Loading...I have been repeatedly asked about the brand new news story, that a new Gospel has been discovered that shows that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that they had children. If this sounds like (bad) fiction to you (think Da Vinci Code) (or for movies: think “Last Temptation of Christ”), it is. The claim is completely bogus. This “new” Gospel is not a Gospel, but a text that scholars have known for roughly forever. It’s not a Christian text (ostensibly). It’s about Joseph (as in the Old Testament) and his wife Asenath. Rather than explaining why the new claims about this text are not worth taking seriously (no scholar will), instead of explaining the whole situation myself, I give you a post made by Bob Cargill, assistant professor of classics and religious studies at the University of Iowa. I reproduce his post here with Bob’s permission. It’s a bit long for this blog, but I thought you should get the whole shooting match before you.
***************************************************************
Review of “The Lost Gospel” by Jacobovici and Wilson
Posted on November 10, 2014 by bobcargill (@xkv8r)
Except it’s NOT lost, and it’s NOT a gospel.
Since I’ve already been bombarded with questions from students and readers about the latest claims made by Simcha Jacobovici and Dr. Barrie Wilson in their new book, The Lost Gospel, I thought I’d post a quick response to this latest round of absurdity by repeating and re-posting some of the comments I made over a year ago in a post announcing my spring 2014 University of Iowa course in Syriac – a post that dealt (almost prophetically) with many of the claims made in this new book.
You can read most of Mr. Jacobovici and Dr. Wilson’s book online (and search for the parts that interest you) at Google Books here.
Mr. Jacobovici’s new book essentially claims that the 6th century CE Syriac language version of a Greek pseudepigraphical story entitled Joseph and Aseneth (which I discuss in my class “Banned from the Bible: Intro to Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha” course at Iowa) is a “gospel”, and should be read allegorically, but only after replacing every mention of Joseph with the name “Jesus”, and every mention of Aseneth with “Mary Magdalene”.
Now, if your first thought is, “WTF? This is just as problematic as the Bible Code dude, who attempts to read every passage in the Bible as an allegory for every modern event, from the Invasion of Iraq, to the Wall Street Crash, to President Obama’s election, etc.”, then you’re right on the money. It is precisely that silly – same interpretative technique, same lack of evidence, same wishful speculation. The same guy who claims to have discovered the route of the Exodus, Atlantis, the nails of the cross, the tomb of Jesus (with Jesus still in it!), and another tomb of people celebrating Jesus’ resurrection (with Jesus still in the other tomb), has now written a book claiming “evidence” that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, by swapping out the names of Joseph and Aseneth and replacing them with the names of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
By that same allegorical logic, you could swap out the names of Samson and Delilah and claim that Mary Magdalene cut Jesus’ hair. Or swap out Adam and Eve and conclude that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were the primordial couple. Or read David and Bathsheba allegorically and end up with Jesus having a son named Solomon, who is guarded by the Priory of Sion, and…well, you get the picture.
There is a reason that the scholars of the world are not paying any attention to this latest so-called “discovery”: there’s nothing there.
First things first: Mr. Jacobovici’s The Lost Gospel is neither “lost” nor a “gospel”.Scholars have known about and have studied the Syriac version of Joseph and Aseneth, located in the British Museum, for a very long time. Written by an unknown West Syriac writer dating to the late 6th century CE, the author composed anEcclesiastical History that included a translation of part of a lost Ecclesiastical Historyby the Greek writer Zacharias Rhetor. The work is commonly referred to as Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor. This Syriac text is of interest because books 1-2 of Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor contain a Syriac translation of the History of Joseph and Aseneth, which was often skipped in English translations because it is already known in the Greek. Keep in mind that the story of Joseph and Aseneth has been well documented over the years, both by my adviser at Pepperdine, Dr. Randy Chesnutt, who wrote his dissertation on Joseph and Aseneth, and by my Duke colleague Dr. Mark Goodacre, who has edited an Aseneth Home Page now for years.
