Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Was Jesus married?

Perhaps if the Son of God had had a wife, Christianity would be a bit less hung up about sex.

By Nelson Jones Published 20 September 2012 16:47

An actor plays Jesus in a passion play in Trafalgar Square in London. Photograph: Getty Images

It would be fascinating to know more about Jesus. Few human beings have greater historical significance, and probably no one of comparable importance lived a life of such obscurity and left so little in the way of material for biographers.

Of course, the Gospels provide enough information to satisfy most Christians. They record (or appear to) those aspects of his career that matter most from a religious perspective - his parables, his miracles, the names of his leading disciples, some birth stories, above all the great drama of his trial and crucifixion. Enough sense of a personality emerges from the four canonical gospels to create the illusion of an historical Jesus about whom the essential facts are known. We can surmise that he liked wine and fish sandwiches, was sometimes rude to his mother and was a compelling enough speaker to draw large crowds to hear him preach.

But a vast amount is simply not there. We don't know what he was doing for the first thirty years of his life, what he looked like (even though we all think we know what he looked like) or what prompted him to chuck in the carpentry - though even the carpentry is tradition rather than a matter of historical record - and hit the road as a would-be Messiah. We know nothing at all about his personal life. To a modern world that hates mystery and wants to know everything about everybody, this can be very frustrating.

The desire to know more, or even anything, about this pivotal figure fuels endless speculation and an ever-growing deluge of books, which range from the scholarly to the ridiculous. A personal favourite (in the nuttiness stakes) is the theory devised in the late 1960s by Dead Sea Scrolls scholar that Jesus was a mushroom. A hallucinogenic mushroom, indeed. His basic idea was that the early Christians were a sect of drug-takers who had visions of the God while high on a fungus-based hallucinogen, which they came to personify as the "Son of God". The mushroom's phallic shape was of some consequence here.

The paucity of real evidence allows for such wild speculation. And it guarantees headlines for any scrap of new material that emerges. The latest fragment of papyrus to hit the news would be particularly sensational if true, suggesting as it does that Jesus was married. Unveiled earlier this week by Professor Karen King of Harvard Divinity School, the passage appears to come from a lost gospel and contains the words "Jesus said... my wife". That does not, needless to say, prove that Jesus actually had a wife. Even if genuine (and this is contested), it dates from the 4th century, far too late to provide historical proof of events that took place three hundred years earlier. That would still be true even if, as King believes, the text draws on material closer in time to Jesus' own.

But it does show one thing, and that is highly significant, if not entirely unprecedented. It shows that there was an early tradition - perhaps later than the canonical Gospels, but still early - that Jesus was married. It matters that Jesus' marital state was something that early Christians had differing views about, not because it proves anything in itself, but because it sheds light on how Christianity developed, how the concept of Jesus as a divine saviour emerged and, perhaps, how the religion ended up with a conflicted and rather contradictory attitude towards sex.

We will almost certainly never know the truth. What might provide convincing evidence for a married Jesus? Short of an authenticated letter from Pontius Pilate saying, "I felt really sorry for the man's wife", probably nothing. The main evidence to the contrary is the absence of any reference in the Gospels to a wife. This is still absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence. But given that his mother is mentioned, it would seem to be a remarkable omission, requiring explanation. The explanation beloved of conspiracy theorists and, thanks to Dan Brown, widely known, is of course that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene - they even had children - but that the evidence was suppressed by the Church, perhaps because the existence of Jesus' descendants would have provided an alternative centre of allegiance for Christians or raised awkward theological questions. (For example: If Jesus was divine, as Christianity teaches, would his children and grandchildren share in that divinity?)

There are actually more plausible reasons why Bible might be silent about the wife of Jesus, perhaps the most likely being that she was dead and thus had no part to play in the story. Jesus began his ministry at around the age of thirty. It would have been unusual at that time and in that culture for him to have been unmarried at that age, but not at all unusual, sadly, for him to be a young widower. Many women died in childbirth. One might even speculate that such a tragedy precipitated a spiritual crisis that led him to believe that he had been called by God, and that his wife and child had been taken from him in order that he might pursue his ministry free of any human ties.

