Evidence Jesus Was Married Sends the Christian Right into a Tizzy

[Karolina Dean...Big money STILL weaves a mighty web...]

Evidence Jesus Was Married Sends the Christian Right into a Tizzy
When a papyrus mentioning Jesus's wife surfaced, the revelation that
he Son of God might be married posed a great challenge to the Church.
October 5, 2012 |


http://www.alternet.org/belief/strong-evidence-jesus-was-married-sends-christian-right-tizzy?paging=off



Was Jesus married? The question is ancient—perhaps as old as the
question of his divinity. On September 18, at a conference in Rome,
Harvard historian Karen L. King, unveiled an ancient scrap of papyrus
with Coptic script in which Jesus refers to his wife. As they do in
such situations, academics began debating whether the scrap was
authentic or fraudulent and discussing the features and tests that
would incline them one way or the other. Scholars of religion are
interested in two sets of questions. One set has to do with the
papyrus itself: Who wrote it, when, and why? Which of the many early
Christian traditions might it derive from? Does it inform our
understanding of Christian history and if so, how? The second set of
questions has to do with Jesus: Assuming the existence of a
historical Jesus, (some scholars don’t) what are our best hypotheses
about who he was and how he lived? Was he indeed married? How should
such a question affect the priorities of Christians today?

While antiquities scholars await further test results, popular Fox
News commentators and conservative Christian clergy went into high
gear dismissing the relevance or authenticity of the scrap – or both.
The Vatican called it a fake. They don’t like the idea of a married
Jesus, don’t really care what the scholars ultimately conclude, and so
have gone straight into damage control mode. Why?

What is the threat? Here’s what: At a symbolic level a Jesus with a
human wife would be a polygamist. Conservative Christianity is
scripted around a Jesus who metaphorically is “married” not to some
short, illiterate Semitic woman of the first century, but to believers
themselves. Evidence aside, the thought of competition for his
affections simply doesn’t sit well.

The Church is the bride of Christ. Since the time of early Jesus
worship, Christians have used the language of man and wife to
represent the relationship between and Jesus his followers. For
example, in the gospels of Mark and John , Jesus and John the Baptist
call Jesus the bridegroom .

Still later, in the wild and apocalyptic book of Revelations, another
writer revives the metaphor:

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last
plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the
wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a
mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven from God (Revelation 21:9-10).

The Apostle Paul likens the Church to a virgin bride as he exhorts
early Christian communities in Corinth and Rome to be faithful:

I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one
husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to
him (2 Cor. 11:2).

Nuns are married to Jesus. The Catholic tradition takes the pure
virgin concept beyond mere metaphor. Many nuns describe themselves as
“married to Jesus” and some even wear wedding rings to symbolize their
devotion. When Oprah did a segment entitled, “Marrying Christ” one
mother commented,

My daughter joined the sisters five years ago . . . . At her
"wedding" we were moved by the change from white to black veil and by
the prostration. She is truly married to Jesus Christ and her joy is
so evident! I would encourage all parents to welcome the opportunity
to allow and even encourage their daughters to explore the life of
consecration to Jesus and see if your lives are not transformed as
well!

At their commitment ceremonies, nuns take vows of poverty, obedience
and chastity, but the vow of chastity can also be thought of as a vow
of fidelity. In times past, some mystics were more explicit than they
are today in comparing union with Christ to the peaks of carnal
pleasure. The famous vision of Saint Teresa of Avila offers a
graphic example:

I would see beside me, on my left hand, an angel in bodily form ... He
was not tall, but short, and very beautiful, his face so aflame that
he appeared to be one of the highest types of angel who seem to be all
afire ... In his hands I saw a long golden spear and at the end of the
iron tip I seemed to see a point of fire. With this he seemed to
pierce my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails.
When he drew it out, I thought he was drawing them out with it and he
left me completely afire with a great love for God. The pain was so
sharp that it made me utter several moans; and so excessive was the
sweetness caused me by the intense pain that one can never wish to
lose it, nor will one's soul be content with anything less than God.

Jesus Loves Me. Given the precedent set in past centuries, it should
be no surprise that modern Evangelicals are doing everything they can
to channel America’s sex obsession into religious devotion. The
phrase, “falling in love with Jesus” brings up pages of search engine
hits. I am not the first to point out that Christian rock can be
almost indistinguishable from the kinds of songs humans croon about
and to the objects of their fleshly desire. Grammy winning band, Jars
of Clay, wrote a song entitled, “Love Song for a Savior,” which is
exactly that. The theme of romance with Jesus is so prevalent that a
blog called Jesus in Love has pages littered with found art that falls
at the intersection of iconography and erotica. In her monologue,
Letting Go of God, Julia Sweeney confesses discovering the pleasures
of her own body under the sensitive gaze of the Jesus hanging on the
wall beside her bed.

But even setting aside the sublimated (or not so sublimated) sexual
energy in the personal savior relationship, Jesus being married just
doesn’t work with modern pop theology. In born again lingo, Jesus
loves me wholly, completely, and utterly which means that my love for
him in return should be all consuming. Yes, he loves other people in
the same way. He is God, and he can do that. But he’s not allowed to
love someone else in a different way, a special sexual way that
includes desire and physical intimacy and exclusivity-- and leaves me
out. That breaks the trance.