Second: We already know why the story of Joseph and Aseneth was written. The story of Joseph and Aseneth is a well-known, ancient apocryphal expansion of the biblical account of the patriarch Joseph’s marriage to Aseneth, the daughter of the Egyptian Priest of On (Heliopolis). The story of Joseph and Aseneth was composed to solve the later theological problem of Joseph, a Hebrew patriarch, marrying a non-Israelite woman (Aseneth), in direct violation of biblical commands (albeit latercommands) that prohibit Hebrews/Jews/Israelites from intermarrying with other peoples, for instance, those found in Deut. 7:3; Josh. 23:12; Ezra 9; and Neh. 13:25. As prohibiting intermarriage became a bigger and bigger deal in the Second Temple period, many Jews began to see the problem with Joseph’s marriage to Aseneth, as Joseph was said to have not only married an Egyptian, but the daughter of an Egyptian priest!
In Gen. 41:45, the Bible says that Pharaoh gave Joseph one of his daughters as a wife:
“Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-paneah; and he gave himAseneth daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, as his wife.”
Gen. 41:50-52 further says that Joseph’s wife Aseneth bore him two sons: Manasseh and Ephraim, whence we get the tribal names:
“Before the years of famine came, Joseph had two sons, whom Asenethdaughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him. Joseph named the firstborn Manasseh, ‘For,’ he said, ‘God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father’s house.’ The second he named Ephraim, ‘For God has made me fruitful in the land of my misfortunes.’”
As one might imagine, this became a problem for Jews in the Second Temple period. Perhaps many asked, “How can God prohibit us from marrying women of another race when our patriarch Joseph did so?”
Enter Joseph and Aseneth, which was composed like so many pseudepigraphical stories of the Second Temple period and early Christian centuries to “explain away” the problem. We find these same apologetic techniques used in early Rabbinic writings as well as the Aramaic Targums, which clean up the stories of the Jewish Patriarchs by explaining away anything that might be perceived as a misdeed.
The popular ancient love story of Joseph and Aseneth serves an apology explaining why a righteous Israelite patriarch like Joseph would marry the daughter of a pagan priest. And the solution is a simple one: Joseph and Aseneth explains that Joseph’s wife, Aseneth, first converted to monotheism and belief in the Hebrew God before she married Joseph (a detail the Bible obviously “left out”). See? All better.
And that’s basically it. The biblical account says Joseph married an Egyptian woman, so Joseph and Aseneth explains that Aseneth first converted, and therefore was eligible to be married to Joseph.
Third: The Syriac account of Joseph and Aseneth in Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor does not talk about Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and simply substituting names does not make it so. However, the Syriac account is still noteworthy because just prior to his retelling of the story, the author writes a letter to a certain Moses of Ingila, asking for a translation and whether there is a deeper allegorical (θεωρία) interpretation of the story beyond the literal narrative. Some have argued that Moses of Ingila’s response attempts to interpret the story of Joseph and Aseneth allegorically, as a gnostic union of the soul (represented by Aseneth) with the divine Logos/Word of God (represented by Joseph). Likewise, there have been many who have argued (largely unsuccessfully) that the text is an allegory, with Joseph symbolizing anything from Jesus to the nation of Israel.
For her part, some scholars have understood Aseneth’s description as the “Bride of God” in 4:2 as representative of a redeemed Israel, or of the matriarchs of the Bible, or perhaps even the practice of voluntary virginity, which was increasingly popular in Christian circles in the late first and early second centuries. The simplest answer is that one who is now a “bride of God” is one who is a “daughter of God”, i.e., “a Hebrew” (and no longer an Egyptian, at least for religious purposes), in much the same way that a “son of God” represents any “child of God” in the Hebrew text. Keep in mind that there are many “sons of God” mentioned in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament that appear to be referring to heavenly beings, from Job 1:6: וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם וַיָּבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִיםלְהִתְיַצֵּב עַל-יְהוָה (“Now it fell upon a day, that the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD”), to Job 38:7: וַיָּרִיעוּ כָּל-בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים (“and all the sons of God shouted”), to Gen 6:2: וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי–הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה (“and the sons of God saw the daughters of men, because they were fair”), as well as in the New Testament, when human peacemakers come to be called “sons of God”: μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται (“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God“).
