The problem

In the DVC post below, there's a question of what does it matter if Jesus was married? And what's the problem with talking and wondering about it?

Here's the problem, touched on by another commentor:

There's no mention of a wife of Jesus in the Gospels. No indication, whatsoever that he was married, and the old argument from silence doesn't work either. There was no motivation for the evangelists to be silent on any marriage. They are not silent about any other of Jesus' relations, not silent about his relations with the people of his home town. They name the (many of the) women who followed him in his ministry and remained faithful to him to the tomb. If, for example, he and Mary Magdalene had been married, it's pretty clear that the evangelists would have pointed that out.

But they don't.

So the problem with Oh, let's play around, imagine...what's the harm? is simply that it undercuts the authority of Scripture and diminishes the centrality as the Gospels as authoritative, reliable sources for our understanding of the life, identity and ministry of Jesus. It makes them the equivalent of our own imaginations, wishes and dreams.

Which they're not. No matter how much we would like to justifiy our own idolatries, our own priorities, our own "story,"...they're not.

Teaching people that the Gospels are not authoritative is, in the end, a deliberate act of sabotage, hiding the real Jesus from people because we like our gospels better.

Comments

[Jeff]

Amen, Amy.

I would also like to add the point that if Jesus were married, it would undermine the understanding of earthly marriage as an image of the heavenly marriage between Jesus and His Church. Jesus is the goal; He doesn't need an image to point Him to heaven.

[Daniel W]

If, for example, he and Mary Magdalene had been married, it's pretty clear that the evangelists would have pointed that out.

I'm not doubting the accuracy of this statement, & I share the distaste for retooling the scriptures. But I've always been curious: How do we know this, at least with any real degree of certainty? I believe it myself, and it makes perfect sense, but I'm not sure how I could ever convince someone else who is truly skeptical. Yeah the Gospels do go on at length about Jesus' other relationships. But it's also true that the Gospels omit many details which, to 21st century minds, at least, would seem to be glaring omissions. (For example, whatever happened to St. Joseph between the time of the finding in the temple and the time of Jesus' public ministry?) What is the fundamental difference between an omitted detail such as this, and one such as the non-existent marriage of Christ and Mary Magdalene?

Just thought I'd throw that out, since this blog is frequented by folks much more knowledgeable than I...

[ajb]

amy, the absence of any mention by the Evangelists of Jesus being married would call into question the Scripture's comprehensiveness, but not necessarily it's authority.

The really invidious result of such speculation is the suggestion that the Evangelists DID mention it, and the later CHURCH took it out, suppressed it, and forbid its consideration in order to preserve its own by-then well-established patriarchy.

That conspiracy angle plays to both non-Christians as well as the fundamentalist idea that the "true" church had to go underground for centuries until the Reformation.

[Tony A]

At the time, Dominus Iesus did not seem such a big deal. Now, I think it was an incredibly important document. Ratzinger knew exactly what the problem was, and it was nothing to do with sex, the liturgy, women priests or any of the other nonsense that causes civil war among catholics. No, it was an attack on the essence of the faith itself, who Jesus is. Fundamentally, it is this that irks anti-Catholics so much, and it is this we must defend vigorously. I think this is the main reason why Ratzinger became Benedict XVI. So let's have our honest divisions and arguments, but let's always defend the core faith against the kind of nonsense in the DVC.

Tony.

[Maureen]

If Jesus had wanted to, he would have gotten married. Since he didn't, we have to take that as a sign. People who ignore that for the sake of writing Bible fanfic are missing out.

But you know, if God had wanted to be married to any human woman (other than the Virgin Mary, that is), I would think we would have seen evidence of this before the Gospels.

For example, when all those messengers of God and theophanies show up, you never see them introducing "my wife" or "my concubine" or "this other female angel I hang out with sometimes; we have an on-again off-again relationship".

The only person God speaks of as a wife back then is the personified people of Israel, right?

[Shaun G]

No one, it seems, has yet touched on another weighty piece of evidence that Jesus did not marry: His statements about marriage in Matthew 19.

Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it. (Matthew 19:12, from USCCB's NAB)

If we interpret "this" to mean the unmarried state, then Jesus is saying that those who can live celibately ought to. And since it doesn't make sense for mere men to be able to live celibately but Our Lord to not have the willpower, we can conclude that Jesus lived celibately, "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

But even if "this" is meant to refer to the whole of Our Lord's teachings about marriage, as some scholars have suggested, the fact remains that Jesus pointed to one category of people who renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, and it seems almost self-evident that Christ would have belonged to that group.

[amy]

There is no such thing as sure-fire proof. But the current argument is an argument from silence. That because the gospels don't mention it, Jesus must have been married because it was invoenient or unwanted information. rooted ultimately, the current story goes, in his choice of his companion Mary Magdalene as the preferred leader of his movement, not Peter.

Which gets to the authority issue right there. That the Gospels are essentially political documents intent on hiding the truth. That's the ultimate conclusion.

