Loading...So, I’ve written a few posts on the question of whether Jesus was married. Short answer: I don’t think so. I’m surprised at how many people on the blog apparently do think so, and I don’t recall that anyone has actually presented any evidence for it. 🙂 But, well, maybe he was! (I should stress though, that since history is a matter of probabilities, “maybes” don’t as a rule go very far.) Anyway, some readers do think Jesus was married, and fair enough. But does it actually matter?
I have jokingly said on a number of occasions: “Not to *me*!” And that’s absolutely true, as I’ll explain later.
Some people think that it certainly would matter. For example, if Jesus was married, wouldn’t that more or less single-handedly destroy the idea that priests have to be single and celibate? That would matter! And wouldn’t it elevate the importance of women (especially one of them) in relationship to Jesus, and wouldn’t that be a good thing for women who are oppressed within the Christian tradition? And wouldn’t it mean that sexuality, human desire, and sexual activities are NOT things that can be swept under the carpet or, worse, condemned as sinful? And on a theological level (I’m not a theologian, but if I were, this is a point I would push), wouldn’t it show that the incarnation was REAL and not feigned, that Jesus really was a full flesh-and-blood human with all the passions, desires, and longings of all other humans?
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, NOW’S YOUR BIG CHANCE!!!
“So the reality is that people can argue around any piece of evidence they want in order to support the views they want to support.”
Amen. And we have much Biblical evidence that Jesus said things against being rich, and that doesn’t seem to bother too many people.
Absolutely. And all these filthy-rich Christians who imagine that they want to do what Jesus would do….
Key word: “imagine”. How vivid indeed are their imaginations.
I’m sure he didn’t know this when he was flesh, but I prefer to think the spirit that Jesus is today knows what all biology professors know today, that sexual desire is a gift from evolution to keep men and women bonded for a time while they raise these woefully immature babies humans have. It doesn’t always work, but natural selection has done what it can for us on average. A culture can add to that, depending on its evolution, but not by declaring all sexual desire to be evil, even that within marriage. Even conservatives don’t go that far any more. Reality does seep into them here and there.
I don’t see how Jesus could have known that in his culture, married or not. That’s what I see as more important.
Perhaps one of the reasons Jesus accepted John’s apocalyptic view is because he couldn’t find a wife! Surely that is evidence of a messed-up world, and something has to be done about it! More seriously, perhaps in this discussion you could comment on scholarly thought (if any) about Jesus’ sexual orientation. I know there is some thought that the Secret Gospel of Mark may have raised some questions about that in its day. And it might have some bearing on the questions of Jesus’ celibacy or marriage.
It’s way more fun reading this kind of material as an agnostic than it ever was in my xtian days.
“Or they would argue that even though he was married he never had sex, so that he set the pattern of celibacy.”
I just want to mention that when I was a Catholic schoolgirl, we were taught that “celibacy” – as required of clergy – meant *not being married*; it had nothing to do with not having sex. Of course, the clergy weren’t supposed to be having sex (it was “sinful” for *any* unmarried person to have sex!). But “celibacy” referred only to not being married. We were taught that the term for not having sex was “chastity.”
Possibilities, probabilities; Pentecostal preacher-turned-blue-comic Sam Kinison had the definitive answer on how we know Jesus was single: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSwG9Tojg9I
As you point out, the idea of the married Catholic priesthood was not likely to be influenced by theology. Just like in politics today. There is always an argument that can be conjured up against anything. I don’t know when the married priesthood for the Catholic church started or what justification for it was used. And why did the Eastern church allow it?
But as I recall, the Catholic church halted married priesthood entirely based on property protection. Popes in the 11th century wanted to head off the practice of married priests passing church property to their sons. This had nothing to do with whether Jesus or Paul was married. It was about protecting the church and its wealth.
Also, I agree with you that a married priesthood was not likely to elevate the status of women. As you have pointed out — in your books and probably in many posts — that woman were very active in founding the early Christian but reports of their activity in the New Testament were revised to reflect that the early Christians met not at the home of Judy Smith but at the home of MR AND MRS SMITH, lest someone get the correct idea that women were actually very important in the founding of the church.
This post is far more important than the subject of whether or not Jesus was married because it illustrates so clearly what always happens in theological discussions:
1. History is a matter of probabilities, but history matters little in theological discussions.
2. People do not make up their minds about such theological issues on the basis of evidence.
3. People can always argue around evidence to support any view they want to support.
These three observations interest me much more than the particular issue of whether or not Jesus was married. I would be interested in further posts on these three observations. I guess these three things happen in all fields, but they seem less prominent in fields like medicine and science.
I wonder if anyone on the blog who currently thinks Jesus was married would have thought so before reading Dan Brown’s novel (movie)?
I love America! What rank are we in the world in education? Numerous studies show America is widely ranked first in confidence. We are confident but know nothing.
“wouldn’t it show that the incarnation was REAL and not feigned, that Jesus really was a full flesh-and-blood human with all the passions, desires, and longings of all other humans?”