The use of the phrase “son(s) of God” in the Old and New Testaments does not automatically mean “INSERT JESUS’ NAME HERE”.
Fourth: Simply employing symbolism does not an allegory make. So while somescholars have argued that the text is a distinctly Christian text, most scholars conclude that the text is distinctly Jewish, while allowing that the text may possess some evidence of later Christian tampering and reworking, especially those parts of the text involving Eucharistic interpretations of the meal of bread and wine found within the story. However, the attempts by multiple scholars (cf. Chap 1 of Chesnutt) to interpret the story allegorically ultimately fall short, as any allegorical interpretation must be highly selective of particular details, and therefore necessarily ignores many other details within the story that simply do not fit the supposed allegory, relegating claims of allegory to the realm of wishful thinking. The story must ultimately be read as what it is: a Jewish narrative apology for the patriarch Joseph’s mixed marriage, with possible, occasional Christian reworking.
Keep in mind that there are all kinds of allegorical interpretations of biblical texts in the first centuries BCE and CE. Chapter 15 of the pseudepigraphical Epistle of Barnabasoffers an allegorical interpretation of the Creation account from Gen. 1. The first century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria also offered allegorical interpretations of biblical events and figures (including Joseph). The difference here is that Mr. Jacobovici and Dr. Wilson are claiming an allegorical interpretation of a pseudepigraphical text, as if the text of Joseph and Aseneth were itself canonical.
When all is said and done, Mr. Jacobovici and Dr. Wilson offer an allegorical interpretation of a Syriac translation of a (likely originally Greek) pseudepigraphical text, written to “clean up” the fact that the Hebrew patriarch Joseph married a non-Hebrew.
Fifth: The text used as “proof” of Jesus’ marriage dates to the 6th century CE, and only hopeful speculation pushes the Syriac version of this text back to earlier centuries. The fact that the Syriac version is composed long after an established minority tradition that depicts Jesus as Mary Magdalene’s κοινωνός, or “companion” in the Gospel of Philip, or the Gospel of Mary, which states that Jesus “loved [Mary] more than the rest of woman” – a tradition that some modern interpreters and fiction writers have argued is evidence that the Mary mentioned is Mary Magdalene, and that the two were married – does not provide “evidence” that Jesus and Mary were married. It simply means that some later author was making a contribution to this tradition. BUT, because it is written after the others, it CANNOT be used as “evidence” of ANYTHING but a continuation of the already late tradition that Jesus was married.
It would be like citing a favorable book review written by followers of Simcha Jacobovici three centuries after the publication of The Lost Gospel, and citing it as evidence that Simcha knows what he’s talking about. Such a review would contribute nothing to Simcha’s credibility, but would only serve as evidence that someone much later liked the book. Similarly, the Syriac version is a translation of a pseudepigraphical apology, upon which is forced Mr. Jacobovici’s allegorical translation. This is evidence of nothing.
Sixth: (And please remember I originally wrote the following over a year ago.) Anyone attempting an allegorical interpretation of Joseph and Aseneth, and arguing for anything other than an apology for why Joseph married a non-Israelite (and the daughter of a pagan priest at that), is grasping at speculative straws, and attempting(like the author of the Syriac text) to stretch the text into something it was never designed to do. Whether it be a gnostic interpretation of the text, or an attempt to argue something truly ridiculous and sensational, for example, that the story somehow represents Jesus and Mary Magdalene (as “Bride of God”, requiring an appeal to separate Gnostic texts like Pistis Sophia, the Gospel of Mary, and theGospel of Philip), and that this allegorical representation from six centuries afterthe life of Jesus, relying on the weaving together of multiple Gnostic texts composed a full century after the life of Jesus, somehow provides “evidence” of aspects of Jesus’ actual, historical life – such allegorical interpretations are the height of unsubstantiated speculation.
