Jesus married -- any evidence?

[meteoric]

Something mentioned in the female cardinal thread reminded me of a question I have.

I know that Jesus wasn’t married. No question on that.

I also know Dan Brown said there was lots of evidence for it.

I have heard that it wasn’t until the 600’s that a book was written to support a king by claiming they were related by blood to Jesus through His and Mary Magdalene’s child.

I’ve also read the book of Philip where Jesus and Mary kiss (but unlike in Brown’s book, the actual manuscript does not say they kiss on the lips, it is actually missing one or more words at that point. It’s an old document-- what do you want? )

And I have read some other first, second, and third century documents, but I’ll freely admit, not a lot.

But no where do I see any evidence that Jesus was married.

So the real question is, is there any evidence, pre-fifth century? I’m sure there isn’t in the writings of the fathers, but how about outside?

Thanks.

Tom A.

 

[1ke]

I know that Jesus wasn’t married. No question on that.

If this is so, why the question asking for evidence of marriage?

I also know Dan Brown said there was lots of evidence for it.

Dan Brown writes fiction books.

But no where do I see any evidence that Jesus was married.

That would be because there is no evidence because Jesus is God. To believe Jesus was married is to not understand Who Jesus is.

So the real question is, is there any evidence, pre-fifth century? I’m sure there isn’t in the writings of the fathers, but how about outside?
.

None pre-5th century, none post-5th century, none at all.

 

[CarolNoel]

Great answers 1ke.

 

[MaryT777]

Great answers 1ke.

:yup:

 

[Joe_5859]

None pre-5th century, none post-5th century, none at all.

Exactly what we would expect for something that never happened.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

To believe Jesus was married is to not understand Who Jesus is…

I’ll preface this by saying that I do not even remotely think hat Jesus was married.

That being said, what’s your reasoning for this statement? Why would it detract from Christ for him to have been married. After all, he was 100% human, just as he was 100% divine. There is nothing immoral about him, a Jewish man, taking a wife; so why do you think it would detract from him to have done so?

 

[1ke]

I’ll preface this by saying that I do not even remotely think hat Jesus was married.

That being said, what’s your reasoning for this statement? Why would it detract from Christ for him to have been married. After all, he was 100% human, just as he was 100% divine. There is nothing immoral about him, a Jewish man, taking a wife; so why do you think it would detract from him to have done so?

Who Jesus is = God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I also know Dan Brown said there was lots of evidence for it.

I have heard that it wasn’t until the 600’s that a book was written to support a king by claiming they were related by blood to Jesus through His and Mary Magdalene’s child.

I’ve also read the book of Philip where Jesus and Mary kiss (but unlike in Brown’s book, the actual manuscript does not say they kiss on the lips, it is actually missing one or more words at that point. It’s an old document-- what do you want? )

And I have read some other first, second, and third century documents, but I’ll freely admit, not a lot.

But no where do I see any evidence that Jesus was married.

So the real question is, is there any evidence, pre-fifth century? I’m sure there isn’t in the writings of the fathers, but how about outside?

Thanks.

Tom A.

There really isn’t. My research indicates Brown based his assertion in the book on the claim in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail (one of the authors actually sued Brown for plagiarism) which in turn relied largely on the Gospel of Philip and the idea that “it was normal for a Jewish man to be married.” Recently, a Harvard professor attempted to use a 4th century Coptic shred of paper to claim Jesus was married. Unfortunately, the fact that it only shows a fragment of a sentence quoting Jesus saying, “my wife” without any context is one strike, and the evidence that it’s a forgery anyway is another. It is also worth being aware of a strong sentiment amongst secular culture and some non-Catholic traditions that are repelled by the idea of celibacy.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’ll preface this by saying that I do not even remotely think hat Jesus was married.

That being said, what’s your reasoning for this statement? Why would it detract from Christ for him to have been married. After all, he was 100% human, just as he was 100% divine. There is nothing immoral about him, a Jewish man, taking a wife; so why do you think it would detract from him to have done so?

The entire metaphor in the NT of Jesus being married to his bride the Church would seem somewhat nonsensical if he were married, especially for someone who encouraged those able to accept a call to celibacy to accept it.

 

[seagal]

Exactly what we would expect for something that never happened.

Also exactly what we would expect if there was a coverup

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Who Jesus is = God.

I recognize that, but Jesus was also man. God’s relationship with the Jewish people was often presented as that of a husband and wife. Wouldn’t such a marriage have symbolically held the same meaning?

MarcoPolo:

The entire metaphor in the NT of Jesus being married to his bride the Church would seem somewhat nonsensical if he were married, especially for someone who encouraged those able to accept a call to celibacy to accept it.

That metaphoric was never present during his life, but rather came about after his death. Having died, Christ would no longer be considered married to whomever his physical spouse was (as he stated when questioned by the pharisees… wait, no, by the Sadducees.) I see no logical break here. Especially with your celibacy example. Paul promoted celibacy, but was himself married. (That was Paul, right?.. I really, really need to learn my apostles better '-_-) Additionally, there are celibate marriages (Mary’s, for example), so sex / offspring need not necessarily be considered.

Again, I would just like to state that I do not believe that Christ was married. I just have a hard time understanding why people think it would go against who He was. I’m not saying that it wouldn’t go against who he was, simply that I do not understand why it would, if it would. God chose to lower himself to taking on human frailty, becoming one of us to cleanse us of our sins. There is nothing sinful about marriage, so why couldn’t he have done so had he desired it? (This is not to be taken as an argument for his having been married either, so if someone’s thinking it, you’re taking my statements out of context / mis-interpreting them.)

