Mary Magdalene - The Wife of Jesus?

Since this post, once again, plays to the question of Bible validity due to countless transcriptions into various languages by scribes and monks of questionable educations at times when governmental and religious politics, along with personal agendas more than likely colored that which was being translated in order to toe the “party line” of the times, I ask the reader to accept, just for the moment, the Bible might also portray personalities in a less than accurate light.

When making this statement I also ask you to consider present day politics where the media is skewed to one side or another making it difficult to glean any truth from what is being reported.  It’s not that what is being reported didn't happen.  In any reporting of news the what, when, where, why, and how are all at the mercy of  not only the reporter's interpretation of the facts, but also the editor's interpretation which is usually at the mercy of various corporate and political agendas.  This has not changed throughout history.  We are only human.

If Mary Magdalene was the favored of Jesus, and Peter took issue with this as a threat to his leadership in the aftermath of the Crucifixion, and considering the place of women in society at the time, would it seem reasonable that he might color things to put himself in a better light?  Not that he would outright lie, just a little bending of the facts?

If the various sects that sprang up several generations later accepted a life of celibacy as a way to prove their faith to God, is it not reasonable that they might not want rumor of Jesus kissing Mary on the mouth to call into question the celibacy of Christ?  Even today, at the slightest mention of an ancient fragment that might shed new light on the Lord Jesus Christ, the naysayers pour forth to protect the status quo.  One has to ask, “What are they afraid of?”  How can seeking the truth possibly harm man’s faith in God?

I have always asked myself what harm it would do for Jesus to have a wife.  Why would He back off on a commandment or, at the very least, a permission that God issued early on in this very text where it is mentioned numerous times:

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.  -- Genesis 9:1

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."  -- Genesis 1:28

"As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."  -- Genesis 9:7

 And God said to him, "I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number."  -- Genesis 35:11

But, then it was decided that what God really meant to say was, "Be fruitful and multiply, all of you except Jesus and my priests."  Once again we're to believe God didn't quite get it right the first four or so times it was said.  The Apostle Paul does not say marriage is a sin, he simply states that celibacy allows for a higher state in life:

"So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better."  -- 1 Corinthians 7:38

I have to ask the obvious question.  Is it he who refrains from marriage, or from sexual intercourse?  Could Jesus have been married without consummating the marriage?  Is it possible that He chose to have Mary as his closest confidant and friend, his significant other, as a way to show his affection toward her and still maintain his celibacy?  Or, do we go with the argument for control and see celibacy as a conjured rule for a religious cult that demanded full obedience where every member of the order ranked above you would be given absolute obedience?  I keep coming back to there being no one between us and God.  No craven images, no false prophets, no rings to kiss, and no rich trappings for the religious elite.

Personally, I can see Jesus making the statement that Paul repeats in Corinthians.  I can see how he would think that marriage would deter him from focusing fully on the task at hand.  But, I can also see this loving man whispering softly to Mary, "If I were to wed a woman, that woman would be you.  I can only offer you my love, not a devotion higher than for any other of my followers."

As a conclusion, for further thought, I offer excerpts from a Gnostic scripture, The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene:

Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman.  -- Gospel of Mary 5:5

When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her. 

But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas. 

Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.  He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?  

Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior? 

Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.  Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.  But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.   That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.  -- Gospel of Mary 9:1-9

Peter went on to become the first Bishop of Rome and the first pope.  Peter, like the rest of us, was only human.  Is it any wonder this was left out of the Bible?  Is it still a mystery why men would rather this not come to light?  The Gnostic texts paint a somewhat different picture than what mainstream Christianity would have us believe.  Is any of it true?  One would have to ask the same of the Bible, then.  In as much as we give the Bible credence, I think we should at least consider the Gnostic texts if for no other reason than to give ourselves pause to think.

Was Jesus married to Mary?  I think probably not.  But, He was a man, who also happened to be the Son of God.