Is this not even what we are taught, in our churches, that he was? Fully human; but he sinned not.
Nonsense. From out of his own mouth, “Why calleth me good? There are none who are good except God.” If that isn’t an admission to his humanity, and occasional fallibility (consider the fig tree), I don’t know what is.
“For example, if Jesus was married, wouldn’t that more or less single-handedly destroy the idea that priests have to be single and celibate?”
Question; and one I’ve long since pondered. What greater influence did Jesus have over the church than say, Paul, who was admittedly celibate and thought that all others (who lacked self control) should be too? Did priests decide to remain celibate because of the teachings of Jesus? Or the teachings of Paul?
My sense is that it wasn’t one or the other — there was a strong ascetic movement within Christianity that fed off of itself, and that used the sacred texts of Scripture — wherever they could find them — to justify their views and practices. My friend Elizabeth Clark has written an amazing (and very scholarly) book on this called Reading Renunciation.
Thanks, Bart. I’ll be looking for your friend’s book.
Dear Willow,
I am sending this post in the middle of another discussion, since you might catch it here.
Some time back you asked about why Jesus would request baptism for the remission of his sins, if he was supposedly without sin. I would imagine that his being sinless has to be a later higher Christological creation of the Church since no human can be without sin.
(As an aside, personally I believe in “sin”, but *only* if I redefine it as “an act of selfishness/self-centeredness” (and not as an offense against God); and an act selfishness/self-centeredness is an action that creates suffering, as well as reinforcing the habit of believing in the delusion of ego. Sorry about that extended digression into my Buddhist training!)
But back to your question, do check out, or ask me to scan and send to you, pages 106 to 116 of John Meier’s “A Marginal Jew”, Volume 2, on “The Meaning of Jesus’ Baptism” (as I can’t summarize it.) But he does say on page 113 that “Confession of sin in ancient Israel did not mean unraveling a laundry list of personal peccadilloes… Confession of sin in ancient Israel was a God-centered act of worship that included praise and thanksgiving. Confession of sin often meant recalling God’s gracious deeds for an ungrateful Israel, a humble admission that one was a member of a sinful people…and a final resolve to change and be different from one’s ancestors.”
Thanks, Tracy! My apologies for not noticing your much appreciated comment sooner. I’m in complete agreement with your first two paragraphs, but admittedly, I am not familiar with Meier’s A Marginal Jew, but am determined to find the entire work on Amazon, post haste!
Hi, no worries, I am just glad you caught it! It is a big book, (and comes recommended by Bart), but it is remarkably accessible. It reads like a historian’s detective story (what can really be said about the historical Jesus, using the criteria of historicity). Best, Tracy
But didn’t the Church see married priests as a siphoning-off of assets going to their children instead of back to the Church when it instituted the celibacy rule? That hasn’t got much to do with Jesus’ being married, but rather economics. The Eastern Orthodox tradition includes married priests, just not married bishops, so…?
Who cares if Jesus was married? Who cares if he ever lived? (There is no evidence that he did.) Whoever this ‘person’ was, he said he can’t help us now: “We must do the works of him who sent US* while it is day; night comes WHEN NO ONE can work. AS LONG AS I am in the world, I am the Light of the world!” -John 9:4-5 *Codex SInaiticus
Judaswasjames
I realize that if you pay for your membership, you’re entitled to post here. But it’s my understanding that this blog is about the HISTORY of the New Testament and early Christianity. Your posts all seem to be arguing a mystical interpretation of the New Testament. That’s THEOLOGY, not history. Isn’t there another blog that would be more appropriate for your opinions?
brc,
Not one with Bart Ehrman on it. I think your understanding is wrong, too: The header says “Christianity in Antiquity” (CIA). I focus on the Gospel of Judas and Gnostic gospels. Not much more on point than that!
Bart is the point man nationally, if not world-wide, for alternative Christian thought. He also was/is on the National Geographic Gospel of Judas Project Advisory Committee which had the editio princep translation and interpretation, which was done incredibly ignorantly. I will be there whenever the Gospel of Judas or Judas is discussed to indicate that Judas was the ‘sacrifice’, not Jesus, and that he is identifiably James the Just, inverted. This discovery is nothing short of the most important event in all of history, given its implications for Christianity. My life’s mission now is to see that ‘the Betrayal’ is correctly interpreted: judaswasjames.com
Why is it what I say is seen as inappropriate? I think what is inappropriate is any discussion of the New Testament without consideration of the mystic teaching that it tries to cover up! Any discussion of the New Testament texts MUST include their mystic foundation to be of any real value. The Teachers that it tries to suppress all taught it. The reason this is so poorly known is testament not to its correctness but to its success at obfuscation! Dr. Eisenman proved how successful it was at obfuscation: extremely. If you all want me to leave, ask Bart. I would expect that his judgment is better than yours. I hope all of you would come to see the importance of mystic thought. It is sorely absent in the West, still.