[Paula L]

Thank you Amy. No matter the purity of the motive it is very dangerous for anyone to try to reshape Jesus the Christ into an image more to their liking and understanding.
Some want a married Christ, some want a radical reformer, some want a Pat Robertson clone. The danger in making your own pocket Christ is that you end up turning away from the real Christ has revealed in Scripture. You also end up twisting the Gospel to reflect your own prejudices. The Gospel is not an easy Gospel it does not lend itself to being domesticated. It calls to much for a very deep change within us to ever let us be comfortable in its presence. But I would rather have Jesus and a Gospel that challenges, revokes and impassions me than a tame Gospel and a pocket Christ.

[Ken]

Jesus staying single also sidesteps a very practical problem of that place and time:

Inheritance.

Specifically, inheritance of position and power. If Jesus married and had kids, they would (by law of blood) be Sons of The Son of God, heir to His divine authority. Salvation and the Church would be as all power and authority was in that day -- personal property inherited by blood descent.

And the inheritance fight that would result... Islam blew itself in two before Mohammed's body was cold over who should succeed him as Prophet and Caliph -- Fatima's line or Ali's? That inheritance feud racks up a body count to this day under the names Sunni and Shia.

Imagine what the inheritance fight would be like if the inheritance was All the Authority and Power and Glory of God the Son. It'd be I, Claudius or Dune on steroids -- dagger and poison over who gets to be God the Grandson (if not the heirs themselves, anyone else who wanted to be the power behind The Throne) -- the line wouldn't last one generation.

And that's also what the Romans expected of someone declaring himself a King within The Empire -- "We Have No King But Caesar!" and Caesar would make sure it stayed that way.

[Colleen]

Thanks for the wise words regarding 'arguments from silence' or 'thoughful thinking out of the box' --- where does it end? I think of the misguided John Dominic Crossan with his 'Jesus' body eaten by wild dogs' theory.

[SiliconValleySteve]

Much of this goes directly to the essence of critical theory which defines intellectual discourse in our time. In critical theory there is no God and no love. There is only power as a motivating force. Therefore, the Gospels can only be an expression of power or the propaganda of the victors.

[Michael]

According to John Meier's article "Jesus" in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, the fact that the NT says lots of things about Jesus' other connections makes it odd to suppose that Jesus was married but no one mentioned it. Also, Meier mentions that Jesus' unmarried state was the subject of "jibes." I'm not sure what this is a reference to, but if I'm not mistaken, it's fairly standard in NT scholarship to argue as follows: If something in the Gospels is embarrassing to Christianity, then that's a good reason to give it extra historical weight, because the evangelists would have left it out if they could have. Analogously, then, if it was considered embarrassing for Jesus to have been unmarried, and if the evangelists could have said he was married, then why didn't they?

[Tim]

So the problem with "Oh, let's play around, imagine...what's the harm?" is simply that it undercuts the authority of Scripture and diminishes the centrality of the Gospels as authoritative, reliable sources for our understanding of the life, identity and ministry of Jesus. It makes them the equivalent of our own imaginations, wishes and dreams.

Well, that's the problem here on earth. On Judgement Day it's going to be trying to explain to the Big Guy why you lacked the faith in God to communicate the truth through his Scriptures despite the possible meddlings of mere mortals and why you then decided to rework or make up your own scriptures and tried to pass them off as His.

[Christine]

If there's one thing I've always marvelled at is the response of the common man/woman to Jesus. The Gospels say that they were awed by Jesus -- he taught not like the scribes and pharisees but as one whose authority was self-authenticating.

People like the DVC crowd, Biblically illiterate and searching for conspiracies at every turn simply haven't been able to digest this. If they can convince themselves that the bad old Catholic Church suppressed so many things about the "real" Jesus it's a very short trip to viewing the Gospels as untrustworthy, also.

If Jesus had been married, we would know. I am absolutely convinced of that. The integrity of Christ comes through the Gospel witness over and over.

[Zhou De-Ming]

Oh, let's play around, imagine...what's the harm?

What if everyone who wanted to read DVC first had to read the Bible, the whole Bible, from Genesis to the Apocalypse (with all the Catholic books that many Protestants disdain, and which, by the way are heavy on "wisdom"), and then had to pass a Reading Comprehension test on the Bible before being allowed to read DVC.

What would happend to DVC sales?

[Todd]

"So the problem with Oh, let's play around, imagine...what's the harm? is simply that it undercuts the authority of Scripture and diminishes the centrality as the Gospels as authoritative, reliable sources for our understanding of the life, identity and ministry of Jesus. It makes them the equivalent of our own imaginations, wishes and dreams."

It's a matter of degree.

If you write a book with either good intentions (Poem of the Man-God, the various apocryphal gospels) or not (DVC, we presume) and attempt to overhaul the Scriptures, then yes, I agree it's a danger.

If, however, a person in good conscience wonders out loud, "Could Jesus have been married?" and somebody takes time to give a serious answer, why would we have a problem with that.

One problem is Amy's correspondent. Did she report one quick question and a quick answer that bothered her? Or did the DRE give a thirty minute sermon on the question, coming to the same conclusion we have: not likely to have occurred.