My teacher, Randall Chesnutt, said it best in his conclusion:
“While no one doubts the presence of symbolic and allegorical elements, the trend now is toward a method which recognizes those elements of symbolism and allegory which are straightforward and explicit in the narrative of Aseneth’s conversion rather than those supposed to be encoded deep within it.” (Chesnutt, From Death to Life, p. 45).
Finally: The book’s methodology is highly problematic. Scholars won’t reject Mr. Jacobovici’s findings because of some “theological trauma” or a confessional, apologetic desire to preserve the Jesus described in the Bible. I’m an agnostic. I have no dog in the fight of whether Jesus was married or not. He could be married and have 4 kids like me and I wouldn’t care. The problem is not a theological one, it is one of scholarship, methodology, and the (mis)use of evidence. Scholars won’t reject Mr. Jacobovici’s claims because they want to defend Christianity, scholars will reject Mr. Jacobovici’s speculations because he engages in circular reasoning, lacks evidence, breaks any number of rules of textual criticism, and engages in what I’ve described in the past as “speculation wrapped in hearsay couched in conspiracy masquerading as science ensconced in sensationalism slathered with misinformation” – all of which is designed to sell books and get viewers to watch the accompanying documentary in the weeks leading up to Christmas.
So in my professional opinion as an archaeologist and a tenure-track professor at a major research university (GO HAWKS!), I must recommend against this book. Just don’t bother. Were it a Dan Brown-esque novel, positing a speculative interpretation about the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene utilizing a fanciful allegorical interpretation of a document written six centuries after Jesus came and went, I’d say buy it and have fun. Fiction can be so much fun! But the problem with this book is that Mr. Jacobovici believes what he’s writing. He believes his interpretation is true. He wants it to be true. And that hovers somewhere between comical and scary.
I HAVE read the book and it really is worse than you might imagine. The text in question is neither “lost” nor a “gospel”, and the allegorical reading of the Syriac version of Joseph and Aseneth is little more than a wishful hope that it would be so, employing little more than name substitution and a desire to prove The DaVinci Codetrue. Absolutely no scholar will take this book seriously. It will not change Christianity. It will not change biblical scholarship. It’s just Simcha doing what he does best: direct-to-the-public pseudoscholarship just in time for Christmas.
This review was great reading! Thanks for posting it for us, Bart.
I’d actually come back to this site to say that after reading a description of the new book at Amazon.com, I was *sure* it was ridiculous.
Got a kick out of Dr. Cargill’s prediction that there will be a TV “documentary” about it. The people who produce such things are willing to lap up all sorts of nonsense!
The real irony for Christians who trash the book is this is the allegorical logic used by Christianity, including fundamentalist (in his previous life) Bart Ehrman, to find Jesus in The Jewish Bible
Jacobovici’s work is always good for a chuckle. Reminds me of some years ago when Geraldo Rivera presided over the opening of Al Capone’s “vault” only to find junk. Publicity can make anything seem special!
What some “fiction” writers will do to earn a buck while bastardizing scholarship.” I’m glad you used the word “comical” because I was thinking there is a comic book edition lurking close by 🙂
Just browsing thru Jacobivici’s profile on Wiki ( as you do), he does appear to have made some interesting documentaries over the years, including the Struma ship which was sunk by a Russian sub in 1942 killing about 800 people, sounds like quite an intriging movie I wouldn’t mind viewing. But he’s also done stuff which would frustrate the hell out of me.. searching for biblical evidence of the Exodus for the History channel, complete with CGI mock up’s of “how it really happened”. Those type of tv shows are lapped up by conspiracy theorists and seen as fact.