Jesus' presumed status as a celibate has been the source of a lot of trouble for Christianity down the centuries. While the man himself is recorded in as affirming marriage, since ancient times there has been an unfortunate tendency to see his virginity as bound up with his purity and his perfection as the Son of God. Hence the implication that marriage and family life are somehow second best; that a truly dedicated follower of Christ would abjure all that and devote themselves to God. The celibacy of monks and nuns, and of the Catholic priesthood, follows from that. Worst of all, it suggests that sex itself is defiling: that Jesus (and, for Catholics and Orthodox Christians, his mother) were pure because they were virgins.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that if Jesus had been married - or known to have been married - Christianity might be a bit less hung up about sex.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

33 comments

Sun, 2012-10-07 12:06 — Stephen Verges (not verified)

Jesus, plagiarized Socrates - Diogenes - Onesicritus and many others or those who wrote on Jesus surely did. Jesus was a Cynic by all accounts and never lived as any type of Christian or Catholic would suggest. When the English coin the term "Jesuitical" it is for a very clear reason and definition. Some argue Jesus pulled a Onesicritus and went east studying with fellow gymnosophists who taught him yoga - Tibetans make similar claims and many in the Asia make claims of a Jesus appearing in one form or another. Claims of Jesus also suggest he took his girlfriend to France or Spain and lived the rest of his life. Can this be found in any of the early medieval texts? Funk the texts because as the late Hitchens would point out coins were a great way to examine the history, so too were carnivals (put away the flesh or abstain from flesh) and festivals (feast on the flesh). Easter parades are festivals and in Verges - Spain for the Easter Procession - there is a medieval signifier or show of a family. Verges - Spain would seem like a Halloween party with the exception of this family who appears. Verges boasts to have the oldest Easter procession which despite many changes made in the Catholic church regarding modernity ... Verges has kept the festivities "old school". Some may argue the family represents unity for the church or perhaps even a religious wooden dick idea of fertility, the reality is the family in question is Jesus's family. The family would be certainly human for the record and if this is the case -- Jesus and family in France in Spain ... surely family and carpentry meant light years more to Jesus than those who would sought to live by his words in democracy of North Africa [Donatists] and those who would corrupt him by way of Augustine and Constantine years later. Forget the books for a second and look at the world around you. The current Pope wore a nazi arm band and Jesus was a Cynic who got his girlfriend pregnant more than once. Just like the pope should be ejected out of office -- the story of Jesus should be told in the entirety. To give an ex-nazi control over the story? Not from where I sit.

Fri, 2012-09-28 03:27 — blinkers

Since when has a food that is of liver, offal and with bacon a profanity against people? Do I have to educate your onsite Imam?

Fri, 2012-09-28 03:33 — blinkers

I was writing about in wales the local delicacy of foods from when people had not too much money, as the mine owners owned the miners houses, the shops the pubs and I mentioned a word against the religious wallahs on-site at politically correct Newt Statesman.

Seems a food that was in Mrs Beeton's Cook Book offends pink eyed monsters whom when they are not working flog themselves for an nights rent.

I am off Newt Statesman!

Fri, 2012-09-28 03:35 — blinkers

Fri, 2012-09-28 03:36 — blinkers

AGG

Fri, 2012-09-28 03:37 — blinkers

OTS

Fri, 2012-09-28 10:15 — jankaas (not verified)

took you 3 goes to spell 1 word.
what an idiot.

Fri, 2012-09-28 02:14 — blinkers

Mr Nelson Jones was once Mr Senghenydd Jones, but he changed his name when he wanted to live in England.

Fri, 2012-09-28 02:09 — blinkers

Mary Magdalene was his bit on the side!

He had ten of them and went to England to claim an house and family benefit.

Thu, 2012-09-27 12:49 — jankaas (not verified)

if Jesus had been married and this was part and parcel of the Bible it would be a disaster for homosexuals. it's bad enough with religious zealouts having to 'interpret' the current text to support their homophobia and bigotry. i shudder to think how they would behave if they had something substantial to pin their hate on.

Thu, 2012-09-27 10:47 — Tom Fischer (not verified)

If we were doing a clean out at the Smithsonian 100 years from now and discovered a scrap of paper written by a fan of the Royal Gamily saying "George Washington was a monarchist," would that make it historically true? Nonsense. Same thing here for a scrap of gnostic papayrus hundreds of years after the 4 Gospels were written, it proves nothing. Gnostics were bizzare heretics not true Christians, and beyond the pale to Christians; much as Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians are today. But to those who refuse to interact with the New Testament witness to the Lord Jesus, it is touted as the latest attack on the bible. The sort of person swept up in the DaVinci Code phenomina a few years ago would find this sort of thing an interesting justification for their prejudices against Christianity. But at least the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury won't be putting out a contract on Professor Karen King for being a blasphemer. But she will get her comeuppance in the next life. Since she rejcects Jesus as her Saviour and lord she will deal with Him as her judge. Not a good place to be.

