WAS JESUS MARRIED?
A consideration of the evidence
By Ronnie Bennett Aubrey-Ronnie Aubrey-Bray

  

Was Jesus Married?  An interesting question that has not serioulsy been raised in the arena of scholarly Christology. Nevertheless, it raises interest by the very act of asking the question. There are three main schools of thought about the question: those who believe that he was not and could not have been. These are in the main from the mainstream of Christian scholarship. For them, the question is absurd. The absurdity may be seen as arising from the perspective that celibacy is the superior way of life, required by the Roman Church for several centuries and while Protestant denominations have cast off many of the trappings of Catholicism they have not divested themselves of Catholic attitudes to sexuality, especially sexuality and spirituality and the bearing each has upon the other. 

  

The second group are those who do not know whether he was or not. They are quire rightly confused by the issues, and who can fail to be confused? The issues are far from clear. 

  

The final group is that which is in no doubt that Jesus was married. This is an interesting group because of its composition. It is not found in the mainstream of Christianity. In fact, many from this group do not belong to Christianity at all, but are what may be described as hostile critics of Christianity (and most other religions), whose main purpose is to discomfort Christians by expressing volubly the unacceptable idea that Jesus was married and thereby enjoyed normal intimate relations with a woman. 

  

Some Jewish scholars present this perspective simply from the point of view that Jesus was a Jewish man although admittedly an extraordinary one. 

  

To this group also belong some early Latter-day Saint theologians and, it should be said, some later ones that have kicked over the traces. Their purpose is dictated by the need to demonstrate that Jesus must have been married. This theological necessity is determined by the Latter-day Saint understanding of exaltation and Godhood. 

  

These three schools of thought are engaged in a debate without communicating with each another. Their positions are firmly entrenched and they do not yield. But, what evidence is there for these discrete positions?

  

Tatian, a Gnostic, and Basilides, an Alexandrian theologian with Gnostic tendencies, are said by some (Joyce, Donovan The Jesus Scroll, Sphere Books Ltd. London, 1973, p. 86) to have been the founders of the idea that Jesus was not married. … What is the evidence for Jesus having been married or not married? Is there any evidence? It has to be admitted that the most often proposed argument in favour his having married is based on arguments from silence. For obvious reasons, these are never satisfactory; one has to jump to too many conclusions to accept them with any degree of enthusiasm.

  

Whilst the Judaic traditions required a father to ensure that his sons were circumcised, redeemed, acquire an education, a trade, and a wife, it is by no means certain that all Jewish boys were the beneficiaries of all these. Indeed, some might have none at all. Not all the B’nei Yisrael were deeply religious at the Meridian of Time any more than the adherents or followers of any religion are.

  

Sanders holds that Paul was probably a zealot who had no time for marriage.( Sanders, EP Paul, OUP, 1981, Oxford) It could be argued that Jesus, like Paul had a specific and individual mission to perform, and that his mission precluded his marrying during mortality. That is, of course, speculative and speculation is the enemy of scholarship and often leads us far from truth. …

  

Recognising that it was not unusual for Jewish boys to have their education and religious and social duties overlooked by parents, together with the recognition that Jesus was by no means ordinary and that his unusual destiny was known to at least one of his parents, and probably to both according to the scriptural records, there is little room to feel sure that his life would follow the normative course for other boys of his generation. 

  

The Torah (the Tanach was not in existence in Jesus’ day) laid duties upon fathers to perform certain things for their sons. About Jesus, we can only be sure about his circumcision, although his religious education does not appear to have been neglected, as the interesting vignette of the twelve-year old shows.

  

If Jesus was married, why is there no reference to his wife or children? References to his family are limited to his mother and his brothers and sisters, although these have been carefully interpreted by Roman Catholics to be children of the reticent Joseph by a previous marriage. This is a legal fiction. Theological necessity produces many such fictions on the grounds that "It has to be because it must be!" Similarly, if we have to have Jesus married we will read the evidence, such as it is, to reach that conclusion. This can not be done except at the cost of truth, so we need to be circumspect and honest. 

