I think the whole idea that Jesus was likely to have been married because that was the rabbinic tradition is fairly weak. All three of the Synoptic Gospels go out of their way to point out that Jesus seemed to have cared rather little for rabbinic tradition (Matthew 7:29, Mark 1:22, Luke 4:32) nor was He particularly popular with the religious establishment.
The notion that He may have been married isn’t blasphemous, but there is no evidence for it.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure I agree wholeheartedly with this comment.
The Concise Book of Mitzvot, Chafetz Chayim, is my source for the 613 mitzvot and the reference numbers below.
#43, “To be fruitful and multiply,” derives from Gen. 1:28. That obviously suggests marriage, but I’m not sure I agree it makes marriage a mandate, especially when considering someone sterile.
#44, “To take a wife by kiddushin,” deriving from Deut. 24:1, does not command marriage; it commands betrothal BEFORE marriage.
Now, there is a special case in which I agree marriage is mandated: #45, “To marry the widow of a brother who has died childless,” from Deut. 25:5. But this applies, obviously, only to the brother in that situation, and #46 provides a procedure for the widow to release the brother from that obligation.
Which of the 613 mitzvot, specifically, are you thinking of?
To the one that says “be fruitful and multiply.” You may disagree that it’s a mandate for marriage but Jewish and rabbinic tradition has always read it that way and that’s how it was perceived in Jesus’ day.
You’re right. I should have researched a bit before spouting off.
Lamaistic Buddhism only developed after Buddhism was established in Tibet in the 6th century AD by King Srong.tsan.gam.po. Prior to that, the religion of Tibet was a shamanistic tradition called Bön. The institutionalized Lamaistic tradition of Tibetan Buddhism as it is known today dates back only to the founding of the Gelugpa (Yellow Hat) order by Tsong.kha.pa in the early 14th century. The first order of lamas, however, was the Nyingmapa (“Red Hat”) order founded by Padmasambhava in the 8th century. The Nyingmapa (who I once studied with) are Tantric practitioners of Vajrayana, and they have incorporated shamanistic tendencies from the Bön tradition into their Tantrism. Meanwhile, the remaining Bön priests have taken on a resemblance to Buddhists, so the two religions are not really that different any more. They are always portrayed historically as rivals or antagonists-- maybe for propaganda purposes-- but in fact the two have lived and developed side by side over the centuries.
Johanna, Queen of the Geeky Hijacks
Maybe- perhaps- 170 years after Jesus died- but there is no evidence at all it was that way “in Jesus’s day”.
170 years isn’t a HUGE amount of time- but there is a HUGE dividing line- AD70. Before that - Temple and High Preisthood. After- Synagogues & Rabbis.
Sure, some believe that the Mishnah has been around since Moses, but some believe in the Flood of Noah.
You & I both know that the Mishnah wasn’t written until CE200 or so. Doubtless it contained some of the wisdom of Hillel (and others), who was teaching when JC was a boy, but you are very very cynical when it comes to accepting the Gospels- so it’s odd that you accept the stories of the Mishnah as gospel. 
Again, I ask for a cite from the time of Jesus. Josephus will do.
Thank you, ma’am, for the confirmation of what I thought I remembered. For what I think are obvious reasons, I was not about to try to type into Google any Tibetan monastic-order names as search criteria! 
You are forgetting the “lost years”. We basically have no clue as to what Jesus was doing in his teens up to about age 30. Maybe he made a decent amount of money in that time. Enough perhaps to leave to his wife (and possible children) to support themselves. Jesus in his ministry also may have converted some well off followers. It is at least possible one of these followers told Jesus that he’d provide financially for his family after his death.
And if Jesus married and had kids during the “lost years”, given that none of the gospel writers mentions any details at all as to what Jesus was doing during that time, that they might omit mention of his wife and possible kids isn’t hard to imagine.
This is an idea I never really thought about before. Kinda throws a little wrench into your mind’s workings. :smack:
I thought there was an indication in the Gnostic Gospels that Mary Magdalene herself was independently wealthy, and that she helped to finance Jesus and the disciples. From this, some have extrapolated that she was a leading figure in organizing and administrating the movement.
I don’t know about the Gnostic Gospels, but there is a relevant passage in the regular Gospels- Luke 8: 2. And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
3. And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
Dunno about the Magdalene, but it seems reasonable that at least some early followers were financially well set. Remember, this was a small group of folks who apparently lived modest lifestyles. It wouldn’t have taken big cash to finance Jesus, his possible kin, and a small group of apostles to spread the word. Just one well off early convert could have easily footed the bill.
