Was Jesus Christ Married?

And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth, The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. ([Gnostic] Gospel of Phillip, quoted by Michael Baigent et al {2})

The release of Dan Brown’s best seller novel “The Da Vinci Code” has generated a flurry of criticism in the news media. The fire has further been stoked by the movie based on the novel starring Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou. Although the issue of Christ’s marital status has been brought to public limelight by Brown’s work, it has been a subject of research and controversy for a long time.

Brown drew upon Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln (BLL), “Holy Blood – Holy Spirit” liberally to advance his thesis that Mary Magdalene was Christ’s wife who helped continue his bloodline by giving birth to his daughter after his crucifixion. The unacknowledged (?) connection with BLL’s work was so transparent that it ended up in a law suit for plagiarism which however was settled in Brown’s favor.

The orthodox critics take Brown to task not only for his claim that Jesus Christ was Magdalene’s husband but also on several other accounts. For example, Brown put words into the mouth of one of his characters, Leigh Teabing, who said, “Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet…a great and powerful man, but a man nevertheless.” This contradicts the conventional belief of the faithful orthodox Christians who literally believe that Christ was the Son of God. There is no statement in the four canonical Gospels of the traditional Christianity which asserts that he was celibate. Likewise, there is no definite statement that he ever married in his lifetime. So any position regarding his marital status is circumstantial and inferential.

The history of Christianity has gone through several upheavals during the last two millennia. There have been determined and persistent efforts to preserve the prevailing traditional beliefs by suppression of dissident evidence and sources and attempts to add extraneous and embellishing texts in the canonical gospels. For example, BLL (2) wrote, “(Bishop) Clement (of Alexandria), it seems, had received a letter from one Theodore, who complained of a Gnostic sect, the Carpocratians. The Carpocratians appear to have been interpreting certain passages of the Gospel of Mark in accordance with their own principles – principles that did not concur with the position of Clement and Theodore. In consequence Theodore apparently attacked them and reported his action to Clement. In the letter found by Professor (Morton) Smith. Clement replies to his disciple as follows:

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians. For these are the ‘wandering stars’ referred to in the prophecy; who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sin…For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true [things] are the truth, nor should that truth which [merely] seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.”

It thus appears that ‘the true faith’ should be preserved even at the expense of fabrication.

Bishop (retired) John Shelby Spong (5) wrote, “Any suggestion that the Jewish Paul was a Trinitarian thinker is to write a massively revisionist bit of theological history. Particularly is this so since the classical doctrine of the Holy Trinity did not get formulated until the fifth century C.E.”

Trinity became an article of Christian faith after the First Council at Nicaea in 325 C.E. It was decided by a narrow vote. The main subjects of the voted motion were the Sonship and Fatherhood; whether Christ and God were indeed one and the same or whether Christ “was the first created being,” inferior to the Father but still superior to all other creatures.” The “Holy Spirit” was an afterthought and was appended to the motion at the end.

According to Karen Armstrong (1), “The show of agreement pleased Constantine, who had no understanding of the theological issues, but in fact there was no unanimity at Nicaea. After the Council, the bishops went on teaching as they had before, and the.. crisis continued for another sixty years.” The entire proceedings of the Council were farcical. How can the divine issues be settled by a vote – by a show of hands? The Church was too strong for the dissidents and critics. It suppressed them by an overwhelming force and propagated the farce in history.

Was Mary Magdalene Christ’s Wife?

Three women were prominently visible in the Christ’s following. They were Mary Magdalene, Martha and Mary of Bethany, both sisters of Lazarus whom Jesus is said to have resurrected after his death. Of these, Mary Magdalene was the most prominent. Brown wrote in his novel that she was the only woman in Da Vinci’s painting “The Last Supper” in which she sat beside Jesus. Brown’s claim is disputed and it is said that the person sitting next to Christ was a man and not Magdalene. She played a very visible role in Jesus Christ’s life otherwise also. She is said to have anointed Jesus Christ. She was also the first person whom Jesus came across after his emergence from his tomb after crucifixion (but before ascension).