  

Apostle Orson Hyde taught that Jesus was married, and names Mary and Martha as having been his wives.(Journal of Discourses, volume 2, 10 June 1854) The reasoning behind his opinions is the same as anti-Christian hostiles,(Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," Dell Books) who aim to embarrass Christians. What is the weight of his evidence? Are they using sound judgement or creating a monster out of smoke? 

  

Both groups claim that the wedding feast at Cana was one of Jesus’ marriages. As to his others they are all strangely silent. Their reasons for Jesus being the bridegroom at Cana are slight and unsure. They point out that Jesus was summoned to the wedding, as a bridegroom would have been. However, wedding guests were also summoned or invited to the feast, as detailed in the parable of the wedding guests. This construction is less than convincing. 

  

To support their viewpoint it is pointed out that Jesus’ mother asked him to supply the wine. Since the bridegroom had the responsibility to supply the wine, it is argued that the groom must indeed have been Jesus. However, Mary approached her son in extremis, after the initial supply of wine) supplied by the real bridegroom) had dried up. Although not expressed in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, she was clearly asking him to use his supranatural power to provide further wine. He understood the request not as a bridegroom who had failed to asses the number of guests expected at his wedding – an unlikely event – but as one who had been called upon to perform, not a mere miracle, but a sign of his divinity. 

  

The synopticists are significantly silent about this event. If it had been the marriage of Jesus is it likely that it would have failed to have been mentioned, at least By Matthew who is at pains to demonstrate the Jewishness of Jesus as the promised mashiach? …

  

Some scholars confine Jesus to marrying that Mary, who is identified by the Roman Church as the penitent woman, Mary of Bethany and the Magdalene rolled into one. There is no textual or historical reason to confuse the women except, perhaps, to manufacture a type of woman who, whilst inferior to Mary the Virgin mother of Christ, is identifiable with all sinful women – and apart from the "Blessed Virgin Mary" - there are only sinful women. 

  

There are no reasons apart from doctrinal necessity that indicates anything other than that Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were other than upright and righteous women. Neither is there anything to suggest that Mary of Bethany was the husband of Jesus.

  

It is not insignificant that the appeal is again to the Fourth Gospel, the only place where the raising of Lazarus is recorded. Much is made of the fact that Mary remained in the house until she was ‘called’ by Jesus through the voice of Martha. We do not know enough of the circumstances to determine why Mary remained in the house. It is true that a wife would not run out of the house to greet her husband until he bade her do so. However, it is equally certain that unless Mary was aware that Jesus was outside she would remain where she was unless she had good reason to do otherwise. 

  

Again, we must remember that we are not reading biography, although much of the content of the Fourth Gospel is historically accurate. Other parts may not be so accurate as to be taken as verbatim accounts of events. … 

  

Who stayed where is of little importance and is unreliable in forming an opinion as to the marital state of either Jesus or Mary. Did she call him Lord? If she did, the word has a wide semantic range. In Aramaic, the language of Jesus and Mary, it is baal, meaning, lord, master, or husband, and everything in between. The relationship between Jesus and the little family at Bethany was obviously such that they knew his mission and destiny. Calling him master was not unusual or inappropriate, even for those to whom he was not married. Men also called him master. 

  

… Phipps argument from silence is flimsy and easy to controvert. He writes as one who believes the Gospels to be accurate biographies which they patently are not. Each of the Gospels was written for a particular purpose, the material in them being manipulated towards specific ends. This does not detract from their value; rather it ensures that readers understand the points of view of the believing community. 

  

The title, rabbi, meant teacher. In the time of Jesus’ mortal ministry Judaism was not yet formed, at best their religion was Proto-Judaism. … The great age of rabbinism had neither yet dawned. … Reading back present forms into ancient ones is likely to lead us further from the truth rather than toward it. 

