In response to the announcement of the Coptic papyri fragment being called The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife there are a lot of people asking whether or not it would matter if we discovered that Jesus had been married.
For many people the answer is “yes,” especially for those whose traditions (like the Roman Catholic priesthood) that seek to model Jesus as they understand him.
Several people have attempted to answer this question and I will some of those responses:
– In “So What If Jesus Had a Wife?” John Byron reminds us that this is not the first time this question has been asked:
“This was a big question a few years back when the Da Vinci Code was popular and Dan Brown was raking in millions by suggesting that Jesus had married Mary Magdalene and ran off to France to live a life as a family man. I remember people got all exercised over whether Jesus was married and perhaps had children. The real historical and theological problem with Brown’s plot, however, was whether or not Jesus had died and rose from the dead. That is the problem with Brown’s novel and for Christian theology.”
He doesn’t see this text as having any impact on Christian orthodoxy one way or another writing:
“So while the fragment is interesting and, if it is ultimately proven to be authentic, it has no real bearing on the Christian faith. It doesn’t “prove” Jesus was married and it doesn’t undermine Christian theology. What it does tell us is that people have been saying all sorts of things about Jesus for hundreds of years. We are not the first to encounter these claims. We just happen to have the technology to broadcast these claims more widely.”
– In “Did Jesus Have a Wife?” April DeConick says, “Was Jesus married? I like to think so. But this has more to do with my own view of the blessedness of marriage than it does with any historical argument I might make.” She thinks that this gospel presents Jesus as married because of the views of marriage held by Valentinian Gnostics. She writes:
“The new gospel fragment supports this Valentinian picture. If it turns out to be an authentic gospel fragment from antiquity, it likely came from a page of yet another Valentinian gospel that contained sayings of Jesus. Valentinian Christians were very prolific and they preserved an entire sayings tradition of counter-memories that supported their creative metaphysical outlook and Gnostic spirituality.
“But does this mean that Jesus had a wife? It depends on who you ask. If you asked a Valentinian Christian, the answer would have been a definitive “yes”. If you asked an early Catholic Christian, the answer would have been “no”. If you ask a scholar today, depending on the methods they use to reconstruct the historical Jesus, you will get “yeses” and “noes’.”
– In “Did Paul Believe That Jesus Was Married?” Tim Henderson writes:
“If we limit our historical sources to those from the first century, which are undoubtedly the best candidates for any reliable information, then we will find that there is no explicit statement in either direction. No author states that Jesus was married, nor does any claim that he was single. This means that any argument about the matter will be an argument from silence.”
He decides to approach the question from 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul addresses concerns around marriage. He finds it curious that Paul did not appeal to Jesus when discussing single if Paul knew Jesus was never married.
– In “Quick Thoughts on the New Jesus Wife Text” Darrell L. Bock interprets the silence a little differently than Karen King and some others. He writes:
“Dr. King is careful also to say this text likely tells us nothing about the real Jesus.
“Her claim the NT is silent about Jesus’ marital status is technically correct, but it may well be because there was nothing to say. Everyone knew he was single. The fact there is no wife present at his death may speak volumes. If Jesus had been married, there would be no need to hide the fact. Nothing in the earliest church tradition points to his being married.”
Most people who are writing on this topic seem to agree that (1) it doesn’t matter if Jesus was married; (2) there is no way we can know if he was married though one could give good reasons to believe either way; (3) this text tells us nothing of the historical Jesus, only that some Christians believed Jesus was married, something we knew already.
Thoughts? Does it matter to you if Jesus was married?
the archives near Emmaus 
Would it matter theologically? I think it’s an open question.
Jesus fulfilled Torah. What Torah prescriptions would He have had to fulfill as a husband and could He have done so in His last 3 years?
That needs investigating and answering for me before I conclude there are no theological problems.
I guess it doesn’t really matter from the perspective of Christian theology. But it does matter with respect to an ordinary Christian’s devotion to Jesus (however slightly) given that it changes the way such a person would view Jesus.
