Mon 3 Jul 2006
With the popularity of The Da Vinci Code, some bizarre theories that have no historical basis are becoming more popular. One of the favorites is the suggestion that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Suggested in chapter 58 of Brown's novel, the case rests almost entirely upon the document known as the Gospel of Philip. According to Brown, the relevant portion of the Gospel of Philip (verse 59) reads:
And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?
HOWEVER, the only surviving copy of the document (yes, we possess only a single copy of the Gospel of Philip) actually reads like this:
“And the companion of the […] is Mariam the Magdalene. The […] Mariam more than […] Disciples, […] kissed her often on her […]. The other […] saw his love for Mariam, they say to him: Why do thou love […] more than all of us? (Full Translation)
The portions marked with […] above indicate portions that are missing or unreadable in the only copy of the manuscript that we possess. Brown has followed certain scholars who have filled in the missing parts, but we have no way to know what should go there.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the missing portions are filled in correctly. The text doesn’t even say anything about them being married; in fact no ancient text states or even strongly implies that they were married. Teabing claims that "As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse." But this too is false. If this were so, why does no English translation translate the word as "spouse"? Furthermore, the Gospel of Philip was written in Coptic, not Aramaic. The Coptics borrowed the Greek word "koinonos", which usually meant "friend, colleague" rather than "spouse."
Clearly, even if the missing portions were filled in correctly, that would prove nothing. Even liberal scholars date when the Gospel of Philip was originally written to sometime between 180-250AD, at least 150 years after Jesus' death, and the one copy we possess was written much later than that, sometime in the 4th century. Obviously the document was not only not written by Philip as it claims, it is also written too late after Jesus' death to be relevant. Gnostics (the authors of this text) would be even less likely to imply Jesus was married, since they viewed matter as evil, and any further ties between Jesus and the physical world (ie through marriage) would likely be avoided.
Unlike the Gospel of Philip, which was written at least 150 years after Jesus' death and exists in only 1 copy, the earliest biblical gospels were written about 30 years after Jesus' death, and exist in literally thousands of copies. There is simply no comparison, and it must be noted that anyone who is even a little skeptical of the Bible should be extremely skeptical of the "Gospel" of Philip. There is simply no ancient evidence that Jesus was married, and if there is no evidence for it then we should not assume it.
Video link: See a streaming video of philosopher Michael Horner discuss the 'evidence' for Jesus being married here:
http://davinci.thelife.com/2006/05/12/horner-video-was-jesus-married/
4 Responses to “Was Jesus Married?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Without reading all the details of both sides … the first thing that pops into a open mind is that … if he had been married, it would be very odd indeed that we find no mention in The Bible of his wife, when there are references to his other family members including his brothers.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Good point Steve. I was limiting myself in this post to critiquing the Gospel of Philip angle, but the fact that no mention of Jesus' marriage is found in the Bible (nor in any writings of the church fathers) certainly would be strong evidence against the Jesus' marriage hypothesis.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Interesting post, I personally have not bothered to look into the matter. I haven't read the book, but only have seen the movie, and I being an Atheist didn't take the whole account seriously anyways. There's just so much more biblical evidence against this one account of Philip, and even then, what is the credibility of this one man's account? Certainly not anything more than the Bible itself. Good post!
Although I must say I enjoyed the movie, it was kind of hard to follow at times and gave my mind a real excercise. I have to say though that I liked the parts that tapped into the history of Christianity, as most Christians aren't aware of their own heritage, they only hear about the good things.
December 20th, 2013 at 11:48 am
Hi there, just changed into alert to your blog through Google, and located that it's really informative. I am going to be careful for brussels. I will be grateful in the event you proceed this in future. A lot of other people will be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!