According to Jonathon Darman (3), “Yet from the earliest hours of Christianity, there were other voices, too; those determined to present a fuller picture of the Magdalene. In several Gnostic Gospels, texts whose dissemination in the past 50 years has turned the study of Christian origins on its head; she is not the wallflower of the New Testament but rather a favored, perhaps favorite, follower of Christ. In the Gospel of Thomas, she and another woman, Salome, is one of six (not 12) true disciples of Jesus.”

Mary Magdalene’s position in the story of Jesus Christ is so significant that many believed she indeed was married to him. According to BLL, “The Magdalene had figured prominently through out our enquiry. According to certain medieval legends the Magdalene brought the Holy Grail – or “Blood Royal” – into France. The Grail is closely associated with Jesus. And the Grail, on one level at least, relates in some way to blood – or, more specifically, to a bloodline and lineage.”

In view of her important visibility in the Christ saga, many did believe she was indeed the wife of Jesus Christ. BLL however only hypothesized as follows: “Perhaps the Magdalene – that elusive woman in the Gospels – was in fact Jesus’ wife. Perhaps their union produced offspring. After the crucifixion perhaps the Magdalene, with at least one child, was smuggled to Gaul – where established Jewish communities already existed and where, in consequence, she might have found a refuge. Perhaps there was, in short, hereditary bloodline descended directly from Jesus. Perhaps the bloodline, supreme sang real, then perpetuated itself, intact and incognito, for some hundred years…”

This hypothesis was given a more concrete and positive form by Brown in his novel. According to his narration effectively, “The Holy Grail is not a physical chalice as is commonly believed; it is a woman named Mary Magdalene who was Christ’s wife…At the time of crucifixion, she was pregnant with Christ’s baby daughter. After the crucifixion, she fled to Gaul where she was sheltered by the Jews of Marseilles. Her daughter after birth was named Sarah,” (4).

Such speculations become more credible when they are viewed in the background of concerted efforts of the orthodox Christians to falsely tarnish Mary Magdalene’s character. For if she were not prominent and close to Christ, why would she be character-assassinated in order to preserve the myth of Christ’s celibacy?

According to Darman (3), “Taking the pulpit at the Basilica San Clemente in Rome, Pope Gregory the Great offered a startling conclusion about the Magdalene; she had been a whore. Before she came to Christ, Gregory explained, Mary’s sins were manifold: she had ‘coveted with Earthly eyes’ and ‘displayed her hair to set off her face.’ Most scandalously, she had ‘used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts.’ Looking out at his audience, a somber mass of monks, Gregory gave Mary a new identity that would shape her image for fourteen hundred years. It is clear, brothers, he declared: she was a prostitute.”

It was perceived that Mary Magdalene, if she truly was Christ’s wife, threatened the power of the Church which had glamorized Christ as Son of God and only next to God in power, glory and divinity. A married Jesus was all too human to be elevated to Godhead. For this reason, she had to be soiled in filth.

But Pope Gregory’s assertion could not hold for ever because it was false and concocted. “In 1969, the Church declared that, for the first time since Gregory’s day, Mary should not be thought of as the sinful woman of Luke,” (3). Yet this was only a half-truth. A fuller reparation was rendered by John Paul II. According to Darman, “In 1988, Pope John Paul II called Mary Magdalene “apostle to the apostles” in an official church document…”

BLL observed, “There is no question that she was so diminished. Even today one thinks of her as a harlot, and during the Middle Ages houses of reformed prostitutes were called Magdalens. But the Gospels themselves bear witness that the woman who imparted her name to these institutions did not deserve to be so stigmatized.”

Was Jesus Christ a Polygamist?

There is substantial reason for regarding the Magdalene and the woman who anoints Jesus as one and the same person. Could this person, we wondered, also be one and the same with Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and Martha? Could these women who, in the Gospels, appear in three different contexts in fact be a single person? The medieval Church certainly regarded them as such, and so did popular tradition. Many biblical scholars today concur. (Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln)

Three women were very close to Jesus Christ as already noted in the preceding. In view of Mary of Bethany’s particular situation with Christ, BLL observed, “Whatever the status of the Magdalene in the Gospels, she is not the only possible candidate for Jesus’ wife. There is one other, who figures most prominently in the Fourth Gospel and who may be identified as Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus. She and her family are clearly on very familiar terms with Jesus.” Advancing this notion further, BLL wrote, “There is additional evidence for a possible marriage between Jesus and Mary of Bethany. It occurs, more or less as a non-sequitar, in the Gospel of Luke (10:38-42):

Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.

