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.
"Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, 'Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees.
Acts 23:6 ESV
Folks DO change!
Likewise; when my brother arrives from out of state for a visit; he's never announced as, "Hey! Your mom's other son is here!"
Oh?
Where?
"Who is my mother and my brothers?"
John 12:48
Agreed.
Oh I hope so.
Not directly but there are scripture verses to say otherwise.
Mat 12:46-49 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!
Then there is this:
Joh 7:5-9 For not even his brothers believed in him. Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
And then there is this:
Gal_1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.
So, yes, the scriptures do mention that Joseph and Mary had other brothers (and sisters). And, yes, the scriptures tells us that the Lord's brothers did not believe Him to be the Christ. And, yes, one of those brothers of Christ is specifically mentioned as James by Paul. It would make no sense to say "Who are my mother and cousins", "For not even his cousins believed him", or "except James the Lord's cousin".
People can twist the scriptures to say that "brother" means "cousin" but that logic does not fit into the context of these verses.
Let's ask this another way, do you think Joseph had sexual relationship with Mary after the birth of Jesus?
1 Corinthians 7:1-11
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Very good point.
Oh?
Where?
All of the scriptures mentioned refer to his brothers but they do not even indicate that they were the sons of Mary.
Let’s ask this another way, do you think Joseph had sexual relationship with Mary after the birth of Jesus?————————
I am inclined to not believe so, in some apocryphal writings it states that Joseph was forty years old when he married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others;
they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, “the Lord’s brother”).
A year or so later he took Mary as his wife so i doubt very much if they had sexual relations.
If we believe in the virgin birth then we believe God is real, we believe he is our creator from start to finish, we are in his hands.
This little girl was in Gods hands, i can not believe he would dump her out for grabs after she bore his holy child.
Maybe that is wishful thinking but there are no scriptures to refute it as far as i know unless they are just misunderstood.
What difference does it make?
Apocryphal writings are not inspired scripture. So while Jesus raising dead birds to life when He was a child might sound very nice, there is no historical or inspired confirmation about such events. Same with Joseph.
This little girl was in Gods hands, i can not believe he would dump her out for grabs after she bore his holy child.
Mary wasn't dump out for grabs after Christ was born. God doesn't dump any of us out. The honorable Joseph was considering what to do about Mary and his situation when God intervene. Joseph disappears between Christ's twelve birthday and the time they are standing in front of the house. So that would mean at least twelve years (and most likely more) would go by in which time Joseph and Mary would not have sex. I think Elsie brings up a very important verse that would contradict this claim if one considers Joseph to be a righteous man.
Just because one is forty doesn't mean they give up having sex.
I was asking for the lurkers...
Based on WHAT?
Did Joe just need someone to make him sandwiches and change the channel?
ASk any 75 year old dudes if THEY have given it up!
For all we know, Christ could have had a spouse. There's certainly no legitimate theological dogma that says He couldn't have a wife.
Why would anyone find the idea threatening?
2) They make assumptions from bits and pieces of scriptural text that doesn't say much of anything.
3) They ignore other scripture references that contradicts what they are claiming.
4) They use external sources to support their views.
5) They fail to understand the cultural and historical situation and the whole context of scripture.
Mat 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."
Paul states the same thing:
1Co 7:6-8 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.
No, our Lord was not married and deliberately stayed single for the sake of the kingdom.
And, yes, there is far more support that Mary had sex with Joseph AFTER the birth of our Lord Jesus. Otherwise Joseph would have gone against scripture. There is nothing wrong with Mary and Joseph having sex. People need to read the Songs of Solomon.
People get all sorts of heretical ideas instead of studying the word of God.
For all we know, Christ could have had seven fingers on each hand.
Dan Brown is a atheist.
Why would anyone find the idea threatening?
Uh...
...because there's certainly no legitimate Christian writings (Scripture) that say He did!
Once you start specklatin' what have COULD have happened or what MIGHT have happened; all types of crazy stuff can pollute the Word of GOD!
There's a REASON this verse is in the bible:
1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit,so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying,"Do not go beyond what is written."Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
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.