Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Facebook Reactions to the Wife of Jesus - Le Donne

My thanks again to Peter Enns for featuring my book on his blog yesterday by way of author interview. Thanks also to Brian LePort for his thorough review at Near Emmaus. See also the kind paragraph in Publishers Weekly by Kristen Swenson. 

As I mentioned to Prof. Enns, I'm not surprised at the various forms of hostility on Facebook. I knew going into this project that there are many who feel threatened by this topic. The topic of the wife of Jesus has typically attracted "cranks" and "sensationalists". Actually, I quite appreciate the honesty demonstrated on Facebook yesterday as it gives me an opportunity to address the most common concerns that people have.

Notice the first comment to Peter Enns post:

Mr. Raine provides us with the most typical reaction. He simply knows the truth of the matter. There is nothing more to say.  For more on the topic related to Mr. Gilbert's comment, see DeConick's Holy Misogyny (now available in paperback!). 

The comment by Dr. Moser below at least engages the question on the table. He dismisses the question based on silence, unfortunately.  I don't mind admitting that I might have done the same a few years ago. This is often the first objection that I hear: if we're to take this notion seriously, what do we do with the complete silence on this subject in the Gospels?  The short answer is that silence works both ways: the New Testament doesn't tell us that Jesus was single. I might add that by Dr. Moser's approach, we could also argue that there is no evidence that Jesus was breastfed. I would demur. Sociological study provides us with a great deal of evidence concerning marriage practices relevant to Jesus' time and culture.

The point made by Kendall Beachey is an important one.  For more along this line, see my intro chapter and chs. 2 and 7

Perhaps the award for the most honest answer goes to Linda who commented on Bill Heroman's post:

Linda illustrates a common response. It feels weird to think of a married Jesus.  The reason why it feels weird is related to our feelings about sexuality.  I address this relationship in chapter one but a great deal more could and should be said.  We westerners associate marriage with "hormonal activities" and Jesus with nobility.  This is our default setting.  But this is the wrong way into the topic even if it seems the most intuitive (see more in chapter 6).  Beyond this initial feeling of discomfort, I think that many Christians echo (perhaps unknowingly) the logic of Clement of Alexandria: "In the first place, [Christ] had his own bride, the Church. Secondly, he was not a common man to need a physical partner. Further, he did not have an obligation to produce children; he was born God’s only son and survives eternally."  

In short, the idea of a married Jesus creates theological difficulty for Christians. I know that this is true; I'm not surprised. I do hope that at least a few of my coreligionists will see the value of historical inquiry without preset conclusions.  Moreover, I hope that more than a few will allow their study of Jesus to take them places that are not theologically comfortable.

Finally - as almost all of the reviews of my book will demonstrate - my willingness to take this topic seriously did not predetermine my conclusions in the book.  I don't think that Steve, or Paul, or Linda (above) will find my conclusions to be heretical.  But initial, visceral reactions are to be expected.  I've had them myself.

-anthony

8 comments:

  1. I would admittedly have to agree with Linda's position. Even after reading the book, I concede that there is not 100% evidence against a case for a wife of Jesus, but it's still... weird. And I can't really put a finger on why I find it to be a strange concept. Possibly because it would very shallowly imply that Jesus held a specific person in higher regard as far as relationships go thus bringing in a "God plays favorites" mentality, but I know that's a pretty weak argument especially considering that that same shallow argument could be applied to the disciples too. I don't know. The book was great, but it didn't settle that uneasy feeling I have about a married Jesus like I was hoping. Not Dr. Le Donne's fault at all, of course! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know exactly what you mean David. Of course, this has something to do with the reality that Jesus has been celibate in our collective imagination for almost 2000 years.

      -anthony

      Delete
  2. I think that if Jesus had a wife, then Paul wouldn't have forget it in 1 Cor 9:5: "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"
    I do not consider this as an argument of silence: Paul is using the best possible examples to support his argument in early (proto)christian circles, and Jesus would have been the best example ever! Why pointing to Peter and Jesus' brothers, if Jesus himself was married? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Lollo, I address this passage in the book.

      But let's be clear: what you suggest is a textbook argument from silence. This is not to negate your argument, some arguments from silence work better than others.

      -anthony

      Delete
    2. Also, even as an argument from silence, this argues only that Jesus did not "take along a believing wife". It does not argue from silence that Jesus was not a widower, or that he didn't leave his wife at home.

      Delete
  3. Thanks Anthony, you are correct. I shouldn't have said that it isn't an argumentum e silentio, but rather that I consider it a quite compelling one. While it's generally possible to find a reasonable explanation for the silence, in this case I believe it's a bit more difficult. Of course I understand that you addressed it in your book, and I'm sure it would convince me :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. One thing that I do not mention in the book is this. We must not assume that Paul knew much about Jesus' pre-public life. Many NT scholars argue that Paul knew very little of Jesus' life at all. I tend to be less skeptical on this, but assuming that Paul knew the details of Jesus' life from age 16 to 30 is an assumption without warrant.

    -anthony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fully agree on the fact that we can hardly say anything at all about Jesus' life before his public ministry.
      Also, my impression is that Paul's knowledge of Jesus is in most part second-hand (1Cor. 15:3).
      Nevertheless, Paul is our only direct source of first-generation tradition and he had direct contacts with the Apostles, so if he didn't know anything about a married Jesus then probably such information was already irremediably lost.
      While I still think that is highly improbable that Jesus was married during his public ministry, I admit that I can't exclude such a thing for his previous "private" life.

      Delete