What would it mean if Jesus had been married?

One of the odder stories this week involves a small scrap of Coptic papyrus and what it says about Jesus.

The fragment is old, but not Jesus-old. It’s more like Constantine-old — 4th-century probably. I’ll let James McGrath summarize:

Karen King, a scholar well known for her work on the phenomenon usually referred to as “Gnosticism,” has come into possession of and has been studying a Coptic papyrus fragment which is likely to be authentic, dates from around the 4th century, and has Jesus mention his wife. (King has posted online a pre-publication version of an article [.pdf] she has written about the text.)

It is important to note that this is clear evidence only of one thing, namely that the author of this text, centuries after the time of Jesus, believed that Jesus had been married.

Anything beyond that is speculation, although there certainly do seem to be points of intersection with, or echoes of, other previously known extracanonical texts referring to Mary Magdalene.

The phrase in question, cut off by the edge of the fragment, reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …’”

That’s tantalizing. Reading that, quite a few commentators immediately thought of Dan Brown and The Da Vinci Code. I immediately thought, instead, of Henny Youngman and Rodney Dangerfield. And now I’m hoping for the future discovery of another Coptic fragment beginning: “… the disciples said unto him, ‘How bad a cook was she?’”

Without more context — the rest of Jesus’ sentence, the subject and genre of the 4th-century writers’ text, etc. — this fragment doesn’t really tell us much. I see four broad possibilities:

1. Jesus was married. Knowledge of this was preserved for four centuries, either through oral tradition or in texts now lost to us, but he really was married.

2. Jesus was not married, but some people thought he was, including the writer of this Coptic fragment.

3. Jesus may or may not have been married, but this fragment doesn’t speak to that because it is the work of the 4th-century equivalent of David Barton — a polemicist with some other agenda that trumped historical accuracy.

4. Jesus may have been speaking metaphorically. He may have been saying something like, “My wife is whoever hears the word of God and does it.” That’s exactly what he said in Luke 8:21 about his mother and brothers. And it wouldn’t be far from the imagery of his parable about bridesmaids. Alas, such a statement wouldn’t indicate one way or the other whether he had an actual wife (although he did have a mother and brothers).

All of those seem possible, and I’m sure there are other possibilities as well. I have no idea which of these is the most likely, but it’s clear which is the most interesting.

What if it turns out Jesus really was married?

Throughout most of Christian history, we have assumed he wasn’t. The canonical Gospels and most of the extracanonical ones don’t say anything about Jesus having a wife. Neither does Paul — who wrote his epistles much earlier. Had Jesus been married, his wife would likely still have been living when Paul was writing those letters.

“The Magdalene Before Her Conversion,” James Tissot, 1894.

But just because none of these texts mention Jesus wife doesn’t mean he was not married. Consider the apostle Peter’s wife. Mark’s Gospel tells us that Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law. If Peter had a mother-in-law, then he must have also had a wife, yet she isn’t mentioned in that story, or anywhere else in the Gospels, in Acts, or in the epistles attributed to Peter. The only other mention of her is in one of Paul’s letters, when he says, in passing, that apostles should take their wives along like Peter does (see 1 Corinthians 9:5).

So on the one hand, if Jesus had been married, then it seems like his wife ought to have been mentioned as being present at least at his death and burial. But on the other hand, if Peter’s wife could be invisibly present throughout the book of Acts, then the same thing could be true for Jesus’ wife in the book of Luke.

Of course the assumption that Jesus never married isn’t entirely due to the silence of the canonical texts. It may also be due in part to early Christian notions about the evils of the material world, which led to a revulsion toward sex and an idealization of virginity. (King’s Coptic fragment may have been a reaction against exactly that.)

So while this latest 4th-century find offers next-to nothing in the way of evidence that Jesus may have been married, it’s still a possibility that he was. So what would happen if we did find evidence proving that was true? What if Jesus was married?

Let me suggest four implications I think this would have for Christianity:

1. It would help to flesh out our understanding of the incarnation.

Jesus was fully human. Sexuality is part of what it means to be fully human (even for lifelong virgins and celibates). But the church has often balked at accepting that Jesus was as much of a sexual being as any other human. That comes dangerously close to suggesting that he was only fully human above the waist. That’s a kind of soft Docetism — a denial of Jesus’ full humanity. (Or is that Monophysitism? I get my early heresies mixed up). This reinforces and is reinforced by another dangerous notion — that Jesus could only have been sinless if he remained a virgin, and thus that sex with his wife would have defiled him because all sex defiles and is icky, dirty and nasty. Both of these ideas together deny Jesus the name Emmanuel. They suggest that God has never been entirely “with us” — only with us up to a point.

