Posted on 10/16/2017 8:57:59 AM PDT by Gamecock
Note: "Protestant/Evangelical Caucus" truncated due to space limitations
Protestant/Evangelical Caucus
When I was a kid, I always used to enjoy the “whack a mole” game at the local arcade (yes, we had to go to an “arcade” to play games). You had be quick to win that game. Each time you hit a mole, another would pop up, taking its place.
Of course, that is what made the game both fun and frustrating at the same time. No matter how hard you worked, it always seemed that the moles just wouldn’t go away.
Sometimes it’s like that in the world of biblical scholarship. Theories pop up, are quickly refuted by the academy, and then, just when you think they have gone away, they pop again. Some theories just keep coming back.
In 2003, Dan Brown’s best-selling fictional book The Da Vinci Code raised (again) the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that this fact had been cleverly suppressed by the church for thousands of years. Apparently it took a fictional author to uncover the “real” truth.
Brown was not the first to make such a claim, of course, but his book gave it new life. At least for a while. But, after a chorus of scholars showed the claim to be (again) without merit, the chatter about Mary Magdalene died down a bit.
But this particular mole will not go away. Filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici wrote an article for the Huffington Post on this very topic entitled, “Jesus’ Marriage to Mary the Magdalene is Fact, not Fiction.“
Now, I am all for bold, catchy titles. But, this one is pretty brash. If you go with a title like this, you had better have the facts to back it up.
But, not surprisingly, there are no new facts presented in Jacobovici’s article. Instead it is a reheated version of the same old material used by Mary Magdalene advocates in prior generations. There are half-truths, arguments from silence, and appeals to conspiracy theories. In the end, it simply doesn’t hold up.
Here is a quick look at some of his arguments:
1. “The fact is that none of the four Gospels say that Jesus was celibate.”
This is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand. Yes, the Gospels do not explicitly say Jesus was celibate. But, Jacobovici overlooks the bigger issue, namely that none of the Gospels, nor any other New Testament documents, nor any other early Christian sources, tell us Jesus was married. None.
Given that historical claims–such as the claim Jesus was married–require actual, positive evidence, this is a noteworthy fact. This is why the best argument Jacobovici can muster is an argument from silence, namely that the Gospels do not state Jesus wasn‘t married.
2. “Rabbis, then as now, are married. If Jesus wasn’t married, someone would have noticed.”
This is simply a rehashed version of Dan Brown’s claim that Jewish men were expected to be married and that celibacy would have been unusual (Da Vinci Code, 245). But, again the facts don’t fit.
Though Jesus was called “Rabbi” by his followers, there is no indication that he held the formal, official office. His followers addressed him as such simply because he was their “teacher.” And we have a number of instances of Jewish men, teachers, and scribes who were single. The Essene community at Qumran, for example, was a group of mostly single, celibate males who were waiting for the kingdom of God to come.
Moreover, there is no evidence that all rabbis were married. On the contrary, it was not uncommon for rabbis dedicated to the special study of God’s word to remain single (see George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 2:119-120).
3. “Had Jesus been celibate, Paul would certainly have invoked him as an example when arguing for celibacy. But he doesn’t. Never once does Paul argue that Christians should be celibate, because Jesus was celibate. Not once!”
This is another argument from silence. We don’t know what Paul knew, nor do we know why Paul uses some examples and not others. Arguments from silence are regarded fallacious for precisely this reason.
Moreover, Jacobovici doesn’t bother to mention that Paul rarely invokes Jesus as a moral example for any of his teachings. The fact is that Paul tells us very little about Jesus’ historical life. That doesn’t mean he was unaware of it, but he simply doesn’t invoke many specific examples of Jesus’ behavior to back up his teachings. Thus, his “silence” on Jesus’ celibacy is not noteworthy in the least.
4. “Mary the Magdalene went to Jesus’ tomb to prepare his body for burial…Then and now, no woman would touch the naked body of a dead Rabbi, unless she was family. Jesus was whipped, beat and crucified. No woman would wash the blood and sweat off his private parts unless she was his wife.”
Again, this is utterly bogus. What historical evidence is there that only wives would care for a dead body? Jacobovici cites none.
In addition, Jacobovici fails to mention that other women went with Mary to the tomb to care for the body (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:1). Are we to think these other women were also married to Jesus? Is this now evidence for polygamy? These arguments just don’t work.
5. “In 1947, in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, the Gnostics got their revenge. At that time, several of their Gospels were found hidden in jars. They all tell the same story — Jesus was married.”
This is patently false. In fact, I am stunned that Jacobovici makes such a direct claim when there is no evidence to back it up. None of the Nag Hammadi texts say Jesus was married. None.
The closest one comes is the Gospel of Philip where we are told, in a very fragmentary and hard-to-decipher text, that Jesus “kissed” Mary, but there is no indication it was sexual in nature. Indeed, even Harvard scholar Karen King argues this kiss is likely asexual in nature. It was a kiss of fellowship that Jesus offered to his closest followers.
But even if this text refers to a sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary, the Gospel of Philip is of dubious historical value and is unlikely to tell us any reliable information about the historical Jesus.
6. “In 1980, in Talpiot, just outside of Jerusalem, archaeologists discovered a 2000-year-old burial tomb…”
Here Jacobovici appeals to the so-called tomb of Jesus which supposedly contains the famous James ossuary (with the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”) and another ossuary that purportedly belong to Mary Magdalene (with the inscription “Mariamene”).