  

Appeal to the authority of Celsus is self-defeating. This pagan philosopher mounted a bitter attack on Christianity and would be likely to say anything that put Jesus in a bad light, such as the kissing of a woman on the lips, whether married to her or not. His True Discourse (c. 178) is the earliest known literary swipe at Christianity that we know only through fragments and through references to it in Origen’s response. To Celsus, the doctrines of Incarnation and Crucifixion were repugnant. He was the first anti-Mormon author!

  

The Gospel of Phillip is part of that literature – of which there is a mountain – known as the pseudepigrapha, meaning writings claiming to have been written by famous people, but which are known to be spurious. It is unreliable in the extreme as anyone familiar with it has discovered. Its main use is to show what later Christians, and sometimes non-Christians or heretics, thought the Church ought to teach. Writings in the name of some famous figure from the past were more likely to be accepted as authoritative by believers. … 

  

We need to be circumspect when appealing to them for they are not trustworthy. Likewise when relying on tombstone inscription to determine who was buried in them or what the inscriptions really mean. Martha and Jesus were common enough names and we need not imagine that because the location seems right, that these inscription refer to characters from the pages of scripture. …

  

Dr Udley’s assertion that Simeon ben Jesus was Bishop of Jerusalem until his death in AD 106 beggars belief. One would expect that a Master of Theology would be aware that Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 by the Roman Army under General Sylvius, the Jews in Jerusalem either slaughtered or taken into slavery, the city ploughed up, and that was the end of the Jerusalem branch of the Church of Christ. It disappeared from the stage of history. … One tends to suspect the Doctor’s academic credentials! 

  

Well, [Nathan Taylor] that’s a pretty good hatchet job on your essay! It still does not address the question. Of whether Jesus was married. The answer to that question is, "I don’t know!" I do know that we should be. Section 131 makes that abundantly clear, and we have no excuse for non-compliance once we are aware of the doctrine. 

  

I know that Jesus will become married if he is not already. Could he have been married before he came to earth through the Incarnation? "And the Word was God." The scriptures are silent, and the inferences we may draw may give us comfort, but may not be reliable. The indices of his marital status are too slight to be safe. The argument from silence is never satisfactory. Silence can be understood in so many ways.

  

