[published on July 14, 2006]
1. That visceral assent.
I read---nay, devoured---Holy Blood Holy Grail----years ago. In other words, years before The Da Vinci Code essentially incorporated a sizable chunk of its main thesis in a thin--but colorful!---fictional shell. I did NOT like The Da Vinci Code, which I felt presented the same arguments much less stylishly (or coherently), but I loved HBHG.
One of the authors of HBHG recently published The Jesus Papers. A few days back, I discussed a review of the book by Laura Miller, writing in Salon.com, criticized it for---among other things---its amazing leaps in logic. And there are some amazing leaps. I liked it, and I liked HBHG, but only to the extent that both served as food for thought (or for imagination). I know the difference between history and an imaginative construct such as HBHG. I also know that when you start looking for connections, you'll see them everywhere, so I am not surprised that the authors were able to link, for example, Jesus to the Merovingian dynasty or the Merovingians to the Templars. Human beings have changed since the dawn of time, but not THAT much.
Anyway: about this whole Jesus-as-husband-of-Mary-Magdalene deal. First of all, I remember first having the theory called to my attention. It was during one episode in a kick-ass show Chris Carter show called Millenium, in an episode called Amanuensis. I highly, highly recommend it; I much prefer it to The Da Vinci Code. I think I saw it (it was a rerun) in 1998. At the time, I felt chills go down my spine and my scalp prickling and something that a character in Ursula LeGuin refers to as 'the visceral 'yes.'' It seemed right. It felt true. Or I wanted it to be true.
2. Other people who also want it to be true.
Apparently The Da Vinci Code has brought about the emergence of huge numbers of people who reacted to this theory pretty much in the same way I did. I was sitting at a Starbucks with my husband one afternoon shortly after publication of The Da Vinci Code, when a grey-haired classic old- lefty type wearing skin-tight biking gear caught my eye. His own were wild. "Have you read this?" he asked me breathlessly. "Have you read it? It's amazing! It changes everything!" He so wanted it to be true. Why?
It's an interesting question, since so many other people seem to want to believe it as well. Somehow, just believing that Christ was married to Mary Magdalene seems to be enough to remove him from the realm of remote perfect being at the hand of the father and change change him back into a man a modern Christian could actually follow.
But again, why? Why does it take a marriage to make a man out of Jesus again?
For the same reason, I suppose, that there was a cult of Mary Magdalene in France which either was the same as, or grafted onto, the cult of the Black Virgin. Christians are children of a single-parent household. We want back our mother. It's that longing, I think, that caused my scalp-prickling spine-tingling theory when it first occurred to me that Jesus might really have been married. And if you want to read more about Mary Magdalene, I'd refer you to Margaret Starbid and The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, another rather charming piece of imaginative speculation (though her fictional account of MM and the birth of Jesus's daughter, Sarah, set my teeth a bit on edge).
The magic of The Da Vinci Code was that it was apparently the first introduction most people had to the whole HBHG 'underground stream' theory of western history and because of the tremendous appeal of the notion of Christ's marriage. Most Christians---remarkably----didn't know about the Gnostic Gospels; remarkably, these aren't even discussed in most churches, not even discussed for the purpose of debunking them.
Less remarkably, they didn't know about significant events in the history of the church such as the squelching of the Arian heresy at the Council of Niceae, the Albigensien Crusade, or the massacre of the Templars. It's all pretty shocking stuff when you first hear of it, but by the time the Book (I mean The Da Vinci Code) came out, I had outlived my astonishment. And I really did NOT like the book.
3. The Jesus Papers
The Jesus Papers, by one of the original authors of HBHG, really doesn't add a great deal to the mix, though it develops further some ideas that were mentioned in passing in HBHG. I found the central thesis somewhat plausible without feeling that I needed to swallow it. I thought it was an interesting, but it wasn't new to me. The argument that Jesus might have spent some part 'the missing years' in Alexandria and been interested by Egyptian mystery religions was developed by Morton Smith in The Foreigner. Baigent irritates me extremely when he makes assertions that begin with the words "We can be confident that..." or anything similar, since such statements are almost invariably followed by some assertion of which I am not at all confident. Otherwise, I enjoyed reading the book and reflecting on its 'revelations.'
Baigent doesn't spend a lot of time in The Jesus Papers on the Jesus/Mary marriage. He also explicitly states that the evidence for it is 'circumstantial.' Baigent, The Jesus Papers, at 111. But the thesis strikes me as questionable, however appealing, and it annoys me that people keep repeating it to me as if it were, uh, gospel.
A young friend of mine who had just heard the good news asked me the other day if I thought it could be true. "Yes, it could be true," I told him. In addition to the oft-cited text in the Gnostic Gospels about Jesus often kissing her and about the disciples being jealous of Christ's fondness, as well as a couple of other references, there are traditions (generally forgotten) that say the two of them were married.
