Jesus' Marriage to Mary the Magdalene is Fiction

The main reason for which I reject the notion about Jesus as having been married to Mary Magdalene (Mary of Magda, Mary Migdal, Mary of the Tower) is not because it is offensive or repulsive. Certainly, for others that notion takes on a deliberate tone of mockery towards Jesus and those who have put their trust and faith in him. However, neither the concept nor the reality of the sexual union is offensive, insulting nor repugnant to the same God who created all these things, experiences and relationships for human enjoyment. It is no more offensive than the concept and reality that the same God who is spirit and invisible could and did take on human form.

Two objections emerge against that popular speculative notion. First, the marriage, sex experience as is alleged of Jesus as that of a husband is contrary to the duties of commitment and responsibilities Yahweh honors between a man and a woman in marriage. Second, the purpose for which God took for himself during his brief dwelling among men did not involve settling down with a wife, a home and raising a family only to leave them. Ordinarily, this understanding from the scriptures would suffice for believers, but the task here involves the allegations (if not aspersions) of Simcha Jacobovici.

I am not offended by Simcha Jacobovici’s (The Talpiot Tomb) explanations concerning what I prefer to think may be a genuine interest on his part. Still, the closing line of this article seems to reveal his disregard for the testimony of scripture in favor the another familiar notion that, “we can finally return Jesus to the historical context from which Paul removed him.” What I prefer to do is to respond to three of his interpretations of scripture in the Huffington Post article, Jesus' Marriage to Mary the Magdalene is Fact, not Fiction in which he thinks he has found vital clues to entertain this notion.

Paul’s alleged laxness

The idea that Paul was lax, according to Jacobovici, about Jewish clean foods and the Sabbath is to say Paul was lazy and uncaring about those things. However, this was not the case. Everything Paul wrote to the saints in Christ allows for the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood, that he would eat clean foods in accordance with the law of Moses just as he had done all his life before becoming a disciple of Jesus. The same grace which Paul taught and urged the saints to extend to one another concerning holidays (Romans 14) such as the Sabbath also extended and applied to Paul. He was just as free as anyone else to eat clean foods as to to keep the Sabbath. Where Paul stopped and drew the line for himself and likewise taught others was that they were to stop and refrain from imposing these personal preferences on others or to associate these things as having any value on their salvation on Jesus.

Paul’s alleged advocacy for celibacy

The apostle Paul no more advocated for celibacy (I Corinthians 7) than for the rejection of the observance of the Sabbath by any Jews who as disciples of Jesus desired to their continued observance of the Sabbath. Paul’s stipulations through his teaching to the saints was clear; that they understand such observances with respect to their salvation. Paul made it clear to the Corinthians why it was that he advised them to remain single and not married. He wanted them to know that they would certainly face trials which would bring pressures to bear on their relationships as husband and wife; it was not that he was opposed to marriage. Paul showed his familiarity and unity with Jesus on marriage when he deferred, emphatically, not I, but the Lord, to Jesus on some particulars concerning the marriage. Specifically, he addressed the union of husband and wife where both are believers and where one was a believer and the other a nonbeliever. (I Corinthians 7:10-18) Paul also wrote beautifully and profoundly on the marriage of man and woman in Ephesians 5:22-33 and referenced it to Christ and the church as a great mystery.

Jesus’ alleged marriage to Mary Magdalene

Simcha Jacobovici believes the saints in Christ got it all wrong concerning the real Jesus. According to him our picture of Jesus is one which was altered substantively by the apostle Paul. Jacobovici states:

Had Jesus been celibate, Paul would certainly have invoked him as an example when arguing for celibacy. But he doesn't. Never once does Paul argue that Christians should be celibate, because Jesus was celibate. Not once!

There is not much credence to give to Jacobovici who has little regard for what the scriptures do state, but will just as easily without hesitation refer to those same scriptures for what they do not state such as the celibacy of Jesus. Still, I am more interested in encouraging the saints in Christ than I am troubled about Jacobovici’s unoriginal message. Briefly, there are basically four sources to which he cites to further corroborate his interpretation of the scriptures.