However, the prospect of Jesus being married seems unlikely given that no wife of his is ever mentioned in the 1st century gospels, one would think that she would make appearance along with possibly his mother and the other Marys at some point in the canonical narratives if she existed (e.g. at his death, on Easter morning, etc.). Moreover, if Jesus was a married man who just happened to pass on a few ascetic traditions (e.g. Matt 19:10-12) then why did Paul feel the need to say in 1 Cor 7:8-9 that it was alright for someone to marry if he can’t control himself and burns with passion? Paul doesn’t sound like a man writing to a movement whose founder was married. Finally the presence of such Jesus traditions as Matt 19:10-12 suggests that Jesus probably wasn’t married on the basis that married men don’t talk like this. There’s nothing too solid in these arguments (although I think the second one has the most substance), but collectively I think they heavily weigh against the possibility that Jesus was married.
Christ WAS married [Rev 19:7,9] .. which is why he was described as ‘bridegroom’ [Isa 61:10][Isa 62:5]. His bride was also described [Jer 2:32][Jer 33:11].
Does it matter theologically if he was married physically. I suppose the answer depends on what you think his priorities were. Paul said:
“”Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.” [1 Cor 7:17]. What role did God assign Jesus?
Paul said ‘I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But, if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.’ [1 Cor 7:7-8]. Was Jesus able to ‘contain’? I’m fairly certain the answer is yes.
Although there IS/WAS nothing wrong with marriage – here’s what Paul says about it “But he that is married cares for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife” [1 Cor 7:33].
Therefore, it doesn’t seem likely Jesus’ goal was to marry (and/or procreate). Jesus would have married since his concern was not for the things of the world (he already resisted that temptation [Matt 4:1-11]). As a married man he would have been concerned with pleasing his wife [1 Cor 7:33] which would have distracted him from being concerned with the wife he would marry at the marriage supper of the lamb.
Besides, if Paul suggested staying unmarried was how one could be most married to God, how much more would Jesus have felt the same way?
It matters since it matters how we view Christ’s mission and his priorities.
DeConick’s statement that “If you ask a scholar today, depending on the methods they use to reconstruct the historical Jesus, you will get ‘yeses’ and ‘noes’.” couldn’t be more misleading. Scholars are not divided over the question of whether Jesus was married to the extent her statement suggests. I mean, yeah, there’s always going to be a person or two who is willing to say anything (e.g. Price), and in that sense there are always going to be “yeses” and “noes,” but come on.
Andrew,
I like your last comment. Why would the early Jesus movement think it’s better not to be married if it’s founder was married? Why would the early Jesus movement refer to Jesus as the bridegroom and the church as the bride if in fact Jesus was already married to a bride at some point in his life? That’s the sort of imagery one would expect the early Jesus movement to cultivate if in fact Jesus was married during his earthly life.
Resident
There is no way we can know what was known in the 1st century because the Victors write,rewrite and rewrite the history as THEY believe. I for one have no reason to believe he was married but he was a man and could of married which really wouldnt of been important to the gospels. All I find important is as a man he was the seed of David , he was perfect in the commandments, was anointed With the Holy spirit, showed the oral law was only tradition, died as the Passover Lamb, was in the tomb 3 days,3 nights, was resurrected by the Elohim and ascended to the right hand of the Elohim as our High Priest and King.
Here is a very good example something slipping through the Victors fingures where Eusebius of Caesarea argues that Yahshua rose late on the Sabbath not early on one of the Sabbaths. even if you want to claim “mia ton Sabbaton” is an idiom for 1st day of week which would be impossible translation the context of this letter is Eusebius believes Matthew’ late on the Sabbath and give 2 different ways to prove it.
1. long ending of Mark is not original
2. there should be a comma after ” And having risen up” to be late on the Sabbath and after” early on one of the Sabbaths he appeared.
I have no problem with both readings because I know that “one of the Sabbaths” just means week one in the count of weeks to Pentecost
just a few years later Eusebius writing after sunday was declared the day Yahshua rose by Constantine. So did Eusebius change his mind willingly or by force or has his writings been changed. considering going against Constantine could get you exiled at best and killed at worst I think he sold out but couldnt control this letter.
Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum
Πως παρα μεν τω Ματθαιω οψε σαββατων φαινεται εγηγερμενος ο σωτηρ, παρα δε
τω Μαρκω πρωι τη μια των σαββατων;
Τουτου διττη αν ειη η λυσις· ο μεν γαρ το κεφαλαιον αυτο την τουτο
φασκουσαν περικοπην αθετων, ειποι αν μη εν απασιν αυτην φερεσθαι τοις
αντιγραφοις του κατα Μαρκου ευαγγελιου· τα γουν ακριβη των αντιγραφων το
τελος περιγραφει της κατα τον Μαρκον ιστοριας εν τοις λογοις του οφθεντος
νεανισκου ταις γυναιξι και ειρηκοτος αυταις· Μη φοβεισθε· Ιησουν ζητειτε τον
Ναζαρηνον, και τοις εξης, οις επιλεγει· Και ακουσασαι εφυγον, και ουδενι
ουδεν ειπον, εφοβουντο γαρ.
Εν τουτω γαρ σχεδον εν απασι τοις αντιγραφοις του κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιου
περιγεγραπται το τελος· τα δε εξης σπανιως εν τισιν αλλ ουκ εν πασι φερομενα
περιττα αν ειη, και μαλιστα ειπερ εχοιεν αντιλογιαν τη των λοεπων
ευαγγελιστων μαρτυρια· ταυτα μεν ουν ειποι αν τις παραιτουμενος και παντη
αναιρων περιττον ερωτημα.
Αλλος δε τις ουδ οτιουν τολμων αθετειν των οπωσουν εν τη των ευαγγελιων
γραφη φερομενων, διπλην ειναι φησι την αναγνωσιν, ως και εν ετεροις πολλοις,
εκατεραν τε παραδεκτεαν υπαρχειν, τω μη μαλλον ταυτην εκεινης, η εκεινην
ταυτης, παρα τοις πιστοις και ευλαβεσιν εγκρινεσθαι.
Και δη τουδε του μερους συγχωρουμενου ειναι αληθους, προσηκει τον νουν
διερμηνευειν του αναγνωσματος· ει γουν διελοιμην την του λογου διανοιαν, ουκ
αν ευροιμεν αυτην εναντιαν τοις παρα του Ματθαιου· Οψε σαββατων εγηγερθαι
τον σωτηρα, λελεγμενοις· το γαρ· Αναστας δε πρωι τη μια του σαββατου, κατα
τον Μαρκον, μετα διαστολης αναγνωσομεθα· και μετα το· Αναστας δε,
υποστιξομεν· και την διανοιαν αφορισομεν των εξης επιλεγομενων· ειτα το μεν·
Αναστας, αν, επι την παρα τω Ματθαιω· Οψε σαββατων· τοτε γαρ εγηγερτο. το δε
εξης ετερας ον διανοιας υποστατικον συναψωμεν τοις επιλεγομενοις· πρωι γαρ
τη μια του σαββατου εφανη Μαρια τη Μαγδαληνη.
Robert said “There is no way we can know what was known in the 1st century because the Victors write,rewrite and rewrite the history as THEY believe.”
Robert, respectfully – I disagree. Underlying your position is a fallacy known as ‘The fallacy of modal logic’, one form of which confuses the mode of possibility and necessity OR the mode of knowledge with the mode of belief (Epistemic Modality)
2 examples of this fallacy:
That the mode of transmission of historical ideas may possibly be corrupt – does not mean it is necessarily so … or
That recorded history is a record of belief – does not mean it does NOT contain knowledge.
With 3 blind men and an elephant, that objective truth is not perfectly obtainable does not mean it is not obtainable at all.
What you’re saying is that because the medium of transmission is imperfect, transmission is impossible. The internet is an imperfect medium (from the perspective of the technology; packets get dropped etc) yet with a record of still near perfection with respect to transmission capability. History, too is an imperfect medium. Even with imperfect historical method – there is error correction. Therefore, it is sophmoric to fixate on historiographical concerns as a premise, and conclude impossibility.
Andrew
I never said all history is corrupt , I am just saying we must test even history because the Victor will not allow history to be unfavorable of them or goes against their belief
Yes. Agreed (and testing (or error correcting) is what you were doing in looking at the long ending of Mark and the comma).
My comment was addressing the false notion “There is no way we can know what was known in the 1st century”. Indeed we can, even if not perfectly.
Yes
it did come across as an absolute but just because we have no extant record doesnt mean it didnt exist. I also feel we must test the Victors motives and influence
It is interesting that the Paul seems to have married the church to Jesus on several occasions: Rom 7, Eph 5, 2 Cor 11. While there is no way to guarantee that this means Paul knew Jesus had not married (and was therefore “married” to his movement of followers if you will) it does make me stop and think.