2. We would need to re-read stories of Jesus with fresh eyes.

Like most Christians, I have always assumed Jesus was not married. If it turned out he was, I would want to re-read the Gospels carefully, keeping that in mind. Would it change the meaning of those stories? Not much, I don’t think. But I would be very interested to read someone with expertise on first-century Judaism discussing how Jesus’ many encounters with women — the Samaritan woman at the well, the Syro-Phoenician woman, the woman with the hemorrhage, the woman with the oil, the woman caught in adultery, Mary and Martha of Bethany, Mary Magdala, Susanna, etc. — might take on new shades of meaning if we read them as involving a married rabbi.

3. Celibate priesthood would seem even sillier.

The idea of a celibate priesthood has always been weird. There’s no biblical case for it, and no good biblical defense of it. Its many downsides have always outweighed its few purported benefits. If we somehow learned that Jesus was married, the idea would quickly become wholly indefensible and unsustainable. I imagine it would be abandoned in short order. That ought to happen anyway, even if we somehow learned instead that Jesus definitely never married.

4. The unique place of Mary, the mother of Jesus, would change.

I originally only had three items in this list, but I spent this morning at St. Mary Church in Conshohocken, Pa., an old and ornate shrine to the blessed virgin. In a patriarchal church, Mary serves as a kind of abstract ideal of the sort of woman that the patriarchy can tolerate. If we someday learned that Jesus was married, then his mother might have to share that role with his wife.

It’s possible that would lead to the church becoming a bit less patriarchal, but probably not. The cult of virginity (in both its Catholic and Protestant forms) would live on in new forms. The same forces that conspired to turn Jesus’ brothers into his cousins so that his mother could declared a perpetual virgin — a madonna rather than that other thing — would likely create a parallel myth to attribute perpetual virginity to his wife as well. Sure, Jesus was technically married, they would say, but somehow he and his wife — just like poor Mary and Joseph — never did what married people do.

In other words, if it should ever be found, evidence that Jesus was married is more likely to inspire new myths to support the patriarchy than it is to dispell the old ones.

See also:

 

  • aunursa

    Whatever.  I want to know if they found his bar mitzvah certificate.  ;-)

  • Andrew R

    I always thought that the big reason that Jesus couldn’t have been married was because there was some prophecy in the Old Testament that said the the Messiah wouldn’t be.  I have no idea if this is accurate and don’t have time to look it up right now…any Biblical scholars here that want to chime in?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gus-Hinrich/100000151807749 Gus Hinrich

    Interesting. I’m amused by a number of people who seem to react with a horror-stricken “No! Jesus couldn’t have been married!” Like it would be a mortal sin…

    A good historical rundown from Juan Cole: http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/the-gospel-of-jesus-wife-and-sacred-history-from-judaism-to-islam.html

    One tidbit from that article is the observation that, as Jesus led a Jewish cult, and Jewish rabbis were (then as now) expected to be married, it wouldn’t have been unreasonable that Jesus had a wife. 

  • Jurgan

    I always assumed Jesus couldn’t be married because that would require him to put the needs of a specific woman above the needs of the world.  Nerd alert: In Avatar: The Last Airbender, Aang thinks he can’t be with Katara because, to be the Avatar, he has to let go of all worldly attachments.  Later, he realizes that all that really means is that he has to be able to temporarily set aside his personal attachments in order to fully embrace the avatar state, but he can turn it off and be a normal person again.  However, it’s hard to imagine Jesus turning off his divinity to attend to the needs of his wife.  Does this make sense, or am I missing an obvious explanation?

  • markedward

    I’ll post the same thought I did on another blog. While many arguments against Jesus being married are based in assumptions or arguments from silence, if we assume for the moment that he was, my big question is… did his marriage end when he died? (or when he was resurrected? or when he was exalted?) Or is he still married? Will his wife have some sort of elevated position in the age to come?