Thu, 2012-09-27 10:47 — Tom Fischer (not verified)

Tue, 2012-09-25 18:35 — G Melrose (not verified)

Did Christ really die on the cross? There is evidence to suggest that in fact he did not.
The evidence:- He was a man in the prime of life. He must have been fairly fit, good diet, plenty of exercise and above all a deep commitment in what he was preaching.
True he was badly beaten by the Romans, so far nothing lethal.It is my understanding he was crucified on the Friday and taken down from the cross late on the same day; because under Jewish law burials on the Sabbath was forbidden and Saturday was the Sabbeth. From all accounts his relatives ask PP permission to take Christ down as he had died. PP was puzzled about this as it was normal for a person to live for up to two to three days before they died. So PP sent a centurian to check, there was no way that the centurian would have been able to examine Christ as Christ was several feet above and out of reach. The centurion reported that Christ appeard dead so PP gave his permission. Christ was probable in a coma. Understandable so.
Christ was laid out in a temporary tome, not buried.
When his people returned, Christ was gone, taken away to be nursed back to health, remember he had not suffed any lethal wounds. Of course his people said he was dead, the last thing they wanted was the Romans hunting him; the Romans wouldn't make the same mistake twice.
The rest is history.

Thu, 2012-09-27 02:11 — Keir

The evidence is that Jesus died, because evil people hate the idea that he died.

Tue, 2012-09-25 20:49 — George Hunt (not verified)

Good stories, but the absence of Bible knowledge is lacking. The assumptions of the author are unfounded whimsical imaginations that are loaded with errors that I will not go into and are left to the readers to decide for themselves. If the readers would blow the dust from their Bibles they will certainly discover the truth there as it is written. The author has not done sthis required task I sense..

Tue, 2012-09-25 10:40 — plain john snith (not verified)

What do you call a Muslim who owns a goat AND a donkey?

Bisexual.

Tue, 2012-09-25 02:41 — sven the troll (not verified)

The Prophet Mohammed sucked camels' dicks.

Tue, 2012-09-25 20:51 — George Hunt (not verified)

Sicko!

Fri, 2012-09-28 02:10 — blinkers

I bet you are sick after doing that to!

Tue, 2012-09-25 20:50 — George Hunt (not verified)

Sicko!

Mon, 2012-09-24 21:21 — John Cheese (not verified)

So now, isn't it time to burn something now?? Slanderous? Oh wait, I forgot...that's not us..

Sun, 2012-09-23 21:39 — hugh markey (not verified)

Initially Christianity was a slave religion and slaves did not have the benefit of matrimony. In fact if seems as if the Apostles left wives and families to follow Jesus.

Da Vinci

Fri, 2012-09-21 17:08 — jankaas (not verified)

"Church of England clerics were renowned for their large families; until capitalism decided that homosexuality was the thing, of course."

can i have some of what you're smoking Keir?

seriously, you think that allowing homosexuals equal rights forced these clerics to have smaller families, or what? and, that capitalism rather than evidence based reasoning finally forced society to extend equal rights?

Fri, 2012-09-21 13:35 — Keir

Nelson really thinks that the celibacy of the Vatican's appalling cult is due to pious dedication? Did NS somehow employ an ingénue? Make no mistake, the celibacy of the sinister cult of papism is inspired by lucre, Nelson, the aura that celibacy gives in obtaining power and pelf. By contrast, homely Church of England clerics were renowned for their large families; until capitalism decided that homosexuality was the thing, of course. Pelf has raised its ugly head again.

It's a no-brainer. If you believe that you are going to die early, you don't get married and have wife and children to grieve when you've gone. It was God who invented sex, remember; but he thinks that there are actually more important things, like integrity and standing up for what one believes. So some decide to do as he did. There is no special honour for doing so, no obloquy for getting married. It's nobody's business but one's own; à chacun, son goût. Peter took his wife with him on his travels; Paul stayed as he was. Horses for courses.