 

[R_C]

That being said, what’s your reasoning for this statement? Why would it detract from Christ for him to have been married. After all, he was 100% human, just as he was 100% divine. There is nothing immoral about him, a Jewish man, taking a wife; so why do you think it would detract from him to have done so?

Because the Father did not give Him (as true man) the vocation to Matrimony to one woman.

He Himself said:

Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted.

Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God.

Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.

Christ is married, but to Holy Church, who is His body and of whom He is Head.

For it is written: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” On quoting this, St. Paul remarks: “this is a great sacrament, but I speak of Christ and the Church”.

Christ gives His body to His bride: “this is my body which will be given up for you”. We give our body to Him: “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.” Christ further instruct us on the consummation of Holy Communion: “He who eats my flesh abides in me, and I in him.” Literally, the two become one flesh.

And St. Paul teaches on Matrimony: “A wife is not the master of her own body, but her husband is; in the same way a husband is not the master of his own body, but his wife is.”

St. Paul also reminds us: “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church”.

It is the Forerunner, John the Baptist, who pre-announces that Christ is the divine Bridegroom, whose friend he is, and tha we, the Church, are the Bride:

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

The Revelation is even more clear:

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. …] And there came unto me one of the seven angels …] saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem

St. Paul, finally, addresses the faithful leaving no doubt concerning this matter:

I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Therefore, my brethren, you also are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ; that you may be married to another, to him who is risen again from the dead, that we may bring forth fruit to God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

That metaphoric was never present during his life, but rather came about after his death. Having died, Christ would no longer be considered married to whomever his physical spouse was (as he stated when questioned by the pharisees… wait, no, by the Sadducees.)

I don’t think this would entirely work, because the Apostles who wrote of Christ’s espousal to the Church speak of himself giving himself to the Church on the cross, i.e. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church, etc… In their writings are actions he did for his bride while alive, all the way up to death. It would seem counterintuitive to me for Christ to have been married in light of this. And I understand you do not believe he was married, but I would submit there is theological significance to him being espoused to the Church alone.

I see no logical break here. Especially with your celibacy example. Paul promoted celibacy, but was himself married. (That was Paul, right?.. I really, really need to learn my apostles better '-_-) Additionally, there are celibate marriages (Mary’s, for example), so sex / offspring need not necessarily be considered.

Paul promoted celibacy and was not married either. (1 Cor. 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.) Mary’s case is certainly exceptional, especially in light of her espousal to the Holy Spirit, but I don’t think if Christ had been in a celibate marriage that would have distorted the theology much less.

I agree it is not sinful to be married, but I would still say it does not fit with the theology of what Christ taught on earth or by the Spirit through the Apostles.

 

[edwest2]

None.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Thank you R_C and Marco for the additional counterpoints. They make quite a bit of sense. It’s honestly something I’ve never given much thought to, I never really considered it a possibility in light of his knowledge of the life he must live to fulfill his father’s will; but I also never really thought it would cause an issue if he had chosen to take a bride, celibately or otherwise. I can see through your points where it could cause some theological difficulties if he had done so though.

Thanks for the info ^^

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

Unfortunately , Satan is alive and well, there are always crack pots around, who don’t believe this , that and the other. I think Thomas was the first doubter when Our Lord told him to put his hand into His side and hands.

As a Jewish Convert, I always enjoy reading what Ike has to say, but what your forgetting in Our Lord’s time there was various sects within Judaism, like the Essenes who lived in the time of Our Lord and kept chastity, Our Lord could have belonged to one of these religious groups, because He certainly did not like the Pharisees the main sect within Judaism of the day.

Its healthy to question I know but its being like Thomas again, you are doubting the Lord, you are doubting the Church which is the Bride of Christ and Our guide.

I personally am a bit disgusted at this line of questions, as lacking in faith and believing in fiction and the people who put out this fiction, it would be far better to tell the Lord you Love Him and not doubt Him.

 

[meteoric]

If this is so, why the question asking for evidence of marriage?
…
None pre-5th century, none post-5th century, none at all.

Why? Because, for example, if someone wrote there is evidence of Jesus appearing after the Ascension, I would agree, even though I take the story of St. Augustine and the Child Jesus and St. Thomas being sold as a slave by Jesus as being pious stories, and not true. But the stories exist, and can be claimed as evidence.

Just checked Wikipedia, and it turns out that the story about the fifth century book claiming Jesus was married was a 20th century hoax. When I was debunking it on TNN.religion.catholic around the turn of the century, I didn’t know that, but it seems the hoaxer himself confessed in 1982 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard).

Tom A.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thank you R_C and Marco for the additional counterpoints. They make quite a bit of sense. It’s honestly something I’ve never given much thought to, I never really considered it a possibility in light of his knowledge of the life he must live to fulfill his father’s will; but I also never really thought it would cause an issue if he had chosen to take a bride, celibately or otherwise. I can see through your points where it could cause some theological difficulties if he had done so though.

Thanks for the info ^^

You’re welcome, you are very kind.

 

[R_C]

Thank you R_C and Marco for the additional counterpoints. They make quite a bit of sense. It’s honestly something I’ve never given much thought to, I never really considered it a possibility in light of his knowledge of the life he must live to fulfill his father’s will; but I also never really thought it would cause an issue if he had chosen to take a bride, celibately or otherwise. I can see through your points where it could cause some theological difficulties if he had done so though.

Thanks for the info ^^

:yup: :tiphat:

 

[Usagi]

Additionally, there are celibate marriages (Mary’s, for example), so sex / offspring need not necessarily be considered.

Nitpick: “Celibate” means “unmarried,” not just “not having sex.” It is impossible to have a celibate marriage. The word you are looking for is “continent.” (Even “chaste” doesn’t work, because chastity within marriage includes sex with one’s spouse; it only means “not having sex” for unmarried folks.)

Usagi