Was Jesus Christ A Married Man? (NYPost Review – “a tad confusing – pretty pictures”)

NY Post ^ | November 3, 2003 | Adam Buckman

[Bohemund]

No, back then there were Jewish priests. The Christ was a religious leader, and (unless my various translations of the Holy Bible are in error) He was refered to as “rabbi”.

It is true that Jesus was referred to as "rabbi." Rabbi means "teacher." Jewish priests, like Caiaphas, served in ritual roles and had various administrative duties, but did not lead congregations in the contemporary sense. Rabbinical Judaism only really arose after the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD.

Wives had little status at the time, and would not have been germane to the message.

Women certainly had a different status than men in 1st Century Palestine. However, the women in the New Testament who participated in the story of Jesus are not ignored. I would point to figures like the Virgin Mary, Anne, the mother of John the Baptist, Pilate's wife, Mary and Martha, sisters of Lazarus, and so on.

Obviously, reasonable minds can differ as to whether Jesus had a wife. But when women like Peter's mother-in-law (!) are mentioned, I think it is unreasonable to assume that Jesus's wife would not be.

He did amend a few of the Old Testament dictates – an eye for an eye is a good example – but it can hardly be said that He “overturned the old order”. He appeared to be an observant Jew. The old order was overturned much later when the Word was spread to the Gentiles and non-Jews took over.

Jesus was crucified, in part, because he did not appear to be an obedient Jew. But my point is that Jesus was hardly an average Jewish resident of Roman Palestine, and assumptions premised on his "averageness" can only go so far.

As I said, reasonable minds can disagree on this matter. I'm just hesitant to make an assumption about the life of Jesus based on no evidence.

[R. Scott]

But when women like Peter's mother-in-law (!) are mentioned, I think it is unreasonable to assume that Jesus's wife would not be.

As I mentioned earlier, the version we now have of the Gospels have been edited, and any mention of His wife (if there had been mention) would have been removed.

I doubt I will ever understand the fuss over the possibility of the Christ having a wife, and I imagine it will continue to be a major concern for some.

[Bohemund]

As I mentioned earlier, the version we now have of the Gospels have been edited, and any mention of His wife (if there had been mention) would have been removed.

The Gospels have been circulating since the 2nd Century. Though there have surely been edits made to the Gospels over time, through accident and mistake, there is no reference anywhere ever of a version in which Jesus is married. Personally, I find any theory that requires an elaborate, traceless conspiracy to be true to be less than compelling.

I doubt I will ever understand the fuss over the possibility of the Christ having a wife, and I imagine it will continue to be a major concern for some.

It's not so much the idea that Jesus of Nazareth might have had a wife that people object to, I suspect. Instead, the same way that people support this contention--by alleging a (Catholic?) conspiracy to edit the Gospels to further some hidden agenda--can be used to support all sorts of heresies.

There is exactly as much evidence that Jesus was gay, or had several wives, or was an albino or what have you, as there is that he was married at all. But hey, it's a free country--believe what you want.

[SunkenCiv]