I care.
Of course, the main argument we hear today for keeping a celibate clergy is economic: they’d have to be paid more if they were even partially responsible for supporting families. Protestant ministers do it, of course! One hears arguments pro and con as to how Catholic congregations would react to being expected to shell out more money.
Another point: The late Rev. Andrew Greeley (who was considered liberal in most respects) claimed that, however illogical it might seem, his experience – and, I think, research – showed that Catholic married couples seeking counseling felt more comfortable with priests who were not themselves married.
Bart, your argument that Jesus was not married is persuasive to me. I loosely held the opinion he was only because I believed marriage was the “default.” Of course, as a former Mormon, the idea that Jesus was married was familiar with me, as early Mormon leaders said he was–some going so far as to say he was a polygamist!
On a related matter, and maybe this might make an interesting blog entry, but what are your thoughts on the theory published some years back that Jesus was gay? I recall one of the supporting arguments was that, since he didn’t get married, but Jewish men were supposed to, it might be evidence of his homosexuality. Is there any evidence one way or the other?
(On a side note, I seem to recall reading a scripture passage in which Jesus took a young boy away in private to teach him “certain mysteries.” But for the life of me I can’t remember where I read it.)
Thanks for your time,
-robert
I think the problem is that ancient people had no idea of “gay” or “straight” because they did not have a notion of sexual orientation.
You’re thinking of the Secret Gospel of Mark.
Thanks…I was sure I’d read it somewhere. (Man I wish I had your memory capacities!)
Sexual orientation may have been foreign, but homosexual sex was not. I guess except for the Secret Gospel there is no other evidence.
While we are imagining things, just imagine a world with a gay savior.
We do have a gay author in King James I. Not too many people seem to know that.
Well…it’s my impression that we think of “sexual orientation” as a person’s perceiving himself or herself as being one thing or another (be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual). Usually, nowadays, with the implication that the “orientation” is determined by biology.
The ancients may not have thought that way – applying labels. But didn’t they recognize that in practice, some people preferred to have sexual relations almost exclusively with the opposite sex, others almost exclusively with their own sex?
Of course, if they didn’t recognize that – if the fact wasn’t there to be recognized, and they just knew people exhibited homosexual behavior in certain situations – it might indicate that environmental influences, cultural expectations, etc., really are more significant than biology.
DR Ehrman:
What ancient people are you referring to?
Paul the apostle certainly knew the difference between what we call ‘gay’ or ‘straight’. He describes these differences in Romans 1:26,27. Paul describes as “unnatural” the practice of same sex intercourse and clearly states that it was people who abandoned the natural function of a man and a woman and burned in their desire towards one another. Men with men. Women with women. He calls such sexual acts indecent not a loving relationship. So why do you assert that ancient people had no idea of sexual orientation? Paul says God abandoned them because of this. So it was deliberate disobedience to the will of God. These people knew what they were doing they just chose lust instead of God and paid the price for their sin.
ROMANS 1:26-For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27-and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
You may want to read some scholarship on this. I’d suggest David Halperin, John Winkler, Dale Martin, and others. Paul knows nothing about sexual orientation, only about sexual acts.
DR Ehrman:
What would you say the “sexual orientation” of these men that “abandoned” the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward on another was?
Why did they give up the “natural” function of the woman and why did women leave the natural function of the man?
Paul says that God “abandoned” these people who chose to engage in these “unnatural” acts. Obviously Paul’s God did not create these women to be lesbians nor these men to be homosexuals for why would he abandon them?
Sexual orientation? Are you sure about his DR Ehrman? Facebook now has 50 options under “GENDER” for one to choose from. Is this what you mean by sexual orientation? When will it end?
How about male and female he created them?
If the God of Paul and the God who raised Jesus from the dead is true, all who teach that male and female is to limiting and bigoted are in big trouble and will pay a huge price for opposing the creator?
Maybe you should read what experts on sexuality in antiquity say about this. I’ve given you some names. Also you may want to try Thomas LaQueur, The Making of Sex.
“Or they would argue that even though he was married he never had sex, so that he set the pattern of celibacy.”
Like mother, like son? (just kidding).
Exactly!!
Wasn’t it Augustine who said the a man who was married to an ugly woman committed less sexual sin during intercourse than one who married a beautiful woman. God forgive me for a lifetime of sin with a beautiful wife.
Don’t know!
Concerning the ratio of men to women in ancient Palestine, not only is a high maternal mortality rate (about 25 per 1,000 births) estimated, but in general, due to higher female fetal mortality (WHO), the ‘natural’ sex ratio at birth is normally thought to be about 107 boys to 100 girls. So this may also be a factor, reinforcing your point that there may have been a certain percentage (maybe 10-20%) of unmarried men, unless men engaged in war or dangerous occupations. Given the maternal mortality rate, we might expect quite a large number of widowers, and of men who married more than once.