Mangled Thoughts

A brief read of a few passages in the novel, ?The de Vinci Code??, in a bookshop, suggested a tedious read. The movie might be better. The axle of it is a ?what if? bit of speculation. Mixed with the elements of a thriller; conspiracy, murder, an innocent who gets wind of a deep secret, powerful antagonists who can crush a chap with one flick of the eyebrow; and what do we get, besides a pot boiled story, demonstrations in the street.

Perhaps the timing is unfortunate. With governments and bureaucrats in the West persecuting Christians and bending over backwards to appease Islamo-nazis in our midst, the sensitivities involved are understandable, Not another damned leftist attack on Christianity? The record of Hollywood half witted lefties is not re-assuring as to whether the film is a good thriller only or another leftist indulgence. Having neither read the book nor seen the movie, the judgment is in suspension, so I?ll take it at face value, it?s merely a thriller starring lanky Hanky Tom.

The dirty secret of the story, Jesus married Mary, they had a son, and Jesus lived a pedestrian life until old age, has invoked the ire of Christians.

Well, the historical Jesus certainly was crucified to death. The difficulty with the gospel narratives is, they are not factual biographies of Jesus, they are texts written to set out christological and theological claims. This observation clears up why the gospels are not biographies, what the authors were at pains to set out can be demonstrated from biography. What facts would establish the theological and christological content which is the kernel of those books?

Answering, for example, the Resurrection doesn?t cut any ice. One, would is not referring to whether it occurred or not, and what happened. Though, to draw out the question of what happened, is not the same as what witnesses experienced when they met the risen Christ. Such questions, to repeat, are beside the point, the life of Jesus anchors the proclamation but the Jesus of Nazareth is depicted entirely in terms of that proclamation. Thus, even loose questions such as, was Jesus married cannot be answered. A bit of shrewd speculation, however, is not altogether out of order.

The wedding at Cana is an intriguing narrative; whose wedding was it? The telling detail is Jesus? mum and he serves the duty of hosts. Guests then, as now, did not supply wine In short, Jesus? part is that of the groom, and certainly not a guest

A few funerary casks of the period, in which the remains of the dead are kept, were discovered in a tomb in Jerusalem a few years ago. They are inscribed respectively:

Jesus of Nazareth
Mary Magdalene, wife of Jesus
John, son of Jesus

In the N. T. narratives the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is intimate and depicted with a delicacy is matched only by the depiction of the relationship between Jesus and John, which has long impressed me as filial.

Speculative it might be, but one has long been intrigued by the possibility of a marriage. First because of the narrative units and, later, the recent archaeological discovery, by whether Jesus and Mary were in fact married and that John was indeed their son. It is possible that, for example, the casks were deliberately made to discredit the claims of Jesus? followers.

To be clear, it can?t be firmly secured either way, as this little bit of speculation shows. The real question is, does it follow the proclamation and claims of Jesus? apostles are undermined if in fact Jesus and Mary M. were married and John was their son?

My short answer is, the claims would not be undermined. The matter devolves upon what Jesus? apostles witnessed and understood of Jesus? life, death and resurrection. What they understood wasn?t built out of earthly details of Jesus? life. What they understood is decided by the conclusion, which is what they witnessed as the resurrection and not just the resurrection, but as the author of Luke-Acts relates, `Pentecost?. It is from that perspective, to mark, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus is appreciated, including the other wise inexplicable resolution of Jesus to surrender himself in the Garden of Gethsemane and his refusal to defend himself on a capital charge before Pilate.

The narrative presentation of the trial of Jesus depicts Pilate is given to the conclusion Jesus is harmless and would acquit him. Jesus says nothing of help Pilate, and answers questions with questions. What was said during the trial and what evidence was actually presented is another matter, but that is not the point to the narrative.

St. Paul has met only the Risen Christ, not the historical Jesus, but for Paul, that the Risen Christ and the Jesus of history are identical secures the truth of his proclamation.

In the gospels, until the Resurrection, that Jesus is not only truly a Son of God but is Son of Man is glimpsed and not apprehended as Jesus perambulates around Judaea. In the book of Revelation, the identity of Jesus and the Risen Christ is glimpsed from the other side as it were. The historical Jesus is glimpsed through the Risen Christ.

What is decisive for John, is the unique relationship between the Jesus and the Father. This, and not the historical details of Jesus? life, and the implications of what was disclosed by the life death and resurrection of one who was and remains true to the Father, and transparent to the Father. No historical fact establishes what John and the other writers of the N. T. collection are concerned to establish.

Thus, whether Jesus and Mary M. were married and John was their son doesn?t add or subtract to what the writers of the gospel narratives were concerned to relate. The veracity of their theological-christological claims is not yielded out of historical facts. A reliable life of Jesus would have been an entirely different work.

If Jesus and Mary M. were married and John was their son, and that could be established, that detail would only add charm to the proclamation, though it would add weight to the anthropological term, Son of God.

This speculative line is, of course altogether different to a fiction thriller titled, The de Vinci Code. The reaction to the movie, assuming it is a good movie, is a tad excessive. One of the departure points, Jesus married Mary M. and their son was John, is, however, a tantalising question and one for Christians to give careful consideration to.