Toto

I have finished the book, and there is just enough substance to the ending that I should not give it away. But the whole thing was a bit unsatisfactory.

Still, if you are a student of popular culture or of the way Jesus is portrayed in the popular media, you might want to read it before the movie comes out.

In lieu of throwing the book across the room, I will consider shipping one of you my copy for a tax deductable donation of $10 to the Interent Infidels. PM or email me to arrange details.

Amaleq13

Is anyone familiar with the following argument that Jesus was married to Mary:

GJohn 11 gives us the story of the raising of Lazarus but the relevant verses start with the 20th. Jesus is described as approaching the Lazarus family home after hearing L was dead. With a dead brother, the sisters would be expected to "sit shiva" and, apparently, the rules of this Jewish practice placed greater restrictions on the actions of married women over singles. An unmarried woman was allowed to leave the house but a married woman sitting shiva was could only leave if called out by her husband.

"Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house."

Fast forward to the 28th verse:

"And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly and came unto him."

If this Mary can be understood to be Mary M

and

this alleged Jewish tradition is true

Can we consider this wording to be significant enough to suggest that the author of John believed Jesus was married?

I can't remember where I first heard this one but it has stuck with me.

Doctor X

If the authors of the Synoptics cared enough either way, methinks they would have commented.

The arguments for and against a historical figure tend to the same conclusion: a figure we know nothing about and, unless someone discovers the secret compartment behind an antiquities dealer's toilet that contains Junior's Memoirs--ghost written by Josephus who had the foresight to retain the film rights--we will know nothing more that "reasonable suppositions."

It is "reasonable" that a "Jewish man his age" would take a wife.

Then one extends that to "it is reasonable for a married man to have children."

. . . and so it goes. . . .

On the other side someone opines that, "it is reasonable that if he had children they would have been mentioned."

Since that did not happen, "it is reasonable to conclude he could not have been married."

Quod erat demonstrandum?

--J.D.

Amaleq13

I also think they would have been explicit if they had any specific information from their sources.

I still think that there is pretty good evidence (assuming the "sitting shiva" background has credibility) that the author of John assumed Jesus to have been married and, as a result, included details in two stories that were consistent with that assumption.

1) It would have been unusual and likely remarked upon for a "Rabbi"-status, adult Jewish male to remain single.

2) John's portrayal of Jesus' mother being concerned about the wine supply and assuming it was Jesus' responsibility suggests it was his wedding.

3) John's portrayal of Mary "sitting shiva" and being "called out" by Jesus suggests he was her husband.

I haven't found anything substantive to knock any of these out of contention but I'm always interested in anything that might.

Doctor X

One might be that Jn did not understand Jewish customes--such as realizing the rabbi should be married or that "Mary 'sitting shiva' and being 'called out' by Jesus suggests he was her husband." Seems to me that if Jn did assume marriage he would not use such an obscure reference to it.

Of course, whether or not Jn thought he was married has nothing to do with whether or not he was!

Continuing the "assumption game" if marriage was "an issue" for the writers, I would think they would state, specifically, "and he never took a wife" or "he married Sara, the daughter of the local horse-gelder."

I "hate" to quote a preacher, but years ago channel surfing, I passed a black preacher stating he knew about the "lost years of Jesus." He made a dramatic show of "revealing a secret" to his audience and then said, "none of your business!" As he put it, "the gospel writers did not care about human details of Jesus!" Indeed . . . while Jn has his whole connection to John the Water-boy--which may indicate some rivalry or concern with "whatever" was left of J the B's movement--in a prenatal fantasy . . . plus little bits about impressing teachers . . . he is not interested in giving "Junior's first kiss" stories!

I think the literary as opposed to historical intent of the texts is demonstrated best in Mk. Clearly, the writers did not have the "issues" we have to day with Junior having a family--was Mary always with a Cherry [Stop that!--Ed.]:

Mk clearly has no problem with brothers. He also has no desire to expand on it--"his brother, Jethro, moves to Tyre to sell time-shares. . . ." The point of the story is clear--"here is your true family!" One cannot say anything historical about the passage other than Mk and his audience would not be shocked by Junior having siblings.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

If these details should be considered to indicate that Jesus and Mary were married and your comment above accepted, then I would conclude this story was something John's author obtained from a more "Jewish-savvy" source. In fact, given the author's not-very-human Jesus, it would make sense that he not understand the implications of the story.

I agree but I would still be interested to know whether this interpretation accurately reflects 1st century Jewish practices regarding sitting shiva.

Doctor X

I agree that is a relevant question. I would have to recheck my E.P Sanders [Jesus and Judiasm--Ed.] to see what he thought about Jn's understanding of Jewish practice. In order for me to agree that Jn definitely wished to imply Junior was married with the example cited, I would have to be shown evidence that it is a clear implication that Jn would have to have known. I would also wonder why he would not make it clearer. As "mystical" as Jn seems, he does make things clear concerning his theology by way of example.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Vermes doesn't address it in Jesus the Jew. That doesn't seem very encouraging.<g>

Soul Invictus

Doc,

I haven't followed this thread a whole lot recently. Is there a hypothesis that John was inclined to believe Jesus to have been married?

Light

You may care to think more abut yourself. Are YOU married? Do you see a Son of God in yourself? Do you KNOW God and believe in Him?

If so then YOU and YOUR spouse are married in the sight of God just as with any other married couple who believes in God.

The ... original ... model for this was that of Shu-Tefnut the Eternal Male-Female, Husband and Wife pair.

But the Egyptians lost sight of God and refused to be Monotheist and to believe in ONLY ONE Supreme Being.

And so they fell from grace.

That they may have also crucified Christ is similar to the Roman soldiers crucifying Christ, for they would have people believe in them as gods rather than believe in God Himself.

They have a tendency to have an avaricious regard for money, often preferring it to love.

In this way they have often been seen to be somewhat psychopathic in their quest for "perfection", rather like Ramses II who was known to be like this.

Indeed it became that they had scant regard for the people whom they worked to death, rahter than loving them as part of God's Creation.

They even dare to try to usurp Him from His rightful place.