HOME
WHY PROPHETS & APOSTLES?
ADDING & TAKING AWAY - BIBLE TALK
THE ANTI-MORMONS' FLAW
THE ANTI-MORMON PREDICAMENT
FIENDISHLY CLEVER!
CROSS-EYED STAR GAZERS
MORMONS & THE HOLY BIBLE
NON-MORMONS & THE HOLY BIBLE
2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17
READY ANSWERS 1 PETER 3:15
JOSEPH SMITH PROPHET OF GOD
THE WENTWORTH LETTER
GUEST OP-ED: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THOSE STUPID MORMONS?
UNNAMED 'WITNESSES'
MCELVEEN'S 'UNNAMED '' MORMONS'
ANTI-MORMONS' BOGUS DEGREES
ANTI-MORMON LITERATURE
INVENTING CUMORAH
ANACHRONISMS IN THE BOOK OF MORMON
ALMA 7:10 - SETTLED!
“AND IT CAME TO PASS”
REFORMED EGYPTIAN - AN HEBREW LITERARY PARALLEL
REFORMED EGYPTIAN --- ER, HEBREW!
SALVATION FOR THE DEAD:
BEECHER ON SALVATION FOR THE DEAD
A LUTHERAN BISHOP ON BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD
UNIVERSAL APOSTASY PROPHECIES IN THE HOLY BIBLE
PROPHECIES OF THE COMING APOSTASY
THE APOSTASY - INTERNAL CAUSES
THE PERSECUTED CHURCH OF CHRIST BECOMES A PERSECUTING ANTI-CHURCH
POST APOSTASY NOVELTIES
EXTERNAL CAUSES OF APOSTASY
BAPTISM BY TOTAL IMMERSION ESSENTIAL FOR SALVATION
CORRUPTION OF THE ESSENTIAL RITE OF BAPTISM
PROFESSOR HAROLD J BERRY SPLURGES NONSENSE
IS "DR" JAMES WHITE'S DOCTORATE BOGUS?
FRED PHELPS' DEPRAVITY!
MORMONS AND MOON MEN
PAUL & BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD - WHO ARE 'THEY'?
PAUL AND GENEALOGY
ROT SPEAKS WITH FORKED ONGUE AND THREATENS FORMER DIRECTOR
FROM ANTI-MORMON TO MORMON - MY JOURNEY!
A DIVINE COMEDY
UTAH MISSIONS INC. BATTLES AMONG ITSELF
WORST OF THE ANTI-MORMON WEB #1
ED DECKER LIES - 1
ED DECKER LIES - 2
ED DECKER LIES - 3
ED DECKER LIES - 4
ED DECKER LIES - 5
ED DECKER LIES - 6
ED DECKER LIES - 7
ED DECKER LIES - 8
ED DECKER LIES - 9
ED DECKER LIES - 10
THE BIBLE CALLS THEM "FOOLS"
EGG ON FACES
REACH OUT TRUST [ROT] USES INNUENDO AS A WEAPON
ROT'S FORKED TONGUE
SATANIC INFLUENCE ADMITTED IN ROT JOURNAL
WHAT REACH OUT TRUST DARE NOT REVEAL
REACH OUT TRUST - THE POISONED CHALICE
REACH OUT TRUST EMBRACES DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
IMAGES OF HATE -CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 8
CHAPTER 9
CHAPTER 10
CHAPTER 11
CHAPTER 12
CHAPTER 13
CHAPTER 14
CHAPTER 15
CHAPTER 16
CHAPTER 17
CHAPTER 18
CHAPTER 19
CHAPTER 20
CHAPTER 21
CHAPTER 22
CHAPTER 23
CHAPTER 24
CHAPTER 25
CHAPTER 26
CHAPTER 27
CHAPTER 28
CHAPTER 29
CHAPTER 30
CHAPTER 31
CHAPTER 32
APPENDIX 'A'
APPENDIX 'B'
APPENDIX 'C'
APPENDIX 'D'
BIBLIOGRAPHY
FOOTNOTES & THE END
MISSING BOOKS OF THE HOLY BIBLE
BIBLE - INERRANT? INFALLIBLE?
CARM.& THE HOLY BIBLE
CARM. THE BIBLE IS NOT THEIR FINAL AUTHORITY
'GOOD WORKS' IN BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST?
IMPOSSIBLE TEXTS
CHRISTOLOGY ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS
THE MORMON JESUS
WAS JESUS MARRIED?
MORMONS DO NOT SAY ALL NON-LDS CHRISTIANS ARE CORRUPT
MORMONS AND OTHER CHRISTIANS
A PASTOR ASKS A FAIR QUESTION.
CARM 101 - A DISAPPOINTMENT!
MCELVEEN'S DELUSION
SHAFOVALOFF FLUNKS THE 2 NEPHI 25:23 TEST
CARM.& ATONEMENT & SALVATION
CARM ~ MAKES IT UP!
CARM AND THE DEVIL