The Attis pre-gospel cultural influence: Paul was from the region of the god Attis which included Paul’s hometown of Tarsus. The self emasculation of Attis is taken by Jacobovici as the source of influence behind Paul’s message of, according to Jacobovici, celibacy. Of course, Paul neither practiced nor did he teach self emasculation, but he went as far as he could by supposedly advocating celibacy. Jacobovici’s view is that Paul’s Jesus looks a lot like Attis is seriously warped, not in terms of any self mutilation, but the alleged parallels of Attis’ love for Cybele and in Jesus towards Mary Magdalene. He states;

Had Jesus been celibate, Paul would certainly have invoked him as an example when arguing for celibacy. But he doesn't. Never once does Paul argue that Christians should be celibate, because Jesus was celibate. Not once!

Were Jacobovici to apply that parallelism he would also see that Jesus taught and demonstrated very graphically self crucifixion, figuratively and literally. This is not an exaggeration. It is not a secret. Paul was quite familiar with crucifixion as taught and demonstrated by Jesus, but neither Paul nor Jesus ever urged the literal, physical self crucifixion of the followers of Jesus. Certainly, if Jacobovici were to ponder in the most superficial manner the crucified Christ he would see that Jesus’ life was one of denial. Yet, he could enjoy and rejoice among the people and to do the will of his Father.

The gospels: When Mary Magdalene went to anoint the body of Jesus (John 20:1) it would have been as was expected from the wife of the deceased. Jacobovici points out no one but the wife of the deceased would clean the private parts of a body. Duly noted.

However, Jacobovici also ignores those times when Jesus did what was not part of a rabbi’s conduct such as when he spoke to women. Mary Magdalene, who purportedly washed the feet of Jesus (Luke 7) crashed several cultural norms by doing so as did the rabbi Jesus by allowing himself to be touched by a sinful woman even if it was to wash his feet.

Jesus honors the sinful woman and declares that what she has done by anointing him as she has done with the costly ointment is for the day of his burial. Furthermore, what she had done would be thereafter forever associated with the preaching of the gospel of the Christ. Mary’s first anointing of Jesus was neither forgotten nor a one time expression of love and devotion by her. She anointed him a second time at Bethany. (John 12)

Furthermore, she, Mary Magdalene, as she is identified by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was prepared to anoint Jesus yet one more time at his burial, but two things had already happened. One, Jesus had been raised from the dead. Two, Mary had already anointed him at Simon’s house.

The Gnostic gospels: The great 1947 find of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts in Egypt is, according to Jacobovici, the revenge of the Gnostics. All those manuscripts, allegedly, state the same thing, namely, that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Jacobovici’s words about the Gnostics may be as telling about Jacobovici himself:

Simply put, they were more interested in his passion in bed than in his "Passion" on the cross.

I do not expect Jacobovici to accept what he has known and what he believes has been reversed by the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, namely, that the church rejected the message of the Gnostics for the same reasons which the scriptures, then as today, refute the Gnostic and Jacobovici’s claims.

The Talpiot Tomb: This is the double-prong slight of Jacobovici’s message. His message is not merely to snicker from behind the cover of the Gnostics for his voyeurist notions of Jesus’ passion in bed, but to slam all notions and hope of a resurrection. The Talpiot Tomb discovery 1n 1980 appears to be the tomb cave of the family of Jesus including lime ossuaries of his mother Mary, his brothers, Mary Magalene and others who seem to include Matthew, one of his apostles.

