Was Jesus married?

This question is resurfacing as a result of the media hype over

The Lost Gospel, a book by Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie
Wilson. The vaunted discovery of a “lost gospel” that this work
is loudly proclaiming just in time for the Christmas profiteering
season is highly questionable, and folks can read my views in
earlier posts.

First, let us deal with the controversy over the Jacobovici and
Wilson tome.

This book claims a Jewish inspirational entertainment fiction is

about Jesus. My study of the Syriac original leads me to
conclude that it dates from before the life of Jesus. Put that
aside.

The authors claim that it is a manuscript ignored by scholars

that has been gathering dust until they brought it to the attention
of the world. The fact is that it has been translated several times
since the late nineteenth century, and I have myself consulted two critical editions currently in
print. It is well studied and well known by the scholars. Here is a link to a superb bibliography of
critical editions put together by the excellent Prof. Mark Goodacre —
http://www.markgoodacre.org/aseneth/biblio.htm Put the “lost” allegation aside.

The authors further claim that it is an encoded gospel about Jesus. The story, however, is a
fanciful expansion of Genesis 41:50. It does not mention Jesus. The authors claim that Joseph is
encoded Jesus because he is called a “son of G-d”. If the authors were more familiar with the
Jewish faith and the Tanakh, they’d know that every king and prophet and Temple priest was
also traditionally considered a “son of G-d”. The authors claim that Aseneth is encoded Mary
Magdalene because she lives in a tower and “Magdalene” may refer to the town of Magdala,
which apparently got its name from a prominent watchtower therein. But by this reasoning, the
Lady of Shalott and Rapunzel are Mary Magdalene, too. In my Gospel of John restored original
version I do an exhaustive analysis of the cognomen “Magdalene” and conclude that it has
nothing to do with towers. Even if it does, it’s still a cosmic leap to put Mary in Aseneth’s tower.
Put that too aside.

The authors claim that the story is an encoded telling of the life of Jesus and Mary. Despite the
fact that there are no miracles, no revelations of G-d’s will, no crucifixion, and no resurrection.
What this Jewish text does is explain and defend Joseph’s marriage to a foreign (Egyptian)
woman. Moses too married an Egyptian woman. I don’t know of anyone who claims Mary
Magdalene was an Egyptian, though I do find her family has some connections with Cyrene and
she may have been involved with the Leontopolis Temple, though this is coincidental to the
Aseneth tale. Put that aside as well.
The authors claim that the story is encoded when no gospel about Jesus was encoded. One must
ask why encode a “gospel” when other gospel writers saw no need to do so? One must also ask
how this is a gospel when it in absolutely no way proclaims the “good news” of Jesus. So put
that aside too.

By now we’ve put aside everything that this work wants to tell us. There’s nothing left. It
saddens me that this book is jumping off the bookshop shelves. It saddens me that it will scare
legitimate scholars away from taking seriously the thesis that Jesus was married and had children
(which I hold). It saddens me that people like Karen King, Elaine Pagels, William E. Phipps, and
if I may be so bold myself as well spend years in meticulous study of ancient fragmentary texts
in their original languages, and are ignored or sometimes even excoriated (Karen King) in the
public media, and yet this book is given a big boost.

The timing, just before Christmas, is highly suspect. It’s heavily promoted in the media. But it’s
not been peer reviewed, and the legitimate scholars are overwhelmingly panning it as worthless.
Sadly, it’s still selling like hotcakes. Jacobovici says to the critics, buy it and read it before you
criticize. He doesn’t care as long as he gets his money, apparently. My criticisms are without
wasting money on his worthless tripe; the title itself contains two lies (that it’s a gospel and that
it was lost). That’s enough to tell me plenty.

Also suspect is that an amateur scholar has come up with similarly cockeyed ideas before
Jacobovici and Wilson, and one cannot help but wonder if the latter were aware of it and, er, um,
borrowed its ideas without bothering to give credit. See for yourself at —
http://www.themirroredbridalchamber.com/Commentaries/joseph-and-asenath-ca-56-ce.html

In the book, Jacobovici quotes an early Christian poet named Ephrem the Syrian. The following,
including the bracketed additions, are directly from the book:

Aseneth [i.e. Mary the Magdalene] is the symbol of the Church of the Gentiles.
She loved Joseph [i.e. Jesus] and Joseph’s [i.e. Jesus'] son...
in truth, the Holy Church loved.
Aseneth [i.e. Mary the Magdalene] had many children by the Crucified,
And every one of them is marked with the cross.