This is a tangent, but one spawned by your comment about what Paul might have known, or not known about Jesus.
Saul (Paul) was a rabid anti-Christian, it seems, pretty near after the death and ressurrection of the Christ. Certainly saw Jesus. I wonder if Saul (Paul) saw Jesus yet while he lived, before he encountered him on the road to Damascus (I’ve been to Damascus incidentally).
Think about it, Jesus was a figure it seemed everyone knew, having raised Lazarus and all, then crucified.
Paul was Gamiliels student.
How could he not?
I guess the main problem would be that Paul never references knowing Jesus. Unlike the evangelists he doesn’t seem that concerned with stories about the pre-resurrection Jesus. And it is quite possible that he was not in Jerusalem at the time when Jesus was gaining attention being that his place of origin was Tarsus.
here is the letter above translated for those who dont read greek.
What are your thoughts and could you give this subject its own thread?
Eusebius of Caesarea (early century IV) answers in a letter some probing
questions from a fellow named Marinus, one of which concerns the
harmonization of the resurrection accounts of Matthew and Mark. The question
in the letter, To Marinus, runs as follows:
How is it that in Matthew the savior appears late on the sabbath after he
has been raised, but in Mark it is early on one of the Sabbaths?
The solution of this might be twofold. For the one who sets aside the
passage itself, the pericope that says this, might say that it is not extant
in all the copies of the gospel according to Mark. The accurate ones of the
copies, at least, circumscribe the end of the history according to Mark in
the words of the young man seen by the women, who said to them: Do not fear.
You seek Jesus the Nazarene, and those that follow, to which it further
says: And having heard they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were
afraid.
For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is
circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which
are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous, and especially if
indeed it holds a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the
evangelists. These things therefore someone might say in avoiding and in all
ways doing away with a superfluous question.
The second answer is harmonistic:
But someone else, [someone] who dares to set aside nothing at all in any
way of the things that are extant in the writing of the gospels, says that
the reading is double, as also in many other [passages], and each is to be
accepted, not this rather than that, or that than this, as the
classification of the faithful and the reverent.
And indeed, this part granted to be true, it is fitting to interpret the
mind of the reading. If I at least grasp the meaning of the word, we should
not find that it is opposite to the things said by Matthew: Late on the
sabbath the savior was raised. For the [statement]: And having risen up
early on one of the Sabbaths, according to Mark, we will read with a
pause. And after the [statement]: And having risen up, we will place a
comma. And we will divide the meaning of those things that are said
following. Then, on the one hand, the [statement]: Having risen up, might be
upon that of Matthew: Late on the sabbath, for then he was raised. On the
other hand, that which follows we might join together with the things said
after that, which gives rise to other meanings: For early on the one of the
sabbath he appeared to Mary Magdalene
Reference:
Exegetical and miscellaneous works
All of the exegetical works of Eusebius have suffered damage in
transmission. The majority of them are known to us only from long portions
quoted in Byzantine catena-commentaries. However these portions are very
extensive. Extant are:
An enormous Commentary on the Psalms.
A commentary on Isaiah, discovered more or less complete in a manuscript in
Florence early in the 20th century and published 50 years later.
Small fragments of commentaries on Romans and 1 Corinthians.
Eusebius also wrote a work Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum, “On the
Differences of the Gospels” (including solutions). This was written for the
purpose of harmonizing the contradictions in the reports of the different
Evangelists. The work existed in the 16th century, but has since been lost.
However a long epitome was discovered in the 19th century, and there are
also long quotations in the Catena on Luke of Nicetas. The original work was
also translated into Syriac, and lengthy quotations exist in a catena in
that language, and also in Coptic and Arabic catenas.
i cite that great biblical scholar jon stewart (on comedy central), who said, ‘that’s it, jesus said my wife? what if he was saying, my wife, if i ever find one…’ though the academic and archaeological community might be just desperate to find something NEW to talk about, there really isn’t much substance in this fragment; it doesn’t even sound as if the finders have a firm conviction of its authenticity. shouldn’t that have been established before this was even released to the public? maybe it’s worth considering if it would matter to us theologically or not, but this particular fragment doesn’t seem to present much of a case.