Maybe that’s what I was trying to think of. Gratias tibi.
Anyone who understands the original language this was written in care to comment what “ministered unto him of their substance” means? Does this translate as “donated money”?
…kai | heterai | pollai | haitines | dinkonoun | autois | ek | ton | huparchonton | autais.
"…and | others | many | who | served/provided/ministered | to him | from | the | possesions/things owned/goods/property | their own. "
After untangling the syntax you get "…and many others who provided/served/ took care of him from their own possessions/ from what they had.
So it doesn’t mean “donated money” exactly, it basically means that they fed and clothed him in more direct way.
I meant thanks to Friar Ted for posting the scriptural reference (and incidentally for finding my name in the Gospel, even if it’s missing the “h” because Greek couldn’t write an intervocalic “h”).
The phrase heterai pollai is in the feminine plural, so it’s actually saying “many other women.” I don’t see how hyparchonton necessarily excludes any form of wealth, including money; it looks like a catchall term for wealth. Anyway, in those days payment in kind would be a normal way of financing a movement, wouldn’t it? There probably wasn’t so much of a cash flow in an ancient economy where coins had to be struck by hand from a limited supply of metal. The descriptions of Muslims in Medina in the Prophet’s time donating their wealth to the cause almost always involve donations in kind, not coin. Regardless, we’re talking about transfers of wealth.
If you went according to the Roman model, land, not cash, was considered essential to wealth. The best way to finance someone in ancient and medieval times would be to donate land and let them benefit from the proceeds of the agriculture on that land. It isn’t hard to imagine wealthy women like Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and the rest financing the movement in this way, since if they were independently wealthy, it probably meant they owned land.
“The God who wasn’t There” is a recent docu-movie which I thought dopers might be interested in.
Among other things, it explores the hypothesis that Jesus was never an actual person.
The bits I remember:
Most of what Christians know about the life of Jesus are from the 4 gospels.
They are known to be written written not earlier than 70 AD, at least 40 years after when Jesus was supposed to have died.
Nothing else was written about Jesus before those gospels, except for Paul (I think) who did not write about Jesus as if he was a literal human. His language was metaphorical and such. And he seemed to have no knowledge of the remarkable things mentioned in the gospels.
The whole Jesus story can be viewed as just one instance of the “Hero pattern” in traditional literature very common in those times.
Christians like to defend the truth of the story by pointing to biblical mention of other historical figures and events that are recorded extra-biblically. But this alone can’t fly since it is common for people to intentionally incorporate real history in works of fiction.
They interviewed the people who run snopes.com and they told of examples of works of fiction, originally published AS FICTION, but after being passed onwards became treated as this-really-happened.
So the Jesus story may have originated similarly.
Another telling fact is that very few christians today know much about what early Chrisitianity was like.
I think this movie deserves its own SDMB thread… perhaps there already is one? sorry… i tried to search but I can’t since I’m a “guest”…
I haven’t seen the film but I’ve read quite a bit about it. It was directed by a guy named Brian Flemming, a deconverted former fundamentalist and Christian school student. From what I’ve read, Flemming essentially presents the case presented by such mythicists as Robert Price, Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier that Jesus never existed historically. I can’t comment on the movie itself but I’m familiar with the mythicist movement and the scholars from who Flemming derives his thesis. I do think there is much in the movement which is provocative and not easily dismissable, but I’m not ready to say the case is closed on a Historical Jesus (not that I believe in a divine one).
Flemming is currently shooting a movie called The Beast, about a Christian teenage girl whose archaeologist father discovers proof that Jesus never existed (what that could be, I have no idea) which will be a fictional treatment of the mythicist case. It’s set to be released on 6/6/06.
Here is an interview with Brian Flemming from Christianity Today.
1Yes, but while Dudes who walked and talked with Jesus were still alive. Thus, it was a bit too early to invent Jesus. Cecil also sez so. Around here, that’s usually good enough. 
Not true. Josephus mentions “James the Brother of Jesus” whn talking about James being stoned because he was one of the leaders of the early Church. There is no doubt that Josephus is writing about the James “the Brother of Jesus” from the New Testament. It’s indirect and it isn’t much, but it’s period and all the more real because it IS an "offhand’ mention. Paul doesn’t speak much directly of “Jesus as a man” as he never met the living Jesus as a man.
True.