Truth and Error in the Da Vinci Code
Part 2:
Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Sacred Feminine
This message contains excerpts from the book
Truth and Error in the Da Vinci Code
by Mark L. Strauss
You may order this book at DaVinciCodeErrors.com
As we saw in our first session, The Da Vinci Code challenges almost every tenet of the Christian faith. It claims the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, but rather a collection of books which suited the political goals of the emperor Constantine and the church hierarchy. Jesus was not the Son of God, but a mere mortal who was deified by the church for its own purposes. Perhaps the most provocative claim, however, is that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that they bore a child whose descendants are alive today.
Were Jesus and Mary Magdalene a pair?
The main “evidence” The Da Vinci Code gives for the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is the assertion that it would have been unthinkable for a Jewish man of Jesus Day to remain single. The Harvard Ph.D., Robert Langdon, asserts that “the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried.” (DVC, p. 245).
A moment’s consideration will confirm that it is fallacious to argue that since men of Jesus’ day were usually married, therefore Jesus must have been married. Consider the statement, “Most British prime ministers are men; therefore Margaret Thatcher is a man.” This is clearly a false syllogism. Although Jewish men of Jesus’ day were usually married, there were many exceptions. The Essenes of the Dead Sea Scroll community at Qumran remained single. John the Baptist, the forerunner or the Messiah, was single. The apostle Paul was single (1 Cor. 7:7; 1 Cor. 9:5-6). In both Judaism and Christianity, singleness and celibacy were esteemed as a means of complete devotion to the Lord (1 Cor. 7:32-33; Luke 2:36-37).
The Gospels confirm Jesus’ singleness in a variety of ways. Jesus said the Son of Man had no place to lay his head (Matt. 8:20; Luke 9:58). If he had a wife, he surely would have provided a home for her. From the cross, Jesus commended his mother to the care of John, but he does not assign any care for a wife – even though Mary Magdalene was present! (John 6:25-27). Most significantly, there is no hint of any sexual relationship between Jesus and the women who supported him. Jesus’ opponents mustered every accusation they could against him, including blasphemy, demon possession, drunkenness, and association with sinners (Mark 2:7, 16; 3:22; 14:64; Matt. 11:19). If there were any such scandalous rumors, his enemies would surely have raised them against him.
Dan Brown seems to believe that if you say something forcefully enough, people will believe it. In the book Teabing emphatically asserts that “... the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record. …I shan’t bore you with the countless references to Jesus and Magdalene’s union” (DVC, p. 245, 247; emphasis mine).
In reality, there is not a shred ancient evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and nobody even suggested it until the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, appeared in the 1980s! In short, the reason Teabing “shan’t bore” them with the “countless” references to Jesus’ marriage is because there aren’t any!
But doesn’t Jesus kiss Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of Philip?
“Aha!” the Da Vinci devotee will say at this point, “I know for a fact that the Gospel of Philip shows Jesus kissing Mary Magdalene. The passage, quoted in The Da Vinci Code, reads
And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” (DVC, p. 246; quoting from the Gospel of Philip 63.33-64.4)
This passage is certainly surprising and startling for Christians. Jesus and Mary kissing! What’s going on here?
First, the Gospel of Philip was composed in the 3rd century AD, hundreds of years after Jesus lived. No scholars – even those sympathetic to Gnosticism – consider this passage to reflect an authentic story about Jesus. It is rather an expression of Gnostic theology placed on the lips of Mary and other disciples.
Second, in any case, the passage does not depict a marital relationship between Jesus and Mary. The Coptic word for companion used here does not mean “wife,” but may refer to any number of relationships. It is best rendered here as “spiritual sister”. Elsewhere in the Gnostic literature Jesus addresses Mary as his spiritual “sister.” (Dialogue of the Savior 132.26). The normal Greek word for “wife” is gune¯.
