At the turn of the millennium, a young Jew who reached the age of 12 was invited to “build his house, plant a vineyard, and finally to marry.” This was vital to the struggling Jews who were bound by sacred oath to be “fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:1). In the Old Testament, unmarried people were “sometimes likened to murderers (Craveri, 1967, p. 266).” And this was Jesus’ attitude toward marriage. He said “…a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife…” (Matt 19:5/Mark 10:7). Almost all Jews were married and had children. The exceptions were notable and rare (e.g., Jeremiah in the Seventh Century B.C., John the Baptist in Jesus’ time).
Being a member of the Essenes did not restrict Jesus from marrying. Although some sect members were celibate, the Essenes allowed members of the kingly (Davidic) and priestly (Zardokite) lines to marry and reproduce. The only restrictions were that sexual intercourse was not allowed before a man was 20.
Mary of Magdala
The person most favored to be Jesus’ wife is Mary Magdalene. Most scholars believe she was called Magdalene because she came from the city of Magdala, that lay on an important trade route, about 10 miles southwest of Capernaum and two miles north of Tiberius, along the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Unfortunately there never was a city called Magdala. In fact, the city’s ancient name was Migdal Nunaiya, which meant “tower of fish”. Migdal Nunaiya was famous for its boat building and fishing industries, especially for processing fish for which large amounts of salt were needed. At the time of the first Jewish revolt, Josephus claimed it housed nearly 40,000 people.
Thus it’s impossible for her to have been named after a city that never existed. Her named may have been Mary Migdal and some scholars (e.g., Starbird, 2005) have speculated that Mary was such an important disciple of Jesus that she was referred to as “The Tower”, using the same kind of affectionate but pertinent nicknames that Jesus was famous for (e.g., Simon “The Rock”, John and James “the Brothers of Thunder”, Simon “the Zealot”, Thomas “The Twin” etc.) Baigent (2006) even says that her nickname was actually “Mary the Great”, reasoning that calling her “The Tower” was the same as saying she was “Great”. All things considered, It’s more likely that Migdal was her nickname rather than her place of origin. See common error Mary of Magdala for a full explanation.
Mary the Prostitute
The most common perception of Mary Magdalene is as a prostitute. Even today French rehabilitation centers for “wayward women” are referred to as les hospices de Madeleine. Yet there is no support for this idea in the canonical or the non-canonical Gospels. They are two possible referents in the Gospels that could lead to such a belief. The first is the fact that her name is first mentioned following the mention of a sinner (Luke 7:37), yet there is no inference that Mary too was a sinner (Luke 8:2), and the passage about the sinner is clearly distinct from the one in which Mary (and several other women) are mentioned.
The second referent is the fact that the Gospel of Luke (7:37) describes the woman who anoints Jesus as a “sinner” but does not give her a name, while the Gospel of John says that the woman who anoints Jesus is named Mary (John 11:2), but doesn’t call her a sinner, and, in fact, identifies her as the sister of Lazarus and Martha, who in John’s Gospel is clearly not a sinner.
One other possibility exists for the origin of the idea that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, and this lies in the story of Simon Magus, a contemporary of Jesus and a fellow miracle worker. Known as a great magician and sometimes called “the first Gnostic” (Grant, 1990), Simon had a large following who regarded him as the Messiah. Among these followers was Helen, a former prostitute. Simonians worshiped the couple, referring to Simon as Zeus and to Helen as Athena. Constructing the Gospels so many years after the lives of both Jesus and Simon, it’s possible that the stories about the one generalized to the other, and Simon’s former prostitute became Jesus’ companion.
Yet despite the lack of any substantial evidence, the smear campaign against Mary was started in the Sixth Century by Pope Gregory the Great (Chilton, 2005). In 591 A.D. he wrote in Homily 33 that: “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?... It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts.” By the Middle Ages, homes for reformed prostitutes were routinely named after her, and it was only as recently as 1969 that the Catholic church officially removed the stain from her memory.
Mary Magdalene in the Canonical Gospels
There is a good deal of confusion about Mary Magdalene because there are so many Marys in the Gospels that you need a scorecard to keep track of them. Apart from direct references to Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2; Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56; John 20:1), there are numerous other references to people named Mary, the most notable being Jesus’ mother. However, the other Marys include:
· Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus (Luke 10:39; John 11:1),
· Mary “the sinner” who anoints Jesus’ feet (John 11:2)
· Mary the sister-in-law of Jesus’ mother (John 19:25)
· Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome (Mark 15:40; Luke 24:10)
· Unspecified Mary’s (Matthew 27:61: 28:1)
Notice that most of the other Mary’s are named with their familial relationship (sister of, mother of). Only Mary Magdalene and Mary the anointer have no familial relationship specified, and it has often been speculated that Mary Magdalene and the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet were one and the same person. In any event, the lack of mention of familial relationship meant, according to the customs of the time, that they were “on their own”. It would have been extremely unusual for an adult female to have no family with whom she lived and with whom she was associated. This is only one of the many unusual aspects associated with Mary Magdalene.
