It's an old chestnut: was Jesus married? If so, who to? Now Dr James Tabor, one of the more illustrious WCG alumni, is offering a new argument in favor of the proposition. Tabor takes us back to the earliest Christian writings - Paul's, not the Gospels - and turns the lights up on 1 Corinthians. Why, he asks, doesn't Paul use Jesus' celibacy in his rant about the virtues of singleness?
Of course there are other explanations, some of them more unsettling than others. At the end of the day we know remarkably little about the man from Galilee, the Gospel accounts notwithstanding.
You can find Tabor's musings in his latest blog offering.
11 comments:
To me it would seem that a Jesus would need to be married in that culture to have any credibility. Being called "Rabbi" on occasion would indicate that he would have had to be married to have that distinction. It is an topic of endless debate.
The Jesus of the Gospels probably has little chance of being the Jesus that was. His birth circumstances are cobbled together from Old Testament references which today we mistake for "prophecy" but was Midrash. Matthew perfected this technique to write a story about Jesus that he obviously had no real information about. Luke tells a story of Jesus birth that directly contradicts Matthews. Mark has none and John skirts the charges of fornication and illegitimacy as well as this Jesus not being born in Bethlehem etc. All very confusing. The same confusion is seen in trying to tell the resurrection stories. To Paul, as mentioned in times past, Jesus was of the more cosmic nature save for a reference that he was "born of a woman." Nothing special there.
Women were an important part of Jesus ministry and Mary was a very important part of his life, if he existed, I believe. DaVinci was obviously convinced that she was important to him having placed her at his right hand in his painting of the Lord's supper.
I find it intriguing that in one part of the NT Jesus is criticised for his "before Abram was I am" comment by being told, "you are not yet 50 years old." One would not tell someone in their 30's he was not yet 50, but rather one in their mid to late 40's. The point being that the gospel accounts are dicey as to who, what, when, where, why and how of many topics...Jesus female relationships being one of many.
Male female relationships among or between the disciples and Apostles seem unreal and non existent. I imagine what ones they had were written out of the text or overlaid with confusion deliberatly as time went on. Certainly would be difficult to explain to a Catholic Priest why he must avoid a relationship when his boss had a girlfriend or wife.
For those who can only see the text and no nuance of reality, Jesus had to be a loner who would not burden a wife with his fate. For more open and liberal types, all things are possible.
"I think one can conclude that if Paul had known Jesus to have been single or unmarried, living a celibate life, he would have mentioned it prominently. In fact it would have been one of his main points. It would have been irresistible. He mounts every possible defense of celibacy, but in the end is only able to appeal to his own example. Imagine how much more rigorously he could have argued had he been able to say, “follow me here, as I follow Christ.” In this particular case I think his silence is “deafening.”"
James Tabor
Or another explanation would be that a human Jesus was an unknown to Paul. Paul's Jesus was hallucinatory and Paul knew nothing of the life of any real in time Jesus. For example, Paul said, "sometimes we not how we ought to pray" and then went on to explain how the spirit can moan and peep on our behalf. As with Jesus being married or not, Paul had never heard of the disciples asking Jesus, "teach us to pray" followed by the "Lord's Prayer" Paul had lived, taught and died before the Gospels were fleshed out and his cosmic Christ was given a pedigree and real life with real quotable teachings.
Paul never knowing a human Jesus can be the other explanation of why he avoids Jesus being married and his own example of being single. Notice as well that no one challenges Paul on "well Jesus was married." Of course such challenges can never make it into the text. Rather than think Paul knew he was and didn't mention it, I suspect , for Paul, his cosmic Christ was never married and neither should the really dedicated types be as "time is short."
Once one can admit that for Paul, Jesus was not the Jesus of the Gospels and both cosmic and hallucinatory in nature...many things open up as to the nature of the NT.
I'll take Door Number Two - in the case Dennis Diehl's second comment. The reason Paul does not cite Jesus' celibacy is plain and clear; it is because Paul does not cite ANY of Jesus' earthly attributes.