Lots of us focus on the peripherals, to the exclusion of more true or more difficult aspects of faith. What is helpful on the parish level, is to gently move people past their roadblocks and into a deeper faith. What-ifs about Jesus lure us away from the authentic what-ifs of the spiritual life: What if I were more considerate to my family? What if I prayed more often? What if I made a firmer resolution to avoid this or that sin? Aside from diluting the authority of the Scriptures, these are also pitfalls of elevating religious cocktail conversation to an undeserving level.

[RP Burke]

Indeed, Amy's analysis is very similar to Fr. Richard McBrien's:

In my Catholicism book (both in the original 1980 edition and in the updated and completely revised edition of 1994, p. 559), I make it clear that there is no evidence in the New Testament or anywhere else that Jesus was married and, indeed, that what evidence does exist undermines such a claim.

***

Was Jesus, in fact, married? There is no evidence in the New Testament or in Christian tradition that he was, and there are at least two other credible arguments, based on the New Testament, that he was not married.

First, the anti-erotic bias of the New Testament churches came very early into Christianity, and it can be supposed that if Jesus had been married, that tendency would have been checked.

Second, when Paul invoked his right to marry a believing woman “as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas” (1 Corinthians 9:5), he did not appeal to Jesus’ own marriage to support his argument. (The “Cephas” here is, of course, Peter.)

[Colleen]

"What would happend to DVC sales [if people had to read the Bible prior to reading the DVC]?

Well, for one thing they'd immediately recognize how poorly written the DVC code is. :-)

I just used that recently when a co-worker was all fired up about reading the DVC... appealed to the snobbery of the surrounding cube dwellers and casually asked if anyone else thought the DVC was poorly written... seeing as how most of my (then) 14 y.o. daughters friends read it with ease. Also got to recommend Jenkins' "Gnostic Gospels"and Welborn's, Olsen's and Miesel's debunking books too - in case anyone else in the room happened to think that grammar school writer Brown should be mistaken for a scholar.

[Maureen]

Funny you should mention inheritance.

The real gist of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (one of DVC's acknowledged sources) was that the Merovingian line of French kings were not just descendants of Frankish gods, but also of God Himself. Mary Magdalene was just a means; supporting a dead monarchy (which they claimed was still around) was the point.

In real life, of course, the Merovingian line petered out back in Charlemagne's granddad's time, ending in a crazy guy getting towed around on a wagon by a single attendant. This is how Pepin, Charles Martel, and Charlemagne got to be in charge of the Franks.

[Augustine]

Not to mention that God is not Zeus. I mean, God would not incestuous relations with a daughter of His.

+JMJ+

[Chris Sullivan]

I agree that there isn't a shred of evidence that Christ ever married, and it doesn't seem at all likely that he was, but as far as I can tell, we don't know for certain whether he was or was not married. It isn't a Catholic dogma.

Therefore, it seems to me that to base an argument for priestly celibacy on Christ's supposed celibacy is to base an argument, not on the solid rock of infallible dogma, but on something which is, well, sand.

God Bless

[Susan Peterson]

I really think the whole logic of salvation makes it pretty unthinkable that Jesus would be married.

He took on our humanity to draw it up into his divinity. He came to proclaim the kingdom of God, to suffer, die, and be raised up. I don't see how anyone can see marriage as anything but a turning away from that mission.

How could He have another bride but the Church?
To quote a hymn " From heaven he came to seek Her, to be His holy bride, with His own Blood He bought Her, and for Her sake he died." How could He give each of us His Body in the Eucharist if He had given that body to another wife than the Church?

I think anyone who even considers for a moment that it is conceivable that Jesus might have been married doesn't understand Who He Is..or for that matter, what marriage is.

Susan Peterson

[Roberto]

Chris,
I hope you mean to say that the Church has not stated this fact explicitly as a dogma, not that it is not a dogma.

Remember that a dogma is only stated explicitly when the Church or the Pope feel it has become necessary to do so.

Which brings me to remind everyone that, as Catholics we rely on the Church teaching as well as Scripture. So, what about we believe that Jesus never married because the Church has always taught so? What about the fact that not only Scriptures, but no other early and late Church document and Father's writing mentions any hint of it?

[Shaun G]

Chris Sullivan:

I don't think it's fair to say that anything that hasn't been explicitly declared as infallible is "sand."

If that were the case, then prior to 1950, the belief in Mary's Assumption was "sand."

[Augustine]

Or how about state that such gnostic fallacy can be found in the Koran? Are people willing to put their faith in Mohamed rather than on the Evangelists?

Christ Jesus, save us from our pride.

+JMJ+

[Rich Leonardi]

Therefore, it seems to me that to base an argument for priestly celibacy on Christ's supposed celibacy is to base an argument, not on the solid rock of infallible dogma, but on something which is, well, sand.

Regardless of whether it's a dogma, per the CDF it's part of the Deposit. I'd say it's a bit more solid than "sand."

