Now we move to topics raised by The DaVinci Code which are less central to orthodox Christianity, though equally confusing and controversial.  We begin with Mary Magdalene, the supposed wife of Jesus and mother of his child.

Her character

Teabing stated indignantly, "Magdalene was no such thing [a prostitute].  That unfortunate misconception is the legacy of a smear campaign launched by the early Church.  The Church needed to defame Mary Magdalene in order to cover up her dangerous secret--her role as the Holy Grail" (p. 244).

Later he adds, "The Church, in order to defend itself against the Magdalene's power, perpetuated her image as a whore and buried evidence of Christ's marriage to her, thereby defusing any potential claims that Christ had a surviving bloodline and was a mortal prophet" (p. 254).  When Sophie turns to Langdon he nods: "Sophie, the historical evidence supporting this is substantial" (p. 254).

What is the actual "historical evidence" on the subject?

The only mention in Scripture of Mary Magdalene prior to the crucifixion is in Luke 8: "Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God.  The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out . . ." (vs. 1-2).  Later she is the first person to whom Jesus appears on Easter Sunday (Jn 20:13-16).  She is the first he commissions to tell his disciples about his resurrection (vs. 17-18).

Teabing is right about one fact: she was not a prostitute.  Mary Magdalene was categorically not the "sinful woman" who anointed Jesus' feet (Luke 7:36-39).  Mary of Bethany performed a similar act of worship a week before Jesus' death (Jn 12:3).  Perhaps the similarity of her name (there are seven Marys in the Bible) led to the unfortunate mistake by Gregory the Great in A.D. 591, confusing Mary Magdalene and the "sinful woman" of Luke 7.  But note that he made this mistake nearly three centuries after Constantine and the supposed "creation" of the Bible we possess today.

If the Church wished to defame Mary Magdalene, why did it portray her as the first human to whom Jesus spoke at Easter, and his first evangelist and missionary (Jn 20:13-18)?  She is mentioned by name 14 times in the New Testament.  In eight of these references, she heads the list.  In a ninth, it follows the name of Mary the mother of Jesus and the "other Mary."  In five it appears alone.  Several times she is found at the side of Jesus' mother.  It seems clear that the church did anything but defame or cover up Mary Magdalene in the gospels.

Her relationship with Jesus

Teabing is confident that "Jesus was the original feminist.  He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene" (p. 248).

How did he assure this intention?  According to the British "historian," Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene is "a matter of historical record . . . and Da Vinci was certainly aware of that fact.  The Last Supper practically shouts at the viewer that Jesus and Magdalene were a pair" (p. 244; we'll discuss the painting later).

Teabing later mentions "countless references to Jesus and Magdalene's union.  That has been explored ad nauseum by modern historians" (p. 247).  He then quotes from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene to support his assertion (p. 247).

What is the "historian" quoting?  Why would he make these claims?

The Gnostics (see the section on their gospels above) made Mary Magdalene their source among Jesus' disciples.  Their Gospel of Mary depicts her as favored with insights and visions which far surpass those of Peter and the other apostles.  Their Dialogue of the Savior calls her the "woman who knew the All."  Many Gnostics claimed to have received their revelations from Jesus through Mary's transmission.

To bolster their claim, they posited a close and romantic relationship between Jesus and Mary.  Their Gospel of Philip goes so far as to claim that Christ loved Mary "more than [all] the disciples and used to kiss her [often] on her [mouth; note that the text is missing here, and may not be her mouth or lips at all].  The rest of [the disciples were offended by it . . .].  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 as [I love] her?'"

This is the "historical record" of Jesus' and Mary's "marriage."  The Gnostic text nowhere claims that they were actually married, or had a daughter.  But it does continue its description of her life and legacy, in a way which is most damaging to Mr. Brown's thesis.

According to the Gnostics, Mary Magdalene rejected the "works of femaleness" (Dialogue of the Savior), sexual activity and procreation.  The Gospel of Thomas states that she transcended her human nature and "became male."  In The Gospel of Mary, Mary urged the other disciples to "praise his greatness, for he has prepared us, and made us into men."  Clearly she could not have carried the "blood" of Jesus through his offspring--in fact, she eschewed all sexual relationships.  Such is the record of the Gnostic gospels used by Mr. Brown to document his claim that Mary and Jesus were married and produced a child.

The orthodox Church Fathers knew nothing of these legends.  None quotes Mary Magdalene or seeks to build a case against her.  If she posed a threat to the biblical tradition that Jesus had no sexual relationships or heirs, they would have responded to that threat.  Instead, we have only silence.

Jesus' sexuality

Let's consider one other assertion with regard to Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene: his sexuality.  Langdon is confident that "Jesus was a Jew . . . and the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried.  According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned, and the obligation for a Jewish father was to find a suitable wife for his son.  If Jesus were not married, at least one of the Bible's gospels would have mentioned it and offered some explanation for His unnatural state of bachelorhood" (p. 245).

Here is the biblical record.  Peter, the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord all had wives (1 Cor 9.5).  Thus the Church was not embarrassed by their status as married men.  If Jesus had been married, Paul would have said so here.

Note that Jesus had no official position within Judaism (Mk 11.28).  He was not technically a rabbi, nor did he portray himself as one.  And so any conventional expectation that religious leaders would be married would not have applied to him.  And note that members of the Essenes, a famous spiritual sect within Judaism, were known for their emphasis on celibacy (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.5.21).

There is no basis in the biblical or historical record for claiming that Jesus and Mary had any kind of relationship outside the one described in Scripture: he cast seven demons from her, made her one of his followers, appeared to her at Easter, and commissioned her to tell his other disciples of his resurrection.  No marriage, no child, no Holy Grail.