Paul's epistles were written before the four gospels were written. Paul knew nothing of these gospel stories. Apparently Paul also knew nothing of any verbal tradition about Jesus' life - or, if he did, he chose not to cite it anywhere. What Paul DID know was a spiritual Jesus who had appeared to Paul in visions. This is what Paul wrote about.
Why did Paul not cite Jesus' celibacy? Because he had no knowledge of it.
I've got to concur with another key point in Dennis' second comment. The New Testament gospels were not factual accounts of the life of any real person, but were created by men sitting with their Old Testaments open and writing the life of Jesus to fit any and all scriptures that could be remotely interpreted as prophesies of the Christ. Clearly they used the Septuagent; inaccuracies that are now known to exist in the Septuagent are cited as "scripture" in the NT. Also citing are a few verses that are found nowhere in our present-day bible, plus in some cases a scripture is attributed to one "prophet" but was written by another.
Inerreant? Hardly. Inept? You bet. If you step back, stop assuming the NT is the inspired word of God, and read it dispassionately, you'll easily see that it's quite a confused hodgepodge.
Well...obviously more intimdating to speculate on Jesus wife/Partner/Sexuality than GTA's girlfriends!
I do realize that the answers for most to the above , in no particular would be , "No, No and No."
:)
Yes, Jesus was married and had two sons, Simon and James.
Josephus told us this but the church changed the name to protect the guilty.
"These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord."
Describing first century Christians? No, the followers of Judas of Galilee, the founder of the Zealots.
The Gospels are a mess - just as bad as some other home brewed holy books like the Book of Mormon and the Koran. There is convincing evidence that Luke borowed from Josephus - and made some errors along the way - when trying to create a historical context for his godman.
Hey I like you guys! You know!
You guys really are amazing – and you talk about ‘Armstonites’ having closed minds and fixed ideas.
Dennis says ‘"you are not yet 50 years old." One would not tell someone in their 30's he was not yet 50, but rather one in their mid to late 40's”’.
So is this presented as some sort of proof that Christ was older that the gospels state – in his forties? They were making the point that Christ was not hundreds of years old – they were obviously going to give an age that they were certain Christ was not. They would look slightly stupid if they underestimated – e.g saying ‘you not yet 30 years old’ to which Christ answered, ‘Well, I am 33 as it happens’. It wouldn’t change their argument, but it would make them look daft.
The Skeptic said...
‘Paul's epistles were written before the four gospels were written. Paul knew nothing of these gospel stories’.
Yes – but he met people that lived with and knew Christ. Do you think that just maybe it’s possible that they talked about Jesus Christ?
Corky said...
Yes, Jesus was married and had two sons, Simon and James. Josephus told us this but the church changed the name to protect the guilty.
Well of course an altered version of Josephus must be 100% accurate.
Minimalist said...
There is convincing evidence that Luke borowed from Josephus - and made some errors along the way.
And there could be no chance that Luke got it right, and Josephus maybe got it wrong – wouldn’t want to consider that as a possibility?
Like all viewpoints – having come up with the theory, the evidence gets weighted to support your particular view. It’s a human problem – very few people seem to be able to be genuinely impartial when evidence is produced, or admit to not being impartial.
Questeruk said...
"Well of course an altered version of Josephus must be 100% accurate."
And of course an altered version of every book in the bible must also be 100% accurate.
The very reason for the warning not to add to the book or subtract from it in Revelation is because the writer of it knew that it would be.
There is no telling what the originals said - if there actually were "original" originals.
Skeptic said: _The reason Paul does not cite Jesus' celibacy is plain and clear; it is because Paul does not cite ANY of Jesus' earthly attributes._
If the visible reveals the invisible (Rom 1:20) and the physical precedes the spiritual (1 Cor 15:46), might it not be accurate to say that only what is necessary for obtaining spiritual understanding or salvation has actually been preserved in the text?
T, L & F
Post a Comment