[Chris Sullivan]

From what I was taught, it isn't a dogma until it's defined as a dogma.

As for the Assumption, it's clear from the liturgy, the public holidays in Europe on Assumption day, the Rosary mysteries and substantial other evidence that the Church has always believed in the Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven.

I'm not aware of any similarly substantial body of evidence that Christ was celibate, although it does seem to be a constant belief.

Is there any papal statement that Christ never married ?

God Bless

[Chris Sullivan]

Rich,

Can you provide a reference to the CDF declaration that Christ's celibacy is part of the deposit of faith ?

I'm happy to retract the "sand" bit. Perhaps it was a little too strong.

Thanks and God Bless

[Tim Ferguson]

Chris - is the Catechism of the Catholic Church good enough? paragraph 1618: Virginity for the Sake of the Kingdom "from the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming. Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, OF WHICH HE REMAINS THE MODEL."

[c matt]

For example, whatever happened to St. Joseph between the time of the finding in the temple and the time of Jesus' public ministry?) What is the fundamental difference between an omitted detail such as this, and one such as the non-existent marriage of Christ and Mary Magdalene?

One fubdamental distinction is that the bible mentions both Joseph and Mary M, and clearly states Joseph's role as Jesus earthly (foster) father, but never mentions Mary M's role as his wife. In fact, she is introduced without any specific relationship mentioned (aside from follower). So, rather than an ommission like what happened to Joseph durnig X period, it would be more like an ommission of ever mentioning that Joseph was Jesus' foster father.

[Redactrice]

Not that I believe Jesus was married, but the argument that because Paul didn't mention Jesus' wife means that Jesus wasn't married can be used for the opposite as well. Since Paul didn't hold Jesus up as the example of the celibate, unmarried minister, but instead held himself (Paul) up as that example, it could be argued that Jesus WAS married. The most anyone can truly argue from the Scripture themselves is that it says nothing specific about Jesus' marital state. For that we must rely on the Church's wisdom and Tradition.

[Augustine]

The Scriptures never referred to Jesus' bodily functions. Can we assume that he never belched?

:-)

[Jerome]

People who attempt to raise questions about the Gospels validity ignore another soucre of Revalation: Holy Tradition. There are scores of writings, beliefs, and practices that predated the Canon by 300 years. Much of what we know about Mary, the Apostles, the early Mass comes from this Tradition. There is nothing in the Gospels that contradicts The Church's practices or beliefs. Sole Scriptura is a Protestant Tradition.

[jerome]

Priestly Celibacy while not specifically mentioned in the Bible, is clearly Biblical, and predates Christ. The giving one of one's body and soul totally to God is all over St Paul's writings. The idea that a person's mental or spiritual health is at risk unless he/she has intercourse came from Freud and is relativley new.

John Paul II wrote extensivley about human sexuality, celibacy, and marriage. His writings are a good source for anyone who is curious about why the Vatican is so adamant about keeping a celibate male clerisy.

[Ed]

Nothing in scripture refers to arson of houses, only of fields. So houses must be OK.

[Zhou De-Ming]

Speaking of bodily functions in Scripture, 1 Samuel 24:3-4 has always puzzled me:

So Saul took three thousand picked men from all Israel and went in search of David and his men in the direction of the wild goat crags.
When he came to the sheepfolds along the way, he found a cave, which he entered to ease nature. David and his men were occupying the inmost recesses of the cave.

It is almost slapstick comedy.

Saul and his army are pursuing David.
David and his men hide in a cave.
Saul goes into the cave to "ease nature."
David's 600 men start gagging, giggling and gasping.
In an effort to get them to pipe down, David goes and "stealthily" cuts something off of Saul's clothes (which, of course, were not on Saul at the time).

Why, O Lord, is this in Scripture? It is, I believe, the only clear account of a person "easing nature" in the Holy Word.

[Caroline]

"He took on our humanity to draw it up into his divinity. He came to proclaim the kingdom of God, to suffer, die, and be raised up. I don't see how anyone can see marriage as anything but a turning away from that mission."

Marriage and procreation is a big big part of humanity. I don't think He got married either, but if He had, how would that have been a turning away from the mission of drawing up humanity?

As to someone above who argued that children of Jesus would inherit the Divine Nature along with the human nature and that this could cause all sorts of problems--nonsense. All they would inherit is human nature just like the rest of us.

And finally, I am very confused from reading people's opinions about what is Sacred Tradition and what is theological opinion, folklore and the like. Augustine and Aquinas were perhaps our greatest theologians. Are their opinions Sacred Tradition? I know about the development of doctrine but did the Sacred Tradition along with the Scripture out of which the development is supposed to come ever reach a conclusion? And if theological opinions are involved in the legitimate development of doctrine based on Scripture and Sacred Tradition, why should Augustine and Aquinas and a number of others not yet be eclipsed by future theologians?

