm). (#63 on the linked list). > [@](#): > > If Jesus had children they would likely have been either part of the early Church leadership or similar. We know that Jesus’s brother James was an important figure in the very early Church _because_ he was the Brother of Jesus. Thus- _ipso facto_- Jesus had no (surviving) children. I haven’t asserted, nor do i believe that Jesus had children. > [@](#): > > It is unlikely he was married, but it \*is \*possible. It would have been more unlikely for him to have been celibate than to have been married. > [@](#): > > I’d say that being a Widower would be more likely, as he began his Teachings (as far as we know) quite late in life. Jesus could well have taken a wife when he was 18, had her die in childbirth (quite common) and we’d never know, since we know almost nothing of his early life. Sure, that’s possible. Or he could have left his family behind behind as he urged others to do. > [@](#): > > I’d have to say that if he was still actively married at the time of the Gospels his wife would be at least mentioned. Unless you want to belief in vast conspiracies :rolleyes: , she isn’t- thus _ipso facto_- he wasn’t. Why would she be mentioned? The authors of the gospels knew next to nothing about Jesus’ life and family and would not have thought that a wife was noteworthy enough to write about even if they had been aware of one. There was also a struggle for authority going on and it is not particularly _outre_ to believe that a wife or consort would have simply been excised from the myths (or obscured by a depiction as a mere follower rather than a spouse). > [@](#): > > If someone came up with evidence Jesus was married during his final years, I’d be very suprised. If someone came up with solid evidence that Jesus existed at all, I’d be very surprised. It’s not as if we have any real information to begin with. The Gospels are not factual biographies. Re: the “tinfoil hat” Magdalene theory. I don’t subscribe to the Holy Blood/ Holy Grail theory (I read that book years before Dan Brown stole the idea for \*The DaVinci Code and dismissed it out of hand) but it’s not automatically _crazy_ to say that she (or somebody else) may have been married to Jesus. It’s not impossible or even unlikely. With regard to Paul, it’s no surprise that he wouldn’t mention it, he didn’t say _anything_ about the human Jesus. He didn’t even mention such things as the virgin birth or the empty tomb or any of the miracles besides the resurrection. If he was not moved to talk about such momentous things as those (or more likely, had simply never heard of them because those stories hadn’t been invented yet) then why should he be expected to mention something as mundane and irrelevant to Paul’s conception of Christ as a wife for the human Jesus? ---
**Author:** ![Good\_Egg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/96bed5/32.png) [@Good\_Egg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Good_Egg)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/38 "2005-10-25T05:38:53Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > of course, to hear the tabloids say it, the man must have been busy with about half the women on the planet. that Jessica Simpson! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/39 "2005-10-25T12:09:12Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is ample rabbinic commentary on this. > . Perhaps you were thinking of Jeremiah? He was ordered by God not to take a wife or have children because God was about to punish Israel…includiing the children (Jer. 16:3-4) All of which dates to 150+ years after Jesus’s death. You’re right- Jeremiah, not Isaiah. However, John the Baptist “lived alone in the wilderness”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541/40 "2005-10-25T13:45:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > All of which dates to 150+ years after Jesus’s death. The Talmud was written _down_ after the diaspora but existed as oral law for centuries before that (Jewish tradition is that it was given to Moses along with the commandments). All of the rabbinic commentary which we have says that marriage has always been a mandate not an option- one of the 613 commandments. The earliest extant rabbinic commentary makes this claim and there is no early Jewish literature to contradict it. > [@](#): > > However, John the Baptist “lived alone in the wilderness”. Which does not mean that he had not previously been married or procreated. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-is-the-idea-that-christ-married-and-or-had-kids-blasphemous-to-you/327541.md?page=3)