The fact that Mary is presented as a single woman who accompanies Jesus is a curiosity by Jewish standards of the time. First, the fact that she is single is a curiosity, because most women were married. If it’s true that she had been possessed of a demon, then her bachelorhood might be explained by this. But the fact that she accompanied Jesus would have gone against the Mishnah (Rabbinic customs) and been considered more than scandalous. Wilson (1984) says: “…in Jesus’ day almost any association with a woman outside one’s immediate family was frowned upon (p. 94.).” Had it been true (i.e., an unmarried woman accompanying an itinerant preacher), it would (at least) have justified negative comments by the Scribes and the Pharisees. Yet there are none. On the contrary, what we do know is that it was common for early Christians to be accompanied by their wives and/or their sisters (Freke & Gandy, 2001), and we know that Mary Magdalene was not Jesus’ sister. Ergo…
Despite the controversies that surround Mary Magdalene (e.g., her supposed life as a prostitute, her marriage to Jesus, her miracle of the egg, etc), the canonical gospels actually have little to say about her. Luke introduces her as the woman “from whom seven demons had gone out” (8:2). The number “seven” is a curious one. Mary is the only person out of whom “seven” demons are exorcised. Almost every other exorcism performed by Jesus involved a single spirit, with the notably exception of the “legions” who inhabited the insane man in the cemetery. The legions exorcism, however, was obviously a metaphor for Rome, and perhaps should be dismissed as having any historical value. In any event, the number seven was significant to the Jews as well as many earlier cultures, and derived from the work of Pythagoras (c 581-497 B.C.) centuries before. But when used with respect to the exorcism of demons, it may refer back to Jesus’ belief that a full and final exorcism could involve as many as seven demons (Luke 11:26), which derived from the Gnostic belief in the seven ladders to heaven, each rung represented by one of the 5 planets plus the Sun and the Moon. The implication is that Mary was completely healed. The other possible meaning of the “seven” demons refers to a Babylonian cult of the Goddess Mari, which was popular in Galilee at that time, and involved seven charkas or Maskim.
What little more is said about Mary seems to show that she is omnipresent. She is with him “traveling through the towns and villages” (Mark 15:41; Luke 8:1), one of the few witnesses to the crucifixion (Mark, 15:40; Matthew 27:56; John 19:25), and at the empty tomb (Mark 15:47; Matthew 27:61). In some accounts she is the first to see the empty tomb (John 20:1). She is the first person to whom Jesus appears after the crucifixion (John 20: 14). And of course, there is that enigmatic response of Jesus when he first appears to Mary – “Do not touch me…” (John 20:17), made even more curious by the fact that later he lets other disciples touch him. Jesus’ comment was so unusual that Centuries later it sparked a legend that he touched her on the forehead to prevent further contact, and the spot on her forehead where the resurrected Jesus touched her never decayed. This legend, in turn, prompted many a Medieval pilgrimage to view bits of aging skin hanging to what many claimed was the skull of Mary Magdalene.
Some scholars (e.g., Wilson 1992) claim that the wedding at Cana (only in the Gospel of John) represents Jesus’ own marriage, edited to make it appear to be some anonymous persons’ wedding. In support of this thesis, we have Jesus in attendance with his mother and his disciples, and his mother apparently feels sufficiently empowered to give orders to the servants. Jewish customs at this time allowed only the Governor of the feast or the bridegroom and his parents to exercise authority (Gardner, 2001); hence, Mary must have been the parent of the bridegroom. In addition, Jesus is uncharacteristically concerned with whether or not there is enough wine for the celebrants. His “miracle” here, turning water into wine, seems the most superficial of all his acts if it was only to make the party better. Moreover, the steward speaks to the “bridegroom” and says “you have kept the good wine until now.” (2:10) and the very next verse says: “Jesus did this…” (2:11): clearly, it looks as if Jesus is the bridegroom. Indeed, Jesus is often referred to as a bridegroom (e.g., Matthew 9:15; John 3:29).
The evidence seems overwhelming that the wedding at Cana was Jesus’ own wedding. The only arguments against this position are that there is no mention of his other relatives (e.g., brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles) and the wedding is not specifically identified as being his. However, we have already seen that the writers and editors of the Gospels took great pains to distort the image of Jesus’ family, so that it would not be impossible to believe that they were up to their same old tricks in this instance.
There are more clues to Mary Magdalene’s relationship with Jesus in the canonical Gospels, and they revolve around her identity (in John) as the anointer with the jar of nard. In those days, nard was used by the Rich and Famous as a skin softener and a deodorizer. It was imported from India, and took 150 pounds of the herb to produce a quart of ointment. According to the Song of Solomon, the bride lovingly anoints her groom - “While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof… (1:12).” The description in the Gospel of John is nearly identical – “Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume (12:3).” Gardner (2001) says: “Only as the wife of Jesus and as a priestess in her own right could Mary have anointed both his head and his feet with the sacred ointment.” (p. 49)
In this same scene, the fact that Mary let down her hair in order to wipe Jesus’ feet implies that she is his wife, since only a husband was allowed to see his wife’s hair unbound (Haskins, 1993).