But I regard the question---to my regret----as very far from settled. In fact, after a certain amount of reflection, I've decided (provisionally) that I don't believe in the marriage theory. I don't think the usual reasoning in support of a married Jesus really holds up on close reading of the relevant texts. Here's the abridged version of the argument.
[quote begins]
At the time, the position of the Pharisees, one of the major groups within Judaism in the first century A.D., was that it was "a man's unconditional duty to marry." The contemporary Rabbi Eliezer is credited with stating: "Whoever does not engage in procreation is like someone who spills blood." So if Jesus was unmarried, as the Church would have us believe, why didn't his Pharisee opponents---of which there were many noted in the New Testament---use his unmarried state as a further criticism of him and his teachings? Why didn't the disciples ask Jesus to explain his failure to marry?
[QUOTE ENDS]
Baigent, The Jesus Papers, at 107.
It's a fair point about the Pharisees, who certainly criticized him for other aspects of his life-style. There is a bit in Matthew (which I dearly love) where he complains about their criticisms:
How can I describe this generation? They are like children sitting in the market place and shouting at each other,
"We piped for you and you would not dance!"
"We wept and wailed and you would not mourn!"
For John came, neither eating nor drinking, and they said, "He is possessed." The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, "Look at him! A glutton and a drinker, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!"
Matthew Chapter 11, New English Bible 1971, at 16.
Heh. You can't win for losing. I prefer the King James version here, which uses "gluttonous and a winebibber." Winebibber is such a great word. Anyway, the point is: He got criticized even for showing a congenial spirit. Why wouldn't they have brought up his unmarried state, if indeed he was unmarried?
5. What Jesus Himself Actually (Seems to Have) Believed
I don't know the answer, but Jesus himself seems to have believed that not every man needed to marry. Doubtless---assuming that he hadn't, or that he wasn't widowed---he'd already have been through this with his apostles.
I tell you, if a man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity, and marries another, he commits adultery.
The disciples said to him, "If that is the position with husband and wife, it is better not to marry." To this he replied, "That is something which not everyone can accept, but only those for whom God has appointed it. For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made so by men, there aer others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept it who can."
Matthew, New English Bible (1971 ed.) at 27.
This text indicates that Jesus did not agree that it was unlawful or sinful or improper for a man to decide not to marry. He says that some people are appointed by God not to marry. He states that some people were born incapable of marrying (interesting, that; I'd like to know what he meant) and that some were made so by men (castrated, I assume?), but that there are others who have renounced it for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. He seems to be saying that to be celibate for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven is a virtuous or righteous decision.
He doesn't say that he himself has renounced marriage, but I have a hard time understanding what else it could possibly mean. I suppose he might have had in mind the Essenes, who seem to have lived celibate most of the time (though according to Barbara Thiering's Jesus the Man they did in fact marry, though they lived apart from their wives). It's possible that he was referring to them and not to himself when he said "Let those accept it who can."
5. The Gnostic Gospels
Since growing older, I've learned that there can be deep and powerful bonds between a man and a woman that have nothing to do with sex. I choose to believe that Jesus and Mary were true soulmates and that it was this which caused the other disciples alarm and despondency. He singled out a woman as the most worthy! That must have really yanked their chains.
I've come to imagine---not based on any particular evidence but by choice---that Mary Magdalene was indeed the 'companion' of the Saviour. I see her differently at different times. In one version, she is an older woman, perhaps a widow or perhaps a woman whose husband has given her a note of dismissal. She is intelligent and---as we middle-aged women will---has had time and leisure to reflect on God and the meaning of life. She is drawn to Jesus because---as is easily seen from the Gospel---he respected and liked women. In other versions, she is the wife of Jesus as posited in HBHG and The Da Vinci Code.
In support of the marriage theory, Baigent and others (including Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code) have cited a text that I read very differently. Note that quite a few pieces are missing from the original:
And the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [Jesus Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended] by it [and expressed disapproval].
Gospel of Philip 63, The Nag Hammadi Library in English at 138 (trans. Wesley W. Isenberg), quoted in Baigent, The Jesus Papers, at 112.
Even if the gaps are filled in correctly---and the way they are filled in seems consistent with other parts of this and other Gnostic texts---I am not sure I understand how it proves that MM and Christ were married. Is it merely an allegation that Christ and his wife were more affectionate than convention permitted or tolerated? It just doesn't seem likely to me that Philip's Gospel included this statement in order to illustrate not only that Jesus was married, but that he and his wife were sickeningly affectionate. That's just not in line with the rest of this text.
It seems to me that if Christ offended the disciples by kissing MM on the mouth, it would have to be because the kiss signified special favor. I am not sure of the significance of the kiss; we don't kiss much in our culture except to express familial or sexual affection, but many other cultures kiss much more freely to express approval or to signify special favor.
