The Real Jesus' Marriage
On his website, Rev Dr Mark D Roberts goes into a lot of detail about why Jesus wasn't married. He examines some of the evidence in depth and concludes that there is not enough evidence to be certain Jesus was married.
Then he arbitrarily decides that "not enough evidence of a marriage" proves Jesus wasn't married. Dr Roberts, like most fundamentalists, Protestant and Catholic alike, just ignores those documents which are inconvenient to him. He concentrates on the extra-Biblical scriptures because these are the sources which that idiot Dan Brown mentions in his ignorant book, The DaVinci Code. Hey, Dr Roberts! How about addressing the REAL evidence?
The early church fathers took for granted that Jesus was married. You find both indications and flat statements in Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome,etc. Many early Christians believed the Old Testament Song of Solomon was prophetic of a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Or Jesus and Mary of Bethany, who might have been the same woman.
Dr Roberts also misrepresents the New Testament evidence of marriage, skimpy though it is. More clues than evidence. Dr Roberts pretends that the only indications in the canon New Testament is the absence of evidence. In fact both Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are shown in several situations fulfilling the role of spouse in symbolic moments. The anointing, the sitting at his feet, the hosting at her house, anointing his body for burial. The miracle of the wine in Cana at a marriage feast is also intriguing. At a traditional middle-eastern wedding feast it is the duty of the groom's family to provide the wine. Could this story have originally contained a few extra lines designating Jesus as the groom? Possible. Matthew 11:19 says "The son of man came eating and drinking...But wisdom is justified of her children." Eating and drinking as at a wedding feast? And Wisdom is the female principle, identified as Mary Magdalene in some of the Gnostic documents. As I said, nothing conclusive, but clues. Of course it is silly to expect absolute proof in the sanitized canon New Testament. By the third century the church began suppressing anything it found distasteful.
So we would expect to find stronger and more direct evidence in the "lost" gospels. And of course this is exactly the situation we do find. Statements in the Apocryphical New Testament are much more indicative. Mary is referred to in glowing terms in several Gnostic gospels. And many more are strongly approving of the divine feminine principle in general. Among the Nag Hammadi documents, 10 or 12 refer to an archon or hypostasis which is female. Barbelos, Eve, Sophia, Norea, the Thunder, and in some, Mary Magdalene is specifically called Sophia or the feminine divine principle. In Pistis Sophia, Jesus says, she is "blessed beyond all women upon the earth, because [she shall be] the pleroma of all Pleromas and the completion of all completions". Of course, Dr Roberts tries to make this mean an ordinary spiritual "fullness of knowledge" but this is a Gnostic document and the Pleroma is a specific technical term referring to the aeon who gives birth to Ialdabaoth, the creator of the world. "Pleroma of all Pleromas" means Sophia after the all the light has all been gathered back into the One, and "fullness of knowledge" should be properly translated as "fullness of gnosis". This identifies Mary as Sophia. Sophia is the divine feminine principle, and the consort of the Christ or the Redeemer.
The Hebrew word from which Magdalene comes is "migdal," tower or pillar. Let us mention a passage in the Hebrew Bible, from the prophet Micah, which refers to this unique name.
As for you, O [Magdal-eder], watchtower of the flock,
O stronghold of the Daughter of Zion!
The former dominion will be restored to you;
kingship will come to the Daughter of Jerusalem.
Why do you now cry aloud --
have you no king?
Has your counselor perished,
that pain seizes you like that of a woman in labor?
Writhe in agony, O Daughter of Zion,
like a woman in labor,
for now you must leave the city
and camp in an open field.
from Margaret Starbird's translation of Micah 4:8.
Dr Roberts concludes: "There's also nothing whatsoever in the biblical material to suggest that Mary was Jesus' wife, or, as some have suggested, that he had a sexual relationship with her outside of marriage. If Jesus and Mary had been married, then we should expect that he would have entrusted her into the care of the Beloved Disciple at the cross, just as he did with his mother (19:27). The absence of this action strongly suggests that Jesus and Mary were not married."
Unless, of course, Mary Magdalene was the beloved disciple. The Gospel of Mary says, "Peter said to Mary, 'Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember - which you know (but) we do not, nor have we heard them." Ramon K. Jusino, in his article Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel? argues in favor of the possibility that Mary Magdalene could be the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John. In his view, Mary Magdalene, who is called the disciple most loved by Jesus in the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, is in the Gospel of John, after first being mentioned by name, deliberately turned into the anonymous and male Beloved Disciple. In the Dialogue of the Savior, Jesus refers to Mary as the only disciple who had understood completely.
I think that Dr Roberts conclusion that there is "nothing at all to suggest" is premature. "No conclusive evidence" is a fair statement, but "nothing whatsoever in the biblical material to suggest" is a dramatic overstatement. Maybe not a blatant lie, but Dr Roberts is certainly trying to deceive you about the suggestiveness of many biblical passages.
When Dr Roberts says there is nothing in the Gnostic gospels which suggests marriage, I respectfully suggest that Dr Roberts is mistaken. The Gnostic Cosmology makes Sophia the spouse or consort of the Redeemer and Pistis Sophia specifically points to Mary as being Sophia, however it is possible that the language is figurative and that Jesus does not mean, "she is my wife", but it is more than merely suggestive, it is a vital clue.
Dr Roberts also characterizes the Gospel of Philip as written two centuries after the other gospels. He is disingenuous. The Gospel of Philip was written around 180 CE and the canonical Gospel of John was written about 150 CE. Hardly two centuries. Some scholars put John back as far as 180 or 190. Dr Roberts surely knows this, but he doesn't want you to know it.
Of course this same Dr Roberts is wanting you to believe that Christians have always believed that Jesus was divine, right from the first century. He's mistaken about this, too. Hey, Dr Roberts, Eusebius is not divinely inspired. Of course Dr Roberts has forgotten whatever history he learned about Arians, Ebionites, Encratists, Docetists, Gnostics, Marcionists, Manichaeans, and a dozen other sects of early Christianity out of which the "orthodox" view slowly distilled. Ebionites, Nasoreans and Jewish Christians did not believe Jesus was divine. They believed there was only one God. Arians believed that Jesus was a created being who was not co-existent with the father. Adoptionists believed with the writer of Mark's Gospel that Jesus only became divine when he was baptized, when the Spirit of God descended on him like a dove. Gnostics and Docetists believed that the Christ was divine, they just didn't believe he was human, and some of them didn't believe he was Jesus. Marcion believed that Jesus was the son of God, just not the old Testament Jehovah. Some other God. Marcion also believed he had that doctrine straight from the apostle Paul. What "Christians always believed" is not monolithic, no matter how hard Dr Roberts wishes for it. And a quick survey of second and third century Christian writers will demonstrate this to anyone who cares to survey the literature. So once again, this is something I'm sure Dr Roberts is aware of, but he doesn't want you to know it.