The inclusion of an ossuary with the inscription of the name of Mary Magdalene in the Talpiot Tomb is Jacobovici’s point of focus. DNA results (see video @ 59:38) of samples taken from skeletal remains in the ossuaries of “Jesus, son of Joseph” and “Mary Magdalene” or “Mary of the Tower” were purportedly conclusive. Specifically, it was determined the two people to whom the DNA belonged were not blood related, at least not the same mother, and must therefore have been husband and wife. Really? This conclusion, we are informed, was reached by lab personnel who were not informed as to the name identities, an implicit relationship or the historical implications. What the audio clip of the supposedly impartial lab worker does not reveal is whether he stated other plausible conclusions involving non marital relations. For example, the presence of our non blood related individuals such as Matthew is just as much a plausible connection with the DNA of Mary Magdalene. There are several other options, but suffice it to say that while they dilute and weaken his efforts to establish a marriage relationship they do nothing to diminish, what I perceive as, his underline efforts to weaken the historic claims concerning Jesus, Messiah, the Son of God.

the gospel of Philip

Jacobovici cites the gospel of Philip and alludes to other sources which present Mary Magdalene not only as the wife of Jesus, but as one who was recognized as a zealous proclaimer of the message of Jesus after his death. In a biblical account (John 19) familiar to Christians when the crucified Jesus calls out to the disciple whom he loved to care for his mother. Generally, it is understood that the disciple was John, the writer of the gospel account, and the mother was Jesus’ own mother. Jacobovici takes this account by John, the writer of the gospel, to be Mary Magdalene and the disciple to be Jesus’ own son by Mary Magdalene. What is the problem here? Why would Jesus need to tell the mother to behold her own son? Why would he tell the son care for his own mother? The effect of Jacobovici’s explanation is that Jesus’ words to the mother and son about the obvious mutual care between mother and son are are absurd, but necessary in Jacobovici’s scheme to create his portrait of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

I am not bothered by these allegations and I do not believe there is a need to reply to those allegations, specifically. What I do see is what Jacobovici overlooks and which I believe is significant because it speaks to how peoples mistaken beliefs and notions take a life of their own. The apostle John made us aware of such an instance which involved him personally and that what Jesus said about John to Peter went on to be complete misconstrued. This is the passage in John 21:21-23.

So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"

The writer tells us in the same context that there were many more things which Jesus did other than what was written by John:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

So, this is just as plausible about numerous other sayings of Jesus and the apostles which went out among the brethren and which were misunderstood, ignored or construed by them in ways which of their own making and had nothing to do with anything which was said by Jesus or the apostles.

Consider these passages

Jesus replied, "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head. Luke 9:58

Then Peter said to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us? Matthew 19:27

A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." 33 Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 "For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:31-35

Therefore Jesus said, "Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial. John 12:7

Does it sound like Jesus, unlike the foxes and birds, had a house for himself or much less a wife?

Why would the disciples have left everything even while Jesus took a wife for himself and fathered a son?

When Jesus’ own mother and brothers came to take him home because they thought he had lost his mind his reply revealed an other-world view than the earthly view of the entanglement of human relations of any kind.

conclusion

The allegations by Simcha Jacobovici of a secret marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene are nothing knew. Aside of his interests to promote his international bestseller book, Jacobovici’s ulterior motives are hardly secret. He purports an interest to “return Jesus to the historic context from which Paul removed him” while blithely, and perhaps with a snicker, has the skeletal remains of Jesus examined for DNA. He has one objective, as inferred and articulated by lab technician from the DNA test results, (see The Talpiot Tomb video) that two DNA samples could only belong to “ husband and wife.” This is extremely quaint.

Mary Magdalene did attain a unique distinction and honor. She is the only woman named more time than the apostles, anointed Jesus on two different occasions and was prepared to anoint him a third time. It was when she arrived at the tomb of Jesus only to learn that he was risen that received the honor of being not only among the first to see the resurrected Jesus, but to be the first person, a woman, who proclaim that Jesus was risen.

Jesus repeatedly stated his work, that is, his mission was to do the will of the Father. The concept or notion of Jesus being is to be rejected, not because marriage and sex are an offense or insult to God, but because these are the things which preoccupy men and women. Jesus came to fulfill an purpose involving all mankind, not his fulfilling, albeit normal desires and pleasures, but certainly not within the scope of his mission. peace to all