But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? Bid her therefore that she help me.

And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha thou art careful and troubled about many things:

But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

Could it be that Mary of Bethany was also Christ’s wife? Such a possibility is so significant that researchers have surmised and argued that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany were indeed the same person. At first sight, such a possibility may seem quite facile and far-fetched but those who support this hypothesis have quoted support (credible?) for it. BLL argued, “The Fourth Gospel identifies the woman who anoints Jesus with Mary of Bethany. Indeed the author of the Fourth Gospel is quite explicit on the matter: ‘Then Jesus six days before the Passover came to Bethany where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.’

There they made him a supper, and Martha served; but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.

Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment (John 12:1-3).”

From this, they argued that Mary of Bethany who anointed Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene (who is also reported to have anointed Jesus) are the same person. They concluded, “If Jesus was indeed married, there would thus seem to be only one candidate for his wife – one woman who recurs repeatedly in the Gospels under different names and in different roles.” This may be a correct inference if it is established already that Jesus had a monogamous relationship. But polygamy in his time was quite common and not disdained as much as it is now. Therefore the possibility may still be open that Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were two different women, married to Jesus Christ at the same time.

The Mormons are polygamist and they believe that Jesus Christ was also a polygamist. Their contention might appear questionable due to self-interest but is probably not completely out of line with BLL’s observations described earlier. They argue on the basis of Luke 10-38-42 (already described above) that “Jesus was the husband of both Mary and Martha in the same way a husband enters the home of his wife, or wives. (Joseph F.) Smith used John 11:2-5 (John 11:5 reads: Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus) to show that Jesus loved Mary and Martha as a husband. Smith also used the anointing of Jesus by Mary, sister of Martha, in John 12:3 (already described above) to show that Mary showed marital devotion to her husband, Jesus,” (http://www.emnr.org/papers/jesusmarry.htm.

References

1. Armstrong, K., “A History of God,” Ballantine Books, a Division of Random House, Inc., New York, pp. 107-132.
2. Baigent, M., Leigh, R., and Lincoln, H., “Holy Blood – Holy Grail,” Dell Publishing, a Division of Doubleday Publishing Group, Inc., New York, NY10036, 1982, pp. 316-337.
3. Darman, J., “Women of Christ,” Newsweek, May 29, 2006, pp. 44-51.
4. Gill, M., “Brou’ha ha on The Da Vinci Code,” http:://www.chowk.com, May 28, 2005.
5. Spong, J.L., “Liberating the Gospels,” HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY10022, 1997, p. 222.


Postscript

This article was written with the intention of publishing at The Secular Web. The editor of The Secular Web however did not accept it because “Your considerations about, for instance, Jesus’ marital status are speculative.” But the thesis of Jesus’ celibacy is equally speculative. Usually, the historicity of Jesus is derived from references to the Scriptures. Such references are not always reliable. For instance, I quote from “Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene,” by Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford University Press,, 2006, p.6, as follows: “It is not the case that the New Testament presents us only with facts and the books outside the New Testament present us only with pious fiction. There are facts and fiction in all our books, both inside the Bible and outside of it.”

After writing the above article, I came across several other publications, such as “Was Jesus Married”, by William E. Phipps, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 1970, among others which make a case reasonably well for a “married Jesus.” Celibacy as a doctrine is un-natural. In the prevalent Jewish social mores, marriage was regarded as the law of nature. Much of what we know about (historical?) Christ is from the canonical Gospels. The other Gospels such as the Gospel of Mary, for example, which presented different views were banned by the Church. They remained banned ever since and nobody knew whether they were still existent until recently. Recent discovery of the Nag Hammadi documents reveals parts of these early banned Gnostic Gospels which present a strong and credible case for a “married Jesus.”