[Sandra Miesel]

The Assumption of Mary (or her Dormition as the East prefers to say) was a strongly held theological opinion from Patristic times. No Church Father or subsequent theologian or even popular tradition tried to argue that Mary's body was buried somewhere. The proclamation of the dogma was a bit of tidying up.
Isn't it amusing that people want Mary Magdalen to be young and beautiful, therefore an appropriate mate, not just a loyal follower? There's no suggestion in Scripture about her age or appearance. She could have been a homely old widow or divorcee. All we see is an independent woman following Christ--which is the essential point.

[Sandra Miesel]

That scene with Saul gets illustrated in the Majewski Bible, supposed to have been made for St. Louis.
The Mosaic Law meantions bodily functions in quite a few places, male & female alike.
Then there's Christ's own comment about unclean foods passing through the body and being "cast into the drain."

[Tim Ferguson]

Aquinas and Augustine, on some points, have indeed been "superceded" by subsequent theologians: Augustine taught that unbaptized babies go to hell, but only suffer mild pain. Later theologians developed the concept of limbo - a place separate from hell, but also separate from the Beatific Vision. Aquinas disagreed with the concept of the Immaculate Conception, and his arguments against it were later answered by Duns Scotus. Tradition has developed and continues to develop, and is often hard to point something and say: this is Sacred Tradition, this is Theological Opinion, especially at the time that it's being developed.

If I'm making soup, I throw a bone in waterand boil it to make stock. Then throw in some vegetables, sometimes some meat, some spices. After awhile, I remove the bone. At what point does it become soup? Was the bone part of the soup? Was the water which evaporated in the boiling process part of the soup?

Similarly, one can look and say that some of what Aquinas taught is indeed part of Sacred Tradition, even things which appeared to be pure novelty at the time (though he usually based his writings on earlier writings and it's hard to pinpoint exactly when something was taught the first time). Some of what Tertullian taught is part of Sacred Tradition, even though he's gone down in history as a heretic.

The somewhat nebulous character of Tradition is why we need a hierarchy and why we need theologians and historians. Theologians and historians (ideally) examine, question, poke, prod and ponder. The magisterium discerns.

[Jack]

If you are not careful, after another "retranslation" of the bible which has happened about 4 times since Vatican II if I am not mistake so as not to be offensive to Jews, woman, etc etc, you just may soon find a married Jesus inserted by one of those corrupt liberal commissions the vatican hires to interpet everything, just like the ICEL botched the entire translation of the mass from Latin to the vernacular, putting in words which they felt the founders of the mass, and even the Apostles creed, really meant some 1700 years ago! The New American Bible, which most here dont even know about but is read every Sunday by your priest if you attend the Novus Ordo mass, has been "sanitized" and words of God, Jesus, and the Apostles changed from the Dhouy Rheims! Please check the vatican archives website

[Jack]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV7.HTM

[Zhou De-Ming]

What I want to know is:

Where have all the dragons gone?

I was really miffed when I was recently reading the NAB text of Isaiah, and all the dragons are gone!

What, have dragons become politically incorrect?

Douay-Rhiems text of Isaiah 34:13-14a:

And thorns and nettles shall grow up in its houses,
and the thistle in the fortresses thereof:
and it shall be the habitation of dragons,
and the pasture of ostriches.
And demons and monsters shall meet,
and the hairy ones shall cry out one to another,

NAB namby-pamby translation:

Her castles shall be overgrown with thorns,
her fortresses with thistles and briers.
She shall become an abode for jackals
and a haunt for ostriches.
Wildcats shall meet with desert beasts,
satyrs shall call to one another;

What is wrong with dragons?

In Latin, the Nova Vulgata still has dragons:

Et orientur in domibus eius spinae,
urticae et paliurus in munitionibus eius;
et erit cubile draconum
et pascua struthionum.
Et occurrent hyaenae thoibus,
et pilosus clamat ad amicum suum;

Bring back the dragons!

This dragon cover-up is no doubt part of The Situation and all that is wrong with post-Vatican II America!

[Caroline]

Satyrs are still pretty good. If you want mythical beasts I mean.

[little gidding]

On imagining Jesus as if he had a wife (besides the Church): The stated assumption here is that it would merely fill in the gaps of what had not been mentioned in the Gospels--but the reality is that it throws the rest of the Gospels into a different light. And that is precisely the implicit intent of such a "thought experiment." It is *meant* to be subversive, and to put forward a Jesus who is at odds with the one whom the Church has always revered, but who, for various reasons, is a stumbling block to the people doing the re-imagining. This is something that has happened ever since the Gnostics started riffing on the Gospels.

The strategy of elaborating a fictional story about Jesus which is "really" true (to those of us in the know--whoever we are) has certainly been in use, as I've mentioned on this blog before, long before DVC. There is a very, very large number of fictional lives of Jesus written by people in the 19th and 20th centuries in which He is revealed to be the very person that the anti-Catholic intellectual flavor of the month deemed Him to be. Many, many of these were written by spiritualists who "channeled" (our modern word) Jesus' "real" life, they said, directly from: 1) Jesus himself, 2) One of the Apostles, 3) Mary Magdalene, 4) Apollonius of Tyana, or some other suitably in-the-know authority. In one, Jesus turns out to have been a misunderstood Rationalist, in another, He was a kind of first century political "Wobbly." In yet another, He was an Egyptian mystagogue. In all of them, He was whatever was opposed to the Catholic Church's description of Him.