CARM ~ DOCTRINE OF GOD
CARM ON THE INCARNATION
CARM & THEOSIS
THE HULSES: LYIN' FER JESUS!
ROCKY HULSE
THE TRUTH ABOUT MORMONISM
JOSEPH SMITH
JOSEPH SMITH BY THOSE THAT KNEW HIM
TRUTH IN LOVE TO MORMONS . COM
DON'T SAY YOU LOVE ME IF IT ISN'T TRUE!
PLURAL MARRIAGE COMMANDED BY GOD
PLURAL MARRIAGE IN THE EARLY AND MEDIAEVAL AND LATER CGHRISTIAN CHURCHES
PLURAL MARRIAGE BROUGHT BACK BY EVANGELICALS
LORI MCGREGOR TALKS TWADDLE
CONCERNED CHRISTIANS INC,
JESUS TELLS CHRISTIANS TO FORSAKE THEIR SINS
A STINGING COMPLAINT AGAINST CONCERNED CHRISTIANS
R.O.T.
RENDELL'S DISHONEST CLAIMS
DOUG HARRIS BETRAYER & PROMISE BREAKER
L.O.U.T.
ROT'S SNEAKY FANATICS
ROT TALKS ROT
ROT'S FORKED TONGUE & DOUBLE MINDEDNESS
ROT'S RITUAL FABRICATIOJNJ
UNIVERSALISM TAUGHT - DR HANSON'S THOUGHTS
MINOR IRRITATIONS & PETTY NIGGLES
BOGUS 'DR' JAY DEE NELSON
GB HANCOCK
BOGUS 'DR' WALTER R MARTIN
BOGUS 'DOCTOR' WILLIE DYE
BOGUS 'DR' FALES
FALES' BOGUS DEFENDER
BOGUS RESPONSE TO BOGUS "DR" FALES
BRINKERHOFF'S EGREGIOUS ERROR
BRINKERHOFF'S TREACHERY EXPOSED - 1
BRINKERHOFF'S TREACHERY EXPOSED - 2
IS ANTI-MORMONISM CHRISTIAN ?
DANGEROUS FUNDAMENTALISM
"THE GOD-MAKERS"
GODMAKERS AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS - AN EDITORIAL
ERYL DAVIES
IS GOD IMMATERIAL?
THE VISIBLE GOD
EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE IN ANCIENT PALESTINE
EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE ON HEBREW THOUGHT AND LITERATURE
SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF
BEECHER ON MORMONS AND THE BIBLE
SALVATION & BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD
JESUS PREACHED IN HELL TO SAVE SOULS
THE JOHANNINE COMMA
EZEKIEL'S STICKS
BOOK OF MORMON
EVIDENCES OF THE BOOK OF MORMON
TEMPLES
JOSEPH SMITH'S OWN STORY
ELDER OAKS AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
SOME CHRISTIANS TELL LIES FOR CASH
MISCELLANY
YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED
THE WALL OF TRUTH & THE WALL OF SHAME
THE PERSECUTION CULTUS
INSANITY AWARDS
DAN CORNER CORNERED & PITCHFORKED!
ISAIAH 29 & THE BOOK OF MORMON
BOM CHANGES
AM I AN ANTI-MORMON?
WHY I AM A MORMON
COMPACT DISCS
THE INSANITY OF ANTI-MORMONISM
A FALSE DICHOTOMY - MORMONISM OR CHRISTIANITY - WHY MUST I CHOOSE WHEN I CAN BE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME?
A MORMON ANSWERS
DEIFICATION - THEOSIS CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
SALVATION FOR THE DEAD - A BIBLE TEACHING
THE CHRIST OF MORMONISM IS THE CHRIST OF THE HOLY BIBLE
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
ON THE HOLY TRINITY
BIBLE TEACHINGS THAT DO NOT SUPPORT THE TRINITY - 01
AN EXAMPLE OF ANTI-MORMON FOOLISHNESS
A CASE STUDY ~ ANTI-MORMON ATTITUDES
JP HOLDING'S BOOK, "THE MORMON DEFENDERS"
ARE YOU PREPARED FOR HIM?
THE STANDARD OF TRUTH
BLACK MUSEUM OF ANTI-MORMONISM
THE SALAMANDER LETTER
DANITES - THE MYTH
I HAD A DREAM - A CAUTIONARY TALE
CARELESS TALK - DR MICHAEL L BROWN
LINKS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Copyright  2018 - Ronnie Bennett Aubrey-Bray

May be used in whole or in part with proper accreditation

Weighing the Evidence