Furthermore, since Christians believe in individual immortality, if
Jesus had a wife that means she still exists, and it means he likely
has kids. When we think about this, our neural networks activate
concepts and memories related to typical nuclear family
relationships. The pattern includes the fact that spousal intimacy is
unique. Also no matter what parents may say, deep down they love
their own kids better than anyone else’s.

The dilemma is both psychological and theological. In times past
there may have been variants of Christianity which taught that Jesus
was married. Their other teachings would have been compatible with
this notion. But if so, those versions of Christianity are largely
extinct, and the Jesus-concepts that have won out aren’t optimized
around a married savior. They are optimized around one who is
eternally single–able to make the unconditional, euphoric bond that we
yearn for with a perfect lover. In fact, the kinds of Christianity
that are growing—evangelical, Pentecostal, “emerging”- - tend to be
less cerebral than average and more about this rapturous union. The
availability of Jesus may be one key to Christianity’s viral success.

The Messy Evidence. The notion of Jesus having a wife wouldn’t be a
threat to rhapsodic, body-swaying, Jesus-loves-me bornagainism if it
weren’t so darn persistent. Frustrated conservative theologians and
commentators keep reassuring the world that Jesus was single, and the
topic lies in the tomb for three metaphorical days and then gets
resurrected. A few years back the trigger was The Da Vinci Code,
wildly entertaining, wildly improbable fiction. Now it is a historian
with a small scrap of papyrus. Da Vinci may have been silly fun, but
some other evidence suggests that if you don’t have a theological or
psychological need for Jesus to have been single, the idea of him
having a wife is at least worth entertaining.

One kind of evidence comes from Jewish history and culture. Orthodox
Judaism takes very seriously the command to be fruitful and multiply
and considers it a prescription not only for the flock but for
religious leaders. In this regard, Judaism stands in stark contrast
to Catholic Christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism, all of which
encourage abstinence as part of spiritual eminence. Even today, it is
unusual for a single Jewish man to earn the title of Rabbi, which
Jesus is assigned in gospel stories. Other than one snapshot at age
twelve, the Bible offers no indication of how Jesus spends his time
until he emerges as a teacher age thirty. Although marriage isn’t
specifically commanded by the Torah or subsequent texts, Jewish
history tilts against the likelihood of an unmarried Jesus.

A second kind of evidence comes from early non-canonical Christian
writings. The Gospel of Philip, for example, identifies Mary
Magdalene as the companion that Jesus often kissed. The Gospel of
Mary also puts Mary Magdalene in a privileged position. In it, Peter
says, “Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of
women.” These gospels espouse Gnostic theologies and so were rejected
by the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman church. When the Roman
version of Christianity finally won out, other Christianities were
declared heretical and writings such as these were suppressed or
destroyed. Consequently, few heretical manuscripts remain. But those
that do suggest strong differences between the kind of Christianity
that became “catholic,” meaning universal, and some kinds that
vanished.

A third kind of evidence lies hidden in the canonical gospels
themselves. For example, in the story of the wedding at Cana, where
Jesus turns water into wine, Jesus and his mother Mary engage in
behavior that have led some to argue that they were hosting the
festivities. In the book of John, Mary Magdalene weeps outside the
tomb in the garden where Jesus has been buried. As she weeps, he
appears to her and asks why she is crying. She mistakes him for the
gardener, but he reveals himself and then warns her not to touch him.
This story, according to at least some symbologists, is a standard
script, one that would have been familiar to readers of John’s gospel,
and in the mythic template, the woman in the garden is the wife of the
God-king. Today we might expect that if Jesus and Mary Magdalene were
spouses then the writer simply would have said so. But early
Christianity was like other mystery religions of the time period,
reserving some kinds of knowledge for those on the inside.

The case for a married Jesus may be far from definitive, but the
reaction of conservative Christian commentators should give us pause.
It is precisely the same reaction that the arbiters of orthodoxy have
had since the beginnings of time: dismiss competing perspectives;
ignore or –when possible -- destroy contradictory evidence; denigrate
and marginalize dissenters (aka heretics). It is the same reaction
that conservative Christians have had to archaeological and scientific
findings that call any of their prized beliefs into question. Indeed,
this reaction—played out through millennia—may explain why so little
evidence for a wife of Jesus exists.

[TomAl...@youcan'tgettherefromhere.com]

best dwell on something else than this poo poo

[That Don Guy]

Karolina Dean...Big money STILL weaves a mighty web... wrote:

>Evidence Jesus Was Married Sends the Christian Right into a Tizzy
>

>Was Jesus married? The question is ancient—perhaps as old as the
>question of his divinity. On September 18, at a conference in Rome,
>Harvard historian Karen L. King, unveiled an ancient scrap of papyrus
>with Coptic script in which Jesus refers to his wife.

Considering how many people back then were named Jesus (or the Coptic
equivalent thereof - IIRC, "Jesus" is a Greek name), is anybody
certain that the Jesus mentioned on the papyrus is "the" Jesus?

-- Don