  • flat

    I don’t think he was married: usually you could read that in the bible when somebody got married, I haven’t found anything about it and if he was: I am pretty sure we would have more information about it.

    I am not that much of a expert on biblical history, but I do know most of the new testament was written in the first century.
    And those were put in the bible.

    and besides the most important  point of the new testament was that Jesus sacrified himself for our sins, and that we have to tell the world about his death and ressurection.

    That was the whole point of the new testament.

  • Tofu_Killer

    I can’t really grasp why this broke into big news this week. This isn’t the only documentary evidence that Jesus was married, just the oldest. It does make for an interesting springboard though.

    About #1: This only really changes the view of the incarnation for those who don’t argue it was a companionate marriage. Like Joseph and Mary’s is supposed to have been.  Jesus married because he was in this world, but not of it enough to soil himself with sex.

    About #3: The idea that celibate priests are that way for reasons of sanctity is something of a backwards justification of a pragmatic decision…in the Latin church anyway.
    Priests, Bishops, and Popes had a small problem with simony prior to the 11th century decision to enforce celibacy. In some locations the church offices were becoming essentially hereditary rather than meritocratic. which was fine, until everyone figured out  that there was much more profit to be made selling those offices instead of passing them on to their children (kidding[a little]).

    That said there is a long tradition of clerical celibacy being held preferable to nasty sexy priests, but I can’t see how even a full acceptance of Jesus doin’ the nasty is going to change things much. The Pauline tradition has deep roots.

  • Figs

    Oh snap, did you just invent the resurrection argument for getting out of paying alimony?

  • Peter Venable

    Jesus is (metaphorically?) engaged to marry the church (i.e. all of us who love him).  A literal marriage might confuse that doctrine.

  • Hawker40

    “Whatever.  I want to know if they found his bar mitzvah certificate.  ;-)”

    No, but they did find his foreskin.  Several of them, in fact.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_V5HKFMW2FY2LTKFNZCCFZDOHH4 Bill Door

    There was an Anthony Burgess novel (the title of which I can’t remember at the moment) based on the marriage of Jesus and (I think) Mary Magdalene. Now I’m gonna have to dig through the book boxes to find it and read it again.

  • The_L1985

     Presumably, since any woman living 2000 years ago would have to be long dead by now, the marriage ended when Mrs. Jesus died.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gus-Hinrich/100000151807749 Gus Hinrich

     Yah, did Mrs. Jesus have a pre-nup?

  • Tofu_Killer

     (Possible) proof that Jesus really was a mormon (perhaps)?

  • The_L1985

     1. You don’t read about every marriage in the Bible.  Again, Peter’s mother-in-law is mentioned, but none of the apostles are ever mentioned as being married in ANY other point in the Bible.  Does that mean Peter was the only married apostle, in a society where not-getting-married was exceedingly rare?  Most unmarried people in that time period would have been children or prostitutes, and the rest would have been widows, widowers, or divorced people.

    2.  Most of the NT was written in the 2nd century.  The only books we can definitively prove were written before 100 CE are 7 of Paul’s epistles.

    3. The Bible wasn’t codified until the 15th century.  We’ve been using the particular 27 NT books that we use mainly out of convenience.  There were dozens of gospels in the 1st century; most of them were later declared heretical.

  • http://www.facebook.com/susan.paxton.94 Susan Paxton

    Celibacy had to do not only with simony, but with alienation of church property. In those times, churchs were funded by the proceeds from land donated to them, and married priests would, naturally, leave some of that land to their sons.

  • Ajoyette

    Bringing the human side of Jesus to light, makes a great discussion. The real man and the Divine man? I can live with both!

  • Fikry2011

    I wonder if jesus do what human do eg. eat, drink, pee, breath and etc.

  • markedward

    There’s nothing that comes to mind, no.

  • S_Montefiore

    “The same forces that conspired to turn Jesus’ brothers into his cousins
    so that his mother could declared a perpetual virgin — a madonna rather
    than that other thing — would likely create a parallel myth to attribute
    perpetual virginity to his wife as well. Sure, Jesus was technically
    married, they would say, but somehow he and his wife — just like poor
    Mary and Joseph — never did what married people do.”

    Th0se forces didn’t have to turn Jesus’ brothers into his cousins to turn Mary into a perpetual virgin — they had to do it in order to turn Joseph into a young man.