Here is Ephrem’s COMPLETE poem, including the lines Jacobovici left out:

He drew Mary Magdalen to come and see his resurrection.

And why was it first to a woman that he showed his resurrection and not to men?
Here he showed us a mystery
concerning his Church and his mother.
At the beginning of his coming to earth
a virgin was first to receive him,
and at his raising -up from the grave
to a woman he showed his resurrection.
In his beginning and in his fulfillment
The name of his mother cries out and is present.
Mary received him by conception
And saw an angel before her;
And Mary received him in life
And saw angels at this grave.
Again, Mary is like the Church,
The Virgin, who has borne the first-fruits by the Gospel.
In the place of the Church, Mary saw him.
Blessed be he who gladdened the Church and Mary!

[Jacobovici’s excerpt is found here.]

Let us call the Church itself “Mary”

For it befits her to have two names.
For to Simon, the Foundation
Mary was first to run,
And like the Church brought him the good news
And told him what she had seen
That our lord has risen and was raised up.

Note that Jacobovici identifies Aseneth as Mary in his bracketed comment without any scholarly
support, and likewise Joseph as Jesus. He’s telling us what to think rather than presenting the
facts and crediting us with enough intelligence to see it for ourselves.

Next, note the deleted lines before and after his brief quotation. In context, it is clear that the
poem is speaking of the spiritual descendants of Joseph and Aseneth who have become “the
Church”, and not of actual children of Jesus and Mary. The deleted lines also show us that the
poet was just as likely talking about the Virgin Mary in the quoted lines as Mary Magdalene.

Another example is that Jacobovici and Wilson claim a description of Aseneth’s face as red and
sweaty means she was sweating drops of blood. But blood is not mentioned in the text. The
blood only appears in Jacobovici’s and Wilson’s interpretation.

The two then go on to say that this phrase is a code, associating Aseneth with Jesus, who
according to the Gospel of Luke sweated drops of blood before his arrest. Of course their book’s
overall intent is to say Aseneth is coded Mary Magdalene, not Jesus, but in their eagerness to
misrepresent the text of “Joseph and Aseneth” as mentioning drops of blood they hope we
readers are not smart enough to look up Ephrem’s entire poem, and also not smart enough to
realize Mary Magdalene is never said to have sweated blood.

The context is Aseneth, as a spoiled girl in her wealthy father’s home, exhibiting anger in
response to her father informing her that he has arranged her marriage. Needless to say, there is
nothing in common between this depiction of a wilful teenager and Jesus in passion before his
execution.

These two writers may make a good profit in the Christmas sales, but the big profit is in the
documentary, which was being filmed even as the book was being written
(http://www.apocryphicity.ca/2014/11/17/translating-joseph-and-aseneth-my-role-in-jacobovici-
and-wilsons-lost-gospel/), which suggests the conclusion was foreordained and the book and
documentary prepared to fit it. “Jesus and Mary as married” is box office these days, and
Jacobovici, no fool, knows it.

Jacobovici says to the scholars that they should buy the book before they criticize it. Sure. That
way he gets the money before the scholars rise up. But no worry; soon the scholarly indignation
will overwhelm this so-called book, and soon it will be remaindered to the bargain bin for the
excessively unwary to enjoy.

Therefore, if anybody should be red and sweaty in the face, it is not Aseneth but the authors of
this sadly hilarious work.

Of course the book should be given a chance. It deserves a fair reading as much as any book.
However the authors themselves make the claims I cite above, and I find none of them bears up
under serious scrutiny.

Meanwhile, serious scholars like April D. Deconick, James D. Tabor, Elaine Pagels, and Karen
L. King, and (if I may be so bold) I too get ignored or reviled in the media. Even when some of
us reach the SAME CONCLUSIONS as Jacobovici and Wilson — mainly that there are texts
supporting the conclusion that Jesus was indeed married to Mary Magdalene.