These fictional reimaginings that were meant to be freighted with life-changing, novel visions of who Jesus was, were almost uniformly execrable, as works of literature. Almost every single one has fallen into the dustbin of literary history. Except perhaps, Ben Hur. (N.B. Amy--General Lew Wallace, your fellow Hoosier, was also a spiritualist, who was "inspired" to write his tale of Jesus). Ben Hur, of course, is, I suppose, quite innocuous, considered as a tale that gives, indirectly, an "alternate" image of Jesus. But there were plenty of others that were quite a bit more in-your-face anti-Catholic, including, for example, the very popular and (in its time) influential "Life of Jesus" by Ernest Renan. And then, there were the truly exotic ones, like "The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ," in which we learn of His travels to Tibet and India, which was "channeled" by ex-Church-of-Christ minister and Hoosier (N.B. Amy!) Levi Dowling back in 1910.

This kind of thing continues today, of course, and it continues in the same anti-Catholic spirit. These range from the perhaps benign examples such as "The Red Tent" all the way through to the ravings of the DVC. All of them have been presented to most of their readers as "interesting to imagine." This is how they have always been inserted into the public consciousness. It's not new with Brown's fact/fiction mumblings.

I note that the perniciousness of this sort of thing also makes me quite uneasy with the current crop of Apocalyptic fiction of a Fundamentalist bent, or which purport to tell the story of the later lives of the Apostles, which I hear, from time to time, being advertised on the radio with a phrase such as "Learn the Truth through fiction!" Why not learn the Truth through the Truth?

[Fr. Andrew Bloomfield]

Scripturally, the conversation of Jesus with His disciples and those of the Pharisees about fasting is telling: He refers to Himself as "the Bridegroom". More importantly, even, is John 3, in which the Baptizer describes the relation of Christ to the Church with rich nuptial imagery. In the Patristic era, the Fathers see our Lord's "sleep" on the Cross giving birth to His Bride, the Church, as a parallel to Adam and Eve.
Finally, all the Pauline imagery (Ephesians 5, above all) describing the relation of Christ to the Church as a Bride and Bridegroom cannot be discounted; Christ is celibate for the sake of His Kingdom. Much can be discovered by meditating on His celibacy, but nothing can be gained from idle speculation about impossibilities. St. Paul warns us about this, too.

[Zhou De-Ming]

Well, Caroline, calling St. George "The Jackal Slayer" just doesn't have the same ring.

Also:
(1) St. Philip the Apostle is said to have destroyed a huge dragon at Hierapolis, in Phrygia.
(2) St. Martha killed the terrible dragon called Tarasque at Aix (la Chapelle).
(3) St. Florent killed a dragon which haunted the Loire.
(4) St. Cado, St. Maudet, and St. Paul did similar feats in Brittany.
(5) St. Keyne of Cornwall slew a dragon.
(6) St. Michael, St. George, St. Margaret, Pope Sylvester, St. Samson (Archbishop of Dol), Donatus (fourth century), St. Clement of Metz, and many others, killed dragons.
(7) St. Romain of Rouen destroyed the huge dragon called La Gargouille, which ravaged the Seine.

Are you telling me these folks all killed jackals, i.e. "[a]ny of several doglike mammals of the genus Canis of Africa and southern Asia that are mainly foragers feeding on plants, small animals, and occasionally carrion." ?

No wonder the Church is getting soft and mushy.

We traded our dragon slayers for dog catchers!

[Liz]

...And we all know that the the Bible was composed in a combination of Latin and English :-)

As for the question of Jesus being married, what does it really matter? Does it change the fact that God became a human being, or change the fact that God's love for us was so great as to even endure humiliating rejection and painful death? Would a marriage vs. a celibate single life for Jesus change these things? No. That's not to say that there's a reason to speculate that Jesus WAS married - but it's a helpful way to deal with people who think that Dan Brown is a Genius(!), and won't let pesky things like 2,000 years of tradition and conclusions drawn by renowned scholars get in their way.

[Tim Ferguson]

The question of Jesus being married matters because Jesus is a person - not simply an idea. We, in faith, come to know Jesus - come into a personal relationship with a divine and human person. The Gospels, the rest of scripture, the teachings of the Church help us to know Jesus - not just what He means to us, but who he is. Something as essential to who Jesus is as his marital status is important, in that it helps us KNOW him (how many close friends do you have whose marital status remains a mystery to you?) The Scripture, the Church, tradition all present us with a Jesus who remained celibate. It would matter if Jesus was married, because it would mean that the Jesus that His Church has presented is not the Jesus who truly exists.

[dymphna]

Why Mary Magdalene? Out of all the women who knew Jesus why do these nuts fixate on poor Mary? I really hadn't paid DVC any attention becuase it's just warmed over Holy Blood Holy Grail and I thought that was crap the first time around.