My sister loves those shows! Grrrrrrrr
Funny! When the first Indian Jones movie came out about the ark of the covenant, and a guy I was working with in a grocery store at the time asked me if I’d seen it yet (I hadn’t) and how historical it was, that was my reaction: “grrr” because I was buried in seminary study then and never had time to see popular movies. But when I had the chance? Wow! Spielberg at his best! Great flick. Very entertaining. Didn’t get to see Life of Brian until years later, either, and was reminded of that fact when I viewed Dr. Ehrman’s address at King’s College on youtube. I’m reading his 1999 book on Jesus, the Apocalytic …new millennium book now and when I came to what he writes about quella (sayings beside the early mark) it hit me: Perfect! (or voila! or eureka! for fictional writers) “Finding Q” Too bad Harrison Ford is too old to play the lead. Brad Pitt just turned 51 so whoever writes the book better get busy. The next swashbuckler archeologist finding of an invaluable ancient manuscript (but this one could actually educate, if someone will just write it)… And Jana, which should we prefer, the mythicists making bucks off barely legitimate scholarship, or the next Dan Brown level splash that at least publishes in the fiction genre up front and doesn’t pretend to be otherwise?
I have recently spent considerable time studying the Book of Mormon. It is fascinating that the Mormon religion has grown rapidly during 200 years with extraordinary claims and not as much historical evidence for the claims as most historians would like to have. Does this spread of Mormonism tell us anything about the similar spread of early Christianity?
It’s interesting that early Christianity spread — during its first 300 years — at almost exactly the same rate as Mormonism has spread since its beginning until now (roughly 40% per decade).
Well written and very witty at that.
Thank you for reposting his reply.
This is my first day reading the blog — though I have read several of Dr. Ehrman’s books and am beginning on a whole series of his lectures. I should, perhaps, have spent a couple of weeks reading before I decided to open my own yap, but the coincidence of the first article I read touching on one question I had been intending to send Doctor Ehrman was too much to resist.
Not about the “Lost Gospel de jour” or the eternal speculation about Jesus’ relations with Mary. My comment was inspired by a quote from the opening of THE HISTORICAL JESUS course. To paraphrase: “We know that Jesus was about thirty and unmarried…”
Do we? That is such a part of traditional thinking about Jesus that even Dr. E. did not question it — though he may have in later books. But what gives us any reason for thinking that he was unmarried? I know of no unequivocal statement in the Gospels, nor can I think of even a strongly worded suggestion. They are, to the best of my knowledge, silent on the topic, as are the other contemporary sources.
Let’s look at this from another direction. But first, you have to imagine that society of 1st Century Israel that Jesus grew up in — and remember, barring the mythical trip to Egypt, he seems to have spent all but the end of his life in Galilee, a ‘rural backwater’ compared to the more sophisticated Jerusalem. It was different, in many ways, and too often we like to ignore those differences and see them as ‘costumed versions of ourselves.’
The time-scale of living was, itself, different. When we think of a 33 year old man, we see him as young (even if you are not a decrepit 68-year old like myself). There, he was a middle-aged man, probably worn out from whatever labor he had done. And sexuality began much younger. We might see a 33 year old man as someone who may be just deciding to start a family. Most of Jesus’ contemporaries were not just parents, but grandparents.
Another difference was the lack of what we consider ordinary privacy. This was not a life lived behind stone walls and wooden doors and thick windows. Much of what wasn’t known about your neighbors was because you chose not to know, to block out sounds, not to see inconvenient things. (At the same time the family/tribal feeling was strong, the communities were small, and a rare, nearly universal human trait seems to be a love of gossip about whoever isn’t there right now.)
In that society, a 33-year old man would seem to be in one of five categories. (I think these are exhaustive, but if I missed the obvious, someone will be sure to “Gibbs slap” me — even into temporary silence.)
He may be unmarried because he is unable to get married, because he knows no one he wishes to marry, or that is willing to marry him — or because he is disfigured, diseased, or crippled in some way. (Accidental castration must have been much more common then, but it still happens.
He may be a member of an ascetic, pleasure-denying sect like the Essenes or the Baptist’s followers, and thus unmarried.