Despite Jacobovici and Wilson, the question of Jesus’s marital status remains a legitimate one to
ask. Respected scholars like Karen L. King and Greg Carey say we know next to nothing about
Jesus’s personal life. James D. Tabor initially, before reading the book, came out strongly in
support of his friend Jacobovici, saying this book is “serious scholarship”. He is since
backtracking, thank goodness, and has gone so far in his blog to say he has changed his mind and
now thinks Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene – bravo to him for the courage to admit
publicly that he was wrong! – but his excellent rationale for this new view does not mention
“Joseph and Aseneth” (http://jamestabor.com/).

Here is my own view on Jesus’s marital status, in the form of a very brief summary of what I say
in The Gospel of John (http://audlinbooks.com/about-james-david-audlin/nonfiction-james-
david-audlin/).

In my view, the canonical New Testament tells us quite a bit about Jesus’s life, but non-Jewish
scholars sometimes have trouble picking up the clues, just as a non-Westerner might not
recognize the ring on my left hand as signifying my own married status. For instance…. a Jewish
woman would only unbind her hair in front of the closest family members and her husband;
Mary unbinds her hair to lave Jesus’s feet. A Jewish woman sitting shivah could only be called
forth from the house of mourning by her father if unmarried or her husband if married; Martha
comes out unbidden to meet Jesus because Martha is not sitting shivah, but Mary comes forth to
meet Jesus at his bidding. And Mary comes to the tomb to anoint Jesus’s dead body, which (as I
discuss at length in my Gospel of John) was the province of the wife. And so on; these are just
three examples.
If we go further, into noncanonical literature, there’s lots more. The Gospel of Philip speaks of
Jesus and Mary as κοινωνος to each other – a word that is deeper than “spouse”, more like they
are so united that they are in effect one being; this gospel also says Jesus often kissed Mary on
the mouth in front of the other disciples. The fragmentary “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” (there’s
some controversy over it, but my study of the original Coptic concludes that it is almost certainly
genuine) specifically calls Mary Jesus’s wife. The Gospel of Mary puts her at the leadership
position of the apostles after Jesus’s resurrection – a point well established by Jane Schaberg in a
recent book. I could go on and on and bore y’all to tears, but
you get the idea.

Without a time machine parked in the garage, we cannot get

prima facie evidence of Jesus’s married status. But I disagree
with Carey and others who assert that we know nothing. It is
clear that many early followers of Jesus, including some who
knew him personally, such as John the Presbyter, believed he
was married. Since all of my friends and neighbors believe I am
married, it’s a safe assumption that I actually am. The same is a
reasonable conclusion as regards Jesus as well.

In my Gospel of John, Volume II, published two years before

The Lost Gospel, I even concluded that John the Presbyter was
aware of “Joseph and Aseneth”. To quote myself:

Another curious parallel may be the early Jewish novel Joseph

and Aseneth, which expands Genesis 41:50, telling of Joseph’s
marriage to Aseneth, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On. On ( ‫אן‬in Hebrew) comes from the
Egyptian word meaning “Pillar(s)”. This is the same city known in the first century as
Heliopolis and Leontopolis, where Mary, daughter of Simon the Leper, a priest and Pharisee,
apparently served as priestess in the Jewish-Samaritan Temple, loosely paralleling Potiphera.
The novel was likely published before John began writing this gospel;even if this was not the
case, it shows what kind of story was popular around the Presbyter’s time. In one scene Aseneth
is brought a pitcher of water from a “spring of living water” in the courtyard, in which she sees
that her face is “like the sun and her eyes like the morning star arising.” Immediately after that,
Joseph comes and marries her. The pitcher and the spring of living water recur in this gospel’s
meeting in Samaria and the morning imagery recurs at the resurrection.

The analogies to Zipporah and Aseneth support the conclusion that Mary had familial roots (see
page 208) and personal ties (see pages 447-48) to Egypt.

Frequently in the past few days I have expressed the hope that legitimate scholars will not back
away from serious consideration of this thesis about Jesus’s married status. I am grateful to
people like Tabor for maintaining his views in the wake of “The Lost Gospel”. I hope King and
Carey and others will do likewise. I certainly shall.