[holidaymouse]

I live in Boulder, Colorado. Should, in itself, say enough. Just picked up yet ANOTHER NEW magazine that is dedicated to the goddess Mary Magdalene. She even has a message to her followers on the inside cover and signs her initials MM. Oh--and she's a major babe of course. Couldn't have an owly goddess, that's for sure.
I was laughing aloud when I realized that I was in a store that not only sells these magazines (an earth-first vitamin store) but people buy AND believe this. Oh-and it was next to Oprah magazine.
Hmmmm. ET phone home. No God here, that's for sure.

[Redactrice]

The Scriptures don't record Jesus smiling either. Just weeping. But I think most of us assume Jesus smiled at least once. Although some Christians believe that he never smiled in his earthy life because it wasn't recorded.

[Rich Leonardi]

Can you provide a reference to the CDF declaration that Christ's celibacy is part of the deposit of faith ?

I was referring to the Church's teaching on the impossibility of women's "ordination."

[little gidding]

The Scriptures don't record what color hair Jesus had either. So what? He had some color hair. Are there any humans who haven't smiled? I don't think so. So why would the Gospel writers have to mention it? And unless one were being deliberately provocative--such as the Gnostics or their Middle Ages inheritors like the Bogomils (or their modern admirers like Umberto Eco, which, I suppose, is your implicit reference here), why would one make a point of significance out of it?

But being married or not is nowhere near universal. If Jesus was married but the Gospels did not mention it, it would therefore severely distort the image of Jesus in Gospels. Especially since there is an entire, coherent theological explanation for his being celibate and unmarried.

[little gidding]

The point is that, if Jesus had married, that would not have been "a turning away from the mission of drawing humanity to Him." But clearly he did not *need* to get married to do that. He made marriage an indissoluble sacrament. That was extraordinary and unprecedented.

[Observer]

Although Scripture doesn't report that Christ ever laughed, the mention is made is Ps. 2:4 that "[t]he one enthroned in heaven laughs".

In "Name of the Rose" the hidden book everyone was chasing was the second volume of Aristotle's Poetics, about humor. Had it been (re-)discovered, the Thomists would've again "baptized" the Philsopher, and Christianity would've been lightened. Thus the grotty Francisans had to find it first, so as to suppress it. So Eco's plot went.

[James Kabala]

I always heard that Lew Wallace wrote BEN-HUR after he was unable to give good answers in an argument with notorious atheist Robert Ingersoll. This is the first I have heard of a Spirtualism angle.

[Donna]

Michael wrote:

Also, Meier mentions that Jesus' unmarried state was the subject of "jibes."

I'd be interested to see what sources Meier got that from. Although the Gospels don't mention "jibes" about being single, I've always thought an unmarried 30 year man would been considered very unusual in 1st century Palestine. Christ's comment about those who remain unmarried for the Kingdom of Heaven may have been an answer to those criticisms.

little gidding: A while back I posted here about a review of a new novel "Dinner With a Perfect Stanger." In it, a hard driving business woman accepts a dinner invitation - from Christ. This 21st century Jesus wears a business suit (not Armani, but not Men's Warehouse either - nice to know Our Lord is a tasteful dresser) and they dine at an Italian restaurant. I gathered from the review that Our Lord of Wall Street talks all about love and how we're all supposed to be true to ourselves. You won't be surprised to hear that he has a dim view of the Church.

I finished the review wondering why the author thought Jesus would take the trouble to come back to earth and don a suit and tie, no less, just to tell us stuff we can learn from Oprah.

I must confess though, I have a hankering to read the novel just for laughs. I am curious to know what the Lord would order in an Italian restaurant, (not a problem, I suppose, it the waiter is slow with the wine) and whether he uses Visa or Mastercard.

[James Kabala]

Actually, it was a Benedictine who wanted to destroy the book; he feared that the Franciscans were too "clownish" and would be the staunchest supporters of comedy in the Church. Like many non-believers past, present, and future, Eco can't help but admire St. Francis.
Anyway, although it is true that Eco and his book are anti-Catholic, the character in the book who is anti-laughter does cite St. John Chrystostom as his source. Does anyone know if this is an authentic reference or a Brownesque manipulation of the facts by Eco?

[Flammer]

Jesus doesn't smile or laugh? Look at all the jokes, starting with "Tu est Petrus", a pun in at least three different languages of the time. How much wine was there at Cana? Look at John 21:9, a resurrection appearance, at which He makes the guys (apostles) breakfast! Look at any of the parables, each one starting with "once-upon-a-time", long after Aesop and long before the Grimms.

The real yucks are still in the Old Testament. For example, Jonah 2:11 to 3:1, the whale vomits [Zhou-- sic!] forth the prophet, and God says, "now, as I was saying..." Or Job 38:1-2, after listening to endless P'g-&-M'g, the Lord speaks from the wind, "excuse Me? who is talking trash to Me?"

Etc.