Unless the disciples were expressing the Aramaic equivalent of "Eew, hey, that's not right; get a room!"---which I just don't believe Philip's Gospel (dealing with the secret teachings of Jesus and the path to illumination) would have bothered to mention---they were complaining because Christ was giving special treatment to a woman: spending time with her, talking to her about matters that he didn't discuss with them, kissing her frequently as a sign of approval and special regard. I think they were angry because he had picked a woman to be his closest friend. (*I read a theory somwhere, perhaps in HBHG though perhaps in one of the books it subsequently spawned, that the unnamed 'beloved disciple' present at the last supper and 'lying in Christ's arms' was not---as is usually assumed---St. John, but Mary M. I wonder.)
I like to imagine that she was his confidante and that their bond was intellectual rather than sexual. If there were undercurrents of anything else, neither acted upon them or would have considered doing so.
6. The wedding at Cana.
I think the authors of HBHG raise a good question when they ask "Who was married at Cana?" It is interesting that Mary and Jesus step in and assist with the catering. But the jump from that 'fact' to the proposition that it was therefore Jesus's wedding is a substantial leap. Say it was his brother's or a cousin's wedding; mightn't they have done the same? It just seems odd that the text refers to Jesus on the one hand and "the bridegroom" on the other.
This is another one of the stories I really like. As a child, I definitely had the impression that this was an example of Jesus getting bossed by his mother, who didn't really understand yet what he was all about, and who saw the water into wine thing as a really practical party trick. "What are you doing? This isn't the time!" But he does it anyway, no doubt in response to one of those prodding looks mothers give you when they want you to do something and are going to stand there till you do. I always pictured her bustling about importantly---"Do just what he tells you!"---while he gets up, sighing, to do the brotherly or neighborly thing. Or, alternatively, maybe it was a family wedding and she was frantically wringing her hands over the shame if they didn't provide adequate refreshments. Maybe he got up because she was staring at him plaintively and he didn't want her to go on looking at him that way.
Who was married at Cana? I don't have a clue, but I'm guessing it was a family member or close friend. I don't think it was Jesus.
7. What was Mary to Jesus & Jesus to Mary?
Perhaps it's because that now I have reached middle-age myself I have become a friend and mentor to several young people, including a couple of young men. The thought that either they or I could stand in any relationship to each other (or even contemplate such a relationship) is too absurd to consider. It's quite possible for a man and a woman to feel disinterested affection toward one another without any wish to 'take it to the next level.'
Furthermore there are people---and I am one of them, so I know---who are not primarily motivated by sex, ever. People who are different don't understand this, and don't believe that it's possible, but I can assure you that it is. Let's say that Mary was a post-menopausal wealthy female friend. Why must there have been more to their relationship?
To me, the emphasis in the Gnostic Gospels on Mary's deep and intuitive understanding of Jesus's teaching and on the jealousy of the apostles argue that she was not his wife? If she were his wife, why would they be indignant that he loved her more than he loved them? It doesn't make sense that they would even ask---what group of men would ask another man why he loves his wife more than he loves them? They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,
"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees light are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."
Gospel of Philip 64, The Nag Hammadi Library in English at 138 (trans. Wesley W. Isenberg), quoted in Baigent, The Jesus Papers, at 112. (re: the secondary source, I can't lay hands on my book with the Gospel of Philip in it; but since I'm talking about Biagent's view, it seems fair to use the quotes he provides).
To me, this just doesn't sound like a conversation between a man and his disciples about his wife. It sounds more like professional jealousy. Christ doesn't say, "I love her more because, duh: wife." He explains to them that his preference for MM---presumably for her companionship and conversation since the Gospel describes her as "the companion of the Savior" is based on her superior intuition or intellect. In other words, she gets him; they don't.
Nor do the other statements that are cited in support of his marriage to Mary really seem the sort of thing a man would say about his wife.
Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, because women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "Behold, I shall guide her so as to make her male, that she too may become a living spirit like you men. For every woman who makes herslef male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Four Gnostic Gospels (trans. Martin Meyer), Codex II at 51.
It sounds to me as if Mary attracted Peter's jealousy because Jesus was treating her as one of the lads, and that this was because he recognized that she was a particularly gifted person. He is explaining to Peter, in language that misogynistic Peter will understand, that Mary is fully capable of serving as a disciple and an apostle.
Anyway, why would Peter have presumed to tell Jesus to send his own wife away? That would be pretty presumptuous, to say the least. Did men back there do that? And if they did, didn't the husbands whose wives had been rebuked get annoyed? I'm thinking that a natural human response would be, "Dude, don't tell my wife what to do!" even among men---men quite unlike Jesus---whose next sentence would be, "I'll tell her what to do if she needs telling."
Therefore, until such time as I have evidence of a marriage, I will think of her as the friend, confidante, and loyal supporter of Jesus; and as "the apostle to the apostles." As my page shows, I believe that there was a close connection between her and Jesus and that she was a de facto disciple. If I get evidence that there was more between them, I will be quite happy to change my views again...
Comments