He may be gay. (Remember though that even today in ethnic communities there is frequently a strong push for children to get married, usually limited by our belief in a child’s right to make his decisions. In this society, the parents had the responsibility to pick the spouse and make the decisions — at least to a certain extent. And the pressure was not merely ‘societal’ but was the pressure to perform a religious duty. Even today ‘marriages of convenience’ are not uncommon. In that society, even a man 100% gay would more likely to choose such a marriage than to parade an unmarried state.)
It is far, far more likely though that such a man would be either married or a widower.
Now let’s look at Jesus. The ‘unmarriageable’ idea seems unlikely. If it was due to accident, this would have been known — and used by those’ enemies’ that keep popping up or later anti-Christian writers. (Polite discourse and compassionate blindness towards the ill or maimed does not seem to be as prevalent then as now.) And if he were simply too unattractive to find a mate — in a society that found study and intelligence attractive — It is hard to imagine how he could have become the great preacher he is portrayed. Scratch that one.
Jewish ascetics were not rare, but they were uncommon, and certainly were ‘swimming against the tide’ of mainstream Judaism. Judaism affirms pleasure in general — and within the Torah limitations — rather than renouncing it. (I am unaware of the time of the rabbi who said that it could be considered wrong to deny the pleasure in pork, because that way the sacrifice being made is diminished.) And virginity and celibacy were hardly viewed as admirable traits.
And there is absolutely no asceticism in Jesus’ thinking. At no place does he tell his followers to refrain from pleasure because pleasure is bad, or a distraction from ‘giving your full concentration to God.’ At most he says to refrain because ‘we ain’t got time for that now.’ (Sorry, but the line from TALKING HEADS always pops into my head when I think of the apocalyptic arguments, the ones like ‘turn the other cheek’ that seem so close to the ‘love one another’ preaching … but aren’t.) No, he wasn’t an unmarried ascetic.
As for him being gay or bi, he may well have been. (I doubt it — and I am myself bi- — but that is one side path I’ll hold back from exploring in this extensive letter.) But as I stated, this would not rule out his being or having been married. For that matter, if he had been gay, wouldn’t those who condemned him as ‘a drunkard and a glutton’ used this fact as well? If he were ‘closeted’ he would have been open to a charge of hypocrisy, perhaps. And had he been openly gay and known to be so, it seems something of this would have remained in the accounts about him. Certainly it is no more ’embarrassing’ than his Apocalyptic failure. So draw a line through ‘unmarried and gay.’
Which leaves the only possibilities that I can think was that either he was married, or he was a widower. But is there — despite my comments earlier — any scriptural confirmation for this? At least a couple, I would suggest — and here my sadly incurable monolingualism hurts — that there are at least two hints. One is a matter of the tone he uses speaking of marital matters. It may be the translations — though they are remarkably consistent in this as far as I can recall. But there seems to be a personal feeling and emphasis that we rarely see in talking of other matters. Elsewhere he is gentle and general — only here do I find a specific command, unsoftened by parable, unattached to — and almost ignoring — his apocalypticism, specific rather than general.
Then there is the scene where his ‘family’ comes to bring him home. This is usually portrayed as he mother and brothers — and I am unaware if the Greek words are different — but it certainly sounds more like what a wife and children would do — and it goes against the fact that his mother is usually portrayed as loyal and at least one of his brothers was traveling with him.
Hardly convincing — but at least, I believe, worth considering.
And to add one final Blue(sky)berry to the top of this sundae of speculation, one unanswered question — for those who find the story of the meeting between Jesus and the Baptist to be dubious — is ‘what set him off?’ What event caused him to go from a workman and carpenter’s son — interestingly enough I believe he is referred to as a ‘carpenter’s son; but never as that ‘carpenter and son of a carpenter’ — to a world changing preacher.
Could it possibly have been caused by the discovery of a betrayal by his wife?
I’m tempted to arrogantly say something like ‘Answer those and then bring up Mary Magdalene’ but in reality I should ask what I got wrong, and parts of what I wrote are right but clichés.
Welcome to the blog! Your post is too long for me to respond to point-by-point, but I will say that I have discussed at length the evidence that Jesus was probably NOT married in my book Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code.