Third, the kiss is not a sexual one, but the kiss of fellowship between family and friends so common throughout the Middle East. Throughout the New Testament believers are encouraged to greet one another with a holy kiss. Elsewhere in the Gospel of Philip, all the disciples are said to kiss one another (Gospel of Philip 59.2-5). In Gnosticism the kiss is used to pass on spiritual knowledge (gno¯sis) from Jesus. In the Second Apocalypse of James, another Gnostic writing, Jesus passes on secret knowledge to his half-brother James by means of a kiss.
“And he kissed my mouth. He took hold of me, saying, ‘My beloved! Behold, I shall reveal to you those (things) that (neither) [the] heavens nor their archons have known.... Behold, I shall reveal to you everything, my beloved.’” (2 Apoc. James 56.14-57.9)
Notice that not only does Jesus kiss his brother James just like he kissed Mary, but he refers to him as “my beloved.” If this passage were about Mary Magdalene, it would surely have been quoted in The Da Vinci Code as proof positive that Jesus and Mary were married! In fact we completely misread these Gnostic texts if we impose sexual or marital categories on them. Jesus’ brother James receives special status because Jesus has passed on secret knowledge to him, not because they have a sexual or marital relationship. That is the role Mary Magdalene also plays. This is not a marital relationship, but a spiritual one.
Could Jesus have been married?
The Da Vinci Code’s claims that the church had to suppress the marriage and family of Jesus in order to protect its belief. Teabing says, “A child of Jesus would undermine the critical notion of Christ’s divinity and therefore the Christian Church” (DVC, 254). But this is in fact a straw man. The Bible teaches that Jesus was fully human as well as fully divine (See John 1:1, 14; Heb. 1:1-3; 2:17.), and marriage and procreation are a natural part of human life. There is nothing evil or sinful about sexual relations. The idea that sex is evil or defiling is a Gnostic idea, not a Christian one! God created sex as a means of procreation and as a wonderful expression of love between a husband and wife (Gen. 2:24).
It is certainly true that some later church leaders viewed the celibate life as a higher calling, but this was not the teaching of Jesus or the apostles. Jesus himself affirmed the institution of marriage and the “one flesh” sexual union of husband and wife (Mark 10:7-8). Peter and other apostles were married, as were Jesus’ brothers who were leaders in the church (1 Cor. 9:5). While Paul extols the single life as a means to unencumbered ministry for the Lord, he also affirms marriage as a high calling (1 Cor. 7). So there is no reason Jesus could not have been married and had normal sexual relations. But, as we have seen, there is not a shred of evidence that he was in fact married. Jesus no doubt recognized that the responsibilities of marriage and family would distract him from the messianic task that God had entrusted to him.
Who was Mary Magdalene?
One of the few facts The Da Vinci Code actually gets right is that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. The identification of Mary as a prostitute resulted from confusion in the church concerning at least four different women in the Gospels: (1) Mary Magdalene, one of Jesus’ female disciples; (2) Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus, who was both a disciple of Jesus and one of the women who anointed his feet; (3) an unnamed woman with a sinful reputation who also anointed Jesus’ feet (Luke 7:36-50); (4) another unnamed woman accused of committing adultery and brought before Jesus in an attempt to trap him (John 7:53-8:11).
Because of the confusion concerning these different women and events, Pope Gregory the Great, in a late sixth century sermon, declared all four of them to be one-and-the-same. The unfortunate result of this confusion is that Mary Magdalene came to be viewed in the church as a repentant prostitute.
If Mary Magdalene wasn’t a prostitute, who was she? We only know a few basic facts (1) She was one of the women disciples who supported Jesus during his ministry in Galilee (Luke 8:1-3; cf. Mark 15:41); (2) she had been exorcised by Jesus of seven demons (Luke 8:2); (3) she was present with other women at the climactic events in Jesus’ ministry: his crucifixion, his burial, and at the discovery of his empty tomb; (4) in an important episode in John’s Gospel, Mary encounters Jesus alone at the empty tomb, and serves as the first witