Jesus' family in books

[aktarian]

Recently I've read two historical fictions set in early imperial Rome and was surprised I encountered theory that Jesus had wife and children.

Robert Fabbri's "False God of Rome" in Vespasian series follows the theory that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and after his death she and child left for southern France (or Gaul in this case).

Meanwhile Simon Scarrow's "The Eagle in the Sand" in Eagle aka Cato & Macro series follow similar theory but without Mary leaving. Our heroes encounter Mary (the mother) and her grandchild, who is Jesus' child.

Since both books are recent ones (2013 and 2006) I can't help but think they were influenced by Dan Brown's books. Specially Fabbri's since he follows Brown't ideas more closely. Of course if challenged both authors can simply say "Oh, this is fiction and fiction means making stuff up".

Anybody else encountered similar stuff?

 

[Simreeve]

The idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and she bore him at least one child goes back a lonnng way before Dan Brown.

 

[aktarian]

The idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and she bore him at least one child goes back a lonnng way before Dan Brown.

OK, but how widespread were those theories? I know Brown got in some troubles with author of a book that proposed similar theory and was published in 1980s (?). But I get the impression it was Brown that populised these ideas and made them "mainstream".

 

[Shurik]

OK, but how widespread were those theories? I know Brown got in some troubles with author of a book that proposed similar theory and was published in 1980s (?). But I get the impression it was Brown that populised these ideas and made them "mainstream".

True, Brown brought the idea to the knowledge of many, but as mentioned: it's been around for a looong while, and is/has been generally considered as plausible by many; including a handful of christian sects.

 

[zoomar]

Most Episcopalians would not be shocked to find out that Jesus married and had children. These facts do not mean he also couldn't have been the Son of God (whatever that means).

However, much of the official denial of the idea in most Christian sects, even those that admit the possibility, has to do with broader issues. It would raise serious questions about the early history of the Church and the rise of "orthodox" (little "o") Christianity. Since there is no explicit mention that Jesus was married or had children in the Gospels, that would mean that the gospel writers deliberately censured these stories out. Why? Was it because the notion of a married Jesus didn't fit the "Jesus is special" narrative they wanted to project (a minor issue, really), or was it because Jesus's surving wife and children (the most likely spiritual heirs of Jesus given the how preindustrial societies functioned) may have actually opposed the direction his followers were taking the sect and had to be purged from the church and its history entirely.

 

[TimPhillips]

OK, but how widespread were those theories? I know Brown got in some troubles with author of a book that proposed similar theory and was published in 1980s (?). But I get the impression it was Brown that populised these ideas and made them "mainstream".

Holy Blood, Holy Grail was the book involved in the law suit I believe. The ideas had been around a long time before Dal Brown used them in his book.
I think the best analogy for Brown's book is Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind.
There had been UFO movies/sightings before...but Spielberg's movie brought a somewhat niche topic solidly into the main-stream.
Tim

 

[Craigo]

It's not that Dan Brown wrote about this stuff, and then these two guys decided they wanted to ride his coattails.

It's that Dan Brown wrote about it, made a whole lot of money doing so, and suddenly publishers were willing to buy similar manuscripts that other writers had been working on, or had already completed.

 

[HARRY]

It's not that Dan Brown wrote about this stuff, and then these two guys decided they wanted to ride his coattails.

The irony is that they claimed that their book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was non-fictional real history therefore anything Dan Brown based on it was not plagarism where as if it was fiction it would have been.