    The Cloisters, in New York, has some nativity scenes which show Joseph as an old man.  There was a belief that Joseph and Mary could not have had done what married people tend to do because Joseph was too old and decrepit to engage certain activities within that category.  (Viagra would not be available for another 2,000 years.)  Jesus would have had brothers in the same sense that Jacob had brothers (note the plural here): any son of his father would be considered his brother, whether or not they had the same mother.  Hence, Jesus’ brothers would have been the sons of Joseph, but not those of Mary.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-Hickey/30117548 Patrick Hickey

    Besides the sex thing, I think a large part of people’s discomfort with the idea of a married Jesus comes from the implied idea that the things people believe about Jesus could be proven wrong by historical evidence.

  • Vermic

    It could be that Jesus was a widower by the time he started his ministry.

    And then again, if we are going to speculate on one wife, why not several?  Was polygamy still a thing in Jesus’ time?  Could he have supported several wives on a carpenters’ salary?

  • Tom S

    @Jurgan or, to use a slightly higher flown but more germane comparison, The Last Temptation of Christ, which presents that dilema as representing the titular tempation- that to be totally of the world, to have a normal life and connect to people as individuals and have a wife and child and Earthy family, would mean that he would be rejecting the path of self sacrifice he knew he must choose.

  • JustoneK

    Or about the rest of the Bible canon.

  • lackinininsight

    there’s no mention of a wife in the gospels just as there is no mention of how capable he was as a carpenter . . . makes me think that it is inconsequential to the message

  • The_L1985

     True, but it won’t stop speculation. :)

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Even a lot of people in the Church hierarchy agree that there’s no major theological necessity to keeping the clergy celibate –that the rule that they remain so is a matter of Church policy, not a matter of theology. Changing it would not be nearly so big a deal as, say, allowing same-sex marriage or female priests.

  • flat

    thank you for explaining it, because I admit that my knowledge about those things was a bit rusty.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    The phrase in question, cut off by the edge of the fragment, reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife …’”

    Possibilities:
    “My wife, if she existed, would…”
    “My wife, said some other dude I was talking to recently…”
    “My wife is my left hand if ya know what I mean…”

    Although somehow I don’t think that last option would make conservative Christians any happier.

  • flat

    I think the reason Jesus didn’t get married was because He was a duty comes first kind of person.

    and He had a Sacred Duty.

  • JustoneK

    the relevance to the message is subjective.  I for one would also love to know how his carpentry was.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    They can’t be. The Jesus modern Christians worship was constructed piecemeal from many different documents, while other documents were rejected from the canon for various reasons. What people believe about Jesus has never been based on unbiased history.

    I mean, the historical evidence that Jesus wasn’t white is overwhelming, but many, many European and American Christians continue to believe he was. So even if historical evidence proved that Jesus was married, it wouldn’t stop most Christians from believing otherwise. At most it may simply cause a few more schisms on top of the hundreds of schisms that have led to the present denominations of Christianity.

    Fred may be one of the few Christians willing to accept the proposition that Jesus was married, but he’s an exception.

  • http://jesustheram.blogspot.com/ Mr. Heartland

    Have you heard of the Madamento doctrine?  Mary actually would have routine sex with her husband and then magically forget every detail immediately after.   She would therefore remain a perpetual virgin “In Effect.”  

  • GeniusLemur

    I don’t think it ever says he was a carpenter, or even what his pre-preaching job was. IIRC, it calls him the son of a carpenter, and that’s as far as it goes.
    Now, it’s perfectly reasonable to say “he probably had the same job as his father, because that was the norm at the time” as well as “he and his disciples were probably married, because that was normal at the time,” but the Bible never actually says.

  • walden

    How about Jesus as widower?
    This can help explain why he takes to the road at age 30-ish, and we have the missing years from 12-30.

    I like Fred’s ideas about how to read these other passages given the possibility of marriage — do we read the divorce condemnations differently?  How about the question from the Sadducees about  serial widowhood?  Or how he can talk freely with the woman at the well, and many others.  And maybe the parables about the wife sweeping the house for the lost coin, and the lamp on the lampstand reflect some domestic experience.   And blessed are they that mourn?