Still another clue to Mary’s relationship can be found in the Gospel of John (11:19-35) when Jesus comes to Bethany to raise Lazarus from the dead. When Martha and Mary heard that Jesus was on his way, Martha “went and met him” but Mary stayed behind. Mary only left when Martha returned and told her “privately” that Jesus “is calling for you”. Why would Mary stay behind until instructed to leave by Jesus? Because Jewish customs of the time forbade a bride to make such a journey without the permission of her husband (Baigent & Leigh, 1991).
There is another clue to their relationship in this same passage. When Mary reaches Jesus she is distraught and weeps. “When Jesus saw her weeping…he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved. He said, ‘Where have you laid him?’ They said to him, ‘Lord, come and see.’ Jesus began to weep. So the Jews said, ‘See how he loved him!’” (John 11: 33-35). The “Jews” were obviously incorrect when they interpreted Jesus’ weeping as a sign of emotion about Lazarus’ fate. Jesus knew that Lazarus was not dead. An earlier passage (John 11:4-6) notes – “But when Jesus heard it, he said ‘This illness does not lead to death...’” and so “…he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.” Thus, there was no reason for Jesus to weep for Lazarus. He knew all along that Lazarus was not dead. Why then was Jesus weeping? Because he was “greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved” but Mary’s distress, not by Lazarus’ fate.
Mary Outside the Canonical Gospels
We know more about Mary from outside the canonical gospels. In The Gospel of Mary, Peter says: “Sister, we know the savior loved you more than any other woman.” (v. 10), and Levi adds: “Surely the savior knows her well. That is why he has loved her more than us.” (v. 18). In the Gospel of Philip, he says: “The companion of the [savior] is Mary Magdalene. The [savior loved] her more than [all] the disciples, [and he] kissed her often on the [mouth].” (59:63). In the Pistis Sophia (meaning Faith Wisdom), Jesus praises her, saying, “Blessed Mary, you whom I shall complete with all the mysteries on high, speak openly, for you are the one whose heart is set on heaven’s kingdom more than all your brothers.” (36:17). Later, Jesus adds: “You are more blessed than all women on earth, because you will be the fullness of fullnesses and the completion of completions.” (36:18).
In the 1st letter to the Corinthians, Paul says: “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (9:5). Paul, of course, was single and urged single hood on others. But his reference here to the married status of the apostles and Jesus’ brothers does not include Jesus himself. Hence, we might infer from this that Paul did not believe that Jesus was married. Of course, we have to bear in mind that Jesus’ brother James, was not married, and his implied inclusion here (“the brothers of the Lord”) would be an error. What is of significance in Paul’s question is that men were accompanied by their (believing) wives. Thus, the omnipresence of Mary Magdalene with Jesus, accompanying him, suggests that she was his wife.
Unmarried By Default?
Advocates of the position that Jesus was unmarried point to the absence of any references to his married status in the Bible, as well as the paucity of married people who play a major role in his life. For example, if we look at the female characters in the New Testament - Martha, her sister Mary, and Mary Magdalene, none of them are married. However, given that the normal state of affairs was for a Jew to be married, we would more likely expect references to his bachelorhood to be made. Indeed, Jesus is criticized for many reasons throughout the gospel. Here are but a few of them:
- He is too young to have wisdom (John 8:57)
- He comes from Galilee (John 7:41)
- He socializes with sinners (Mark 2:15)
- He works on the Sabbath (Mark 2:24)
- He doesn’t control his disciples (Mark 7:2; Matthew 9:14)
- He has no formal education and training (John 7:15)
- He has no authority of forgive sins (Luke 5:21)
But there are no criticisms of his single status, despite the fact that he is constantly talking about family, family values, marriage, etc. Surely it would have been legitimate for someone to say: “Hey, Jesus. How can you talk to us about marriage and family when you, yourself, aren’t married?” Yet no one asks this question. Indeed there are no references in either direction, suggesting that any references to Jesus’ marital status were deleted from all accounts. Why delete these references? If he were single, there would be no need to delete them, for his failure to be married would suggest he was “married to God”, which is in the direction the Catholic church moved with its priests. So it only makes sense that if deletions were done, they were deletions of his married status, not his unmarried status.
We know from our previous discussion of Jesus’ family, that the writers of the Gospels went to great lengths to delete and distort his relationship with his family and the family’s role in his ministry. This fact lends credence to the theory that Mary too was a victim of the censor’s knife. Indeed, one wonders how so many stories and legends could have arisen about a person who occupied such a small role in the Gospels. Perhaps her role was much greater, and the oral traditions concerning her gave birth to the many legends that remained strong for thousands of years.
While it’s impossible to say for certain that Jesus was married, the overwhelming evidence points in that direction: (1) marriage would have been expected (one could argue, demanded) of him, (2) there is a lack of any mention or criticism of his bachelor status (in light of all the criticisms made of him), (3) it would have been sinful for Mary to travel with him unless she was married, (4) both Jesus and Mary behave in ways characteristic of husband and wife in 1st Century Israel, (5) the Gnostic gospels speak to an intimate relationship, and (6) changes made to alter our knowledge of his family’s involvement in his ministry explain why there is no direct mention of their marriage.
11/22/2006
|