But if noble thoughts are over-ridden by impulses from below the waist, then of course one is hung up on sex.

Incidentally, this scrap of papyrus may refer to the church as the spiritual wife of Jesus, particularly as the context appears to be discipleship. But a generation hung up on sex may not think of that. :-)

Sat, 2012-09-22 16:20 — willoyen

'But if noble thoughts are over-ridden by impulses from below the waist, then of course one is hung up on sex.'
rather unhealthy position. Give unto caesar that which is caesar's... Give unto the impulses from below the waist that which they naturally crave, and keep your noble thoughts all above. Jesus, being a man, and a full-blooded, warm-hearted one at that, enjoyed both love sublime, and love 'profane'. He drank wine, for god's sake, as nelson reminds us. He almost certainly had children; no need to 'marry' for that. Were not Rabbis usually prolific breeders of sinners...'go forth and multiply'.

Fri, 2012-09-21 11:53 — jankaas (not verified)

"Even if genuine (and this is contested), it dates from the 4th century, far too late to provide historical proof of events that took place three hundred years earlier. "

and the exact same point is made about the resurrection myth. this fantasy wasn't fully fleshed out and added to the Bible until about the same time.

Fri, 2012-09-21 01:36 — chudds32 (not verified)

Christianity might be a bit less hung up ! agree totally , you could argue the chances are that we wouldn't have heard about old men in cassocks fondling and abusing young boys in Catholic Vestries around the world for one . I'm sure Jesus was prone to a little ' slap and tickle ' in his time as the ' messiah ' . Bit like when a super group goes on tour and the ' rock chicks ' offer their services ! Hope it is proven beyond doubt , that he was married and even had kids . I think it would be a good thing for Christianity and a kick in the private parts , for the Bishops and Priests , who think they hold the moral high ground !

Thu, 2012-09-20 21:39 — Arthur Hudson (not verified)

As a historian I might be able to answer your question "who determines this crap any how?"

Firstly, the four standard Gospels were established in the bible probably about two hundreds years before the First Council of Nicaea held by the Christian Roman Emperor Constantine, in the 4th Century AD. Early Christians (just after the time of Christ) believed that they could prove the divinity and existence of Christ by using the four original Gospels that were in circulation during the later part of the first century. They believed that the original Gospels were reliable primary evidence and they became well established in the New Testament by the end of the 2nd Century.

Secondly, The Gospel of Thomas and other gnostic Gospels appeared later and early Christians rejected the Gnostic Gospels because they were thought to be fake or perhaps not as reliable as the original four Gospels. That said, the Church acknowledged the documents after the 4th Century and circulated them for hundreds of years. In fact, because they appeared to be even more supernatural in nature, they were willingly acknowledged by the church (although they were never incorporated as an official element of the New Testament as there authenticity was always contested). So, I'm afraid that your own bigoted argument is in fact flawed and rather embarrassing from an historical standpoint, as well as probably being deeply offensive to any Christians who might have been upset by your half-witted comments.

Tue, 2012-09-25 20:58 — George Hunt (not verified)

Arthur: That was a good reply from a knowledgeable person. Thank you.

Thu, 2012-09-20 21:38 — McMac

I believe this scrap will turn out to be one of JC's long lost stand-up routines.

Thu, 2012-09-20 17:52 — Keir

Just who, Mr Jones, is hung up about sex?

It just had to happen.

Thu, 2012-09-20 17:27 — Steve Turner (not verified)

...'the paucity of real evidence' - firstly, God/Jesus hasn't been proven to have ever existed, so most of your musings on 'evidence' are a hypothetical, and thus a waste of time.

Secondly, even if Jesus did exist, there are several lost gospels surrounding the 'missing' years. Christians choose to ignore them, because they feature embarassing rubbish, such as Jesus turning clay birds into life, and casting spells on his friends. i.e. the Gospel of Thomas covers his 'missing' childhood.

These 'non-canon' Gospels (who determines this crap any how?) are as legitimate as any other.

And to close, your premise is flawed. Why on earth do you think Christians are hung up on sex? Stereotyping an entire religion? Silly yes, delusional yes, but sexuall confused by Jesus? good god (pun intended).

Tue, 2012-09-25 21:02 — George Hunt (not verified)

The AA Book written by the founder, Wm. Wilson, suggests that everybody has a sex problem: too much, too little, or the wrong kind.