  • walden

    Had the same idea about widower….
    Nope, polygamy was not still allowed in first century Palestine.
    And it was not clear that he was a “carpenter”, as all we know is that Joseph was a “tekton” — which is a builder (or in the construction trade).

  • vsm

    markedward:
    The Man Himself said that there’s no marriage in Heaven in Matthew 22:30, so presumably not.

    Jurgan:
    According to John, one of the disciples was loved by Jesus, and he’s on record as loving some other people, like Mary, Martha and Lazarus. If he loved everyone equally, this presumably wouldn’t have been mentioned. Since he already seems to have preferred certain humans to others, why couldn’t he have done it officially with some lucky lady?

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    It would be kind of funny if this was just the Coptic’s follow-up to their recent EPIC TROLL on the Muslims. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=687121933 Carrie Looney

    “My wife – for lack of a better term - just happens to be male, and our marriage should be afforded all the legitimacy of y’all’s ‘Opposite Marriages’.”
    I can dream.

  • redcrow

     >>>Sexuality is part of what it means to be fully human (even for lifelong virgins and celibates).

    Um, asexual people also exist. Are they somehow not “fully human”?

  • Emcee, cubed

    Um, asexual people also exist. Are they somehow not “fully human”?

    He didn’t say “Sex is part of what it means to be fully human”. Asexuality is still considered a sexuality. (Does that make sense? I hope it makes sense.)

  • redcrow

     >>>Does that make sense?

    Not really, though that might be purely semanthic problem. I didn’t read “sexuality” as “sexual orientation”.

  • http://elliha.blogspot.com/ Elin

    I fully believe that Jesus had sexual feelings just like any human but did he act on them? I have no idea and to me it does not matter. Was he married? We don’t know and at least I do not care. What he taught me is still the same.

  • http://profiles.google.com/cappadocius Ian Cunningham

    You know, I had always assumed Jesus was a rabbi, and for some reason, I thought rabbis needed to be married (although that might only be a requirement to studdy Kabbalah), so I’ve assumed Jesus was married all these years, and we just never heard about her because of the deeply ingrained misogyny of traditional European Christianity. So imagine my confusion when this became a story.

  • pharoute

    Sam Kinison convincingly explained why Jesus wasn’t married.

  • Jenora Feuer

    Hmm.  The story that I heard was that the celibacy requirement in part came from the actions of some priests in places where you would have multiple small villages all sharing the same priest.  (Supporting a priest is an expense for a village, as the priest normally isn’t farming and helping provide food.)  Given that being married to a priest was a high social status position, and that most people never really left their home villages…  there were a few cases where a priest would get himself a wife in each of the villages he was serving in, which wouldn’t be found out until much later (such as when the priest died).

    Take with a grain of salt, as I have absolutely no proof of this.

  • http://twitter.com/shutsumon Becka Sutton

     Yes, this asexual was wondering that as well.

  • liana

    I agree that there ought not be anything particularly troubling about the idea that Jesus could’ve been married. Still, so many of the scholarly and popular response to this find is kind of ridiculous. Some one, single  text written centuries after Christ, even if it -did- explicitly say that Jesus had a wife, which it doesn’t, would provide almost exactly no evidence at all that Jesus had a wife.

    There’s a strong tendency on the part of many scholars to err uncritically on the side of the exotic and non-traditional: the same person who takes the standard gospels as unreliable in their depiction of Jesus will then treat a text written centuries later, which makes outlandish claims attested to nowhere else, certainly no text written when there were still living witnesses to Jesus’s life, as if it were very good evidence!

    I guess I just don’t see what the fuss is about. What are the chances that there -wouldn’t- be at least one person, in the centuries after Jesus’s life, who wrote some story or religious text about Jesus assuming he had a wife? Finding such a text shows nothing.

  • http://twitter.com/shutsumon Becka Sutton

    My thought would be that since the Church is the Bride of Christ the statement finished with some mystical stuff like option four.  I mean it makes no odds if Jesus was married but I can’t but imagine he was too busy. Though if he was 30 when he started his mission there is another, sadder possibility. A major life change like a bereavement can make people do dramatic things like closing their business and setting off to change the world.

  • RE Garrett

    One of the best pastors I ever knew once preached a sermon on the Incarnation, and he said, “If you can’t imagine Jesus in the outhouse, you haven’t grasped the full significance of the Incarnation.” FWIW, I agree with him.