There is not space to enter into the merits of these claims here, but Jacobovici’s reconstruction of the tomb is highly problematic and has not been received by modern scholars. Even this CNN article regards Jacobovici’s Jesus tomb claim as “a story that doesn’t hold together.”
7. “Our Lost Gospel states that Jesus and Mary had two children and it witnesses to the idea that, for their earliest followers, Jesus and his wife Mary were co-deities embroiled in the politics of their times.”
The last plea from Jacobovici centers on a so-called “Lost Gospel” that tells us Jesus is married. But, the truth of the matter is that this “gospel” he refers to is not a gospel at all. Nor is it new.
On the contrary, this “gospel” is a Syriac manuscript, dated to the 6th century AD, that contains a pseudepigraphical story entitled Joseph and Aseneth. That story has been well known to scholars for years. And, despite the claims of Jacobovivic, it has nothing to do with Jesus at all. Indeed, the name of Jesus is never mentioned.
To read more about this last claim, see my prior article here.
In sum, this Huffington post article is an unfortunate exercise in “whack a mole.” It is the some old conspiracy theory of prior generations, fed to a new audience that perhaps wouldn’t know any better.
And that is the sad part of this whole story. The average person reading this article will probably accept it as fact. But, despite the bold claims of the article’s title, there are few real facts to be found here.
Mary did have other children. The Gospels and epistles state this as fact.
Yeah, and don’t forget Lincoln was gay </S>...
A little early for Christmas, eh? Every year the attacks usually begin a little later than mid October.
There are many controversies these days regarding Jesus and the bible. Many are based on what scripture says (e.g. the CI vs ECT) debate). But this one is truly a grasping at straws. It’s based almost exclusively on what is NOT said, and often ignoring what IS said, such as the Church being His bride.
All of the reasons to believe he may have been married are based on speculation regarding what the bible doesn’t explicitly said. It’s the same information on which I base my theory that he drove a Ford and not a Chevy.
For those who don’t read, or know, their Bibles, enter Dan Brown, an antichrist Gnostic, to prepare them to accept the false Gnostic Christ, and his mark.
Dan Brown wouldn’t have gotten nowhere 40-50 years ago in America, but now the mostly unbelieving public is ripe for his tripe.
Question: According to scriptures who was with his mother Mary visiting his tomb?
We will move to the next step after this round, and to offest questions I am ordained but claim no religion and I am a dedicated Servant of the Most High God through the salvation and Redemption of Yashua (Jesus Christ) his only begotten Son
"The days of our years are threescore years and ten..." Psalm 90:10
His mother was not there. The two Mary's were Mary Magdalene and Mary, the sister of Lazarus.
My belief is that knowing his ultimate fate, Jesus would have found it cruel to force a wife to watch him die on the Cross. It was bad enough that his mother had to watch.
Entertaining this bilge is just showing the marginal knowledge many "believers" have of their own religion. Would God leave His throne and come to earth because He was looking for carnal sex? The whole scenario misses the whole point of God coming here to die for the church. If God can make a woman from a rib, why not make a harem of babes from Joe's smoke shack dumpster filled with bones rather than come here to be abused and murdered?
If Jesus is God, then bow before Him and repent. If Jesus was a man, he's dead and what difference does it make now?
If we wanted to have an argument about Jesus, why not argue He couldn't raise Lazarus from the dead, or better yet, He didn't come out of the tomb. Maybe Him healing the blind was some sort spiritual allegory about understanding the Kingdom of Heaven.
This piece of satanic bilge comes up every now and then and it still remains the same bilge it started as. These same people don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin or walked on water. Go find a religion you are more compatible with.
Matthew 28:1, 5-8 (KJV)
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
Mark 16:1-10
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
Luke 24:10
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
There, that should be good enough, and I didn’t even quote John.
People who entertain such notions have no notion of The Bride of Christ. I’m sure Mary was a Christian, so she is one of billions who make up the Bride of Christ. I’m another one of those billions and am eagerly anticipating the marriage supper of the Lamb.
.....”People who entertain such notions have no notion of The Bride of Christ.”......
Nor of the scriptures either.
Sam Kinison pretty much answered the question as to why Jesus couldn’t have been married.
Quite correct, I thought “the other Mary” was Laz’s sis.
There are many who want to claim Christ was married because they think this is a way to mock Christians. I’m not saying that this strategy is rational, only that it is a common motive.
I’ll go further and state this is a dishonest and shameful motive.
Ultimately, reasonable minds necessarily agree that what’s false should be discarded and what’s true should be kept.
None of the arguments advanced here are conclusive; there is no argument to the contrary that is conclusive either.
So what? Do you not believe Jesus is Lord because He was married? Or believe that He is Lord because He was not married?
The question is not an issue which is directly resolved by either the scripture or by other evidence--we do not know.
Frankly, the idea that He was a 36 year old Jewish man cuts a lot of ice on this issue--it would have been very unusual if He had not been married. He was a man in all respects says the gospel; He would have been an unusual Jew of his time if He had not had a wife. And perhaps children also.
But He was an unusual man in other respect so maybe He was unusual in this regard also.
The question is irrelevant. We don't know the answer. If God thought the answer was important to our belief, He would have told us.
Matt. 28:1 “After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb.” Who is the “other Mary” here? I think his mother would have been identified as such, but she isn’t. This scripture is curious in that it doesn’t not specify which Mary, when most other references to either of them do make the distinction.
I’m not claiming to be a scholar. My opinion is based on my observation of a woman’s behavior as a woman myself.
It has been my experience that those who try to tie Jesus to Mary Magdalene are those who still believe she was a prostitute and are using that error as a means of robbing Christ of His holiness.
So did I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.