[HA]

There's no suggestion in Scripture about [Mary Magdalene's] age or appearance. She could have been a homely old widow or divorcee.

This would be more likely than the Monica Bellucci versions that have become the norm. Luke tells us she had enough money to be one of the financial backers of Jesus's ministry, though one would suspect that in those days, a single woman/widow/divorcee of means and no impediment to marriage would not have stayed single for long (even without movie-star looks), nor would she be lacking for male relatives eager help manage her money more sensibly than to toss it aside on an itinerant country preacher.

Perhaps even after seven devils had been cast out of her, she was still considered just a worn-out crazy woman, and therefore not a great catch even in spite of her wealth. But none of that makes for a bestseller, or a particularly titillating conspiracy theory.

[Observer]

JK --

Calling Eco anti-Catholic isn't charitable. His doctoral thesis was on Thomistic conceptions of beauty. In the Foreword to one of its printings, he explained, very obliquely, that he's "settled his accounts with scholastic Aristotelian-Thomism." Meaning? PIF? Written off as uncollectible? Declared, or seen its bankruptcy? Or, another of his coy inter-textual references -- and indeed on that at the same time shows the dangers of reasoning-by-analogy?

[Maureen]

Actually, there were plenty of unmarried 30 year old males in Palestine. Most of them were Nazirites, prophets, or the like. One of them was Jesus' own cousin, John the Baptist.

So yes, it was uncommon, but it was scarcely unheard of. In fact, it was pretty much a declaration that a man was on a Mission from God.

[Augustine]

Then, of course, as any satan-inspired heresy, the Church is accused of doing exactly what they do: distort the truth to fit their own point of view.

Oh, by the way, not surprisingly, this was a strategy laid down by Lenin in these same words: accuse your opponent of what you are doing before it is found out.

May God send His angels to defend His Church against her enemies.

[Jack]

Augustine

You are to late...the enemies of the church are WITHIN and not from without.

Vatican II was the start, with Masonic infiltration and the refusal to denounce communism, not to mention the declaration on Religious Freedom, Lumen Gentium etc which is anti Catholic by any standard of church history or teachings.

Read what is coming out of the synod-A debate on the meaning of the Eucharist and whether it should be given to non Catholics as a "gesture". You actually have ordained Bishops, not to mention Cardinal Kasper who has performed Eucharistic Hospitality sessions with non Catholics, the fundamental sacrament of our faith, our Lords body to be handed over as the Pharisies handed him over to be crucified, those within the church are doing the same thing

Traditional Catholicism for this Catholic and his family and friends because we love our Lord to much to see him hurt once again.

John XXIII "threw the windows of the church open" for all to see in at Vatican II as he stated-well he sure did open those windows and he has damaged the church to the point that it is no longer the grand institution it once was even 50 years ago, but the butt of jokes by non Catholics and even Catholic alike

[Ken]

The Scriptures don't record what color hair Jesus had either.

Or what color and cut of clothes, or what hairstyle/hair length. And a good thing, too.

Can you imagine if Jesus or his clothes or hairstyle (scalp & facial) was physically described? We would now have a Godly color/style of garments and a Holy Haircut. "Imitation of Christ" would have a whole different meaning, and there would be that many more ways to define a heretic.

* Medieval Russians resisted shaving as part of Tsar Peter the Great's modernization program because of the belief that God had a beard (and created men in His image with beards), thus shaving was blasphemy.

* I read on the Web once that strict Muslims must sleep on their right side with one hand under their head because Mohammed was recorded as sleeping in this position. Therefore...

Now imagine if Christ was described as wearing this, looking like that, doing thus and so. The Jewish taboo against physical/visual description saved us from borrowing a lot of trouble.

[John]

It might be helpful if it was known more than 80 gospels were in circulation by the end of the first century alone. There were hundreds by the time Constantine authorized a version of the 'New Testament' in 325 AD, so new in fact, it was heretical from beginning to end. Jesus was married and had a child by Mary the Magdala, a royal princess from the line and tribe of Benjamin.

We are that blood, and we categorically deny any assertion that this 'Jesus' was not married. He may have been a Nazarene which he was, but not all Nazarenes practiced celibacy. James in particular is declared a celibate, not Jesus. Besides this, James was the Head of the Jerusalem Church at Qumran, not 'Jesus'. Anyone know why?

In addition, Jesus' 'divinity' was decided upon by close vote at Nicaea as well. This is something that would need to be voted upon? Yes, it was, since none of the material before Constantine spoke of Jesus as anythng more than a mortal man, but then, it's why Constantine ordered those writings be consumed by the flames. They spoke the truth. The 'New' testament does not, nor did the blood family consider any but the original Matthew that was redacted and therefore false as it appears in the accepted Bible, to be close to the truth.

We don't to this day.

One man taught the way to become the Christ for our own lives, which involves work. He never agreed to do it for anyone but himself, and then said we'd do it even better, and may even see the Father before him. It helps to read what's actually there, and be discerning in the process.

If you want to know about Jesus and Mary, perhaps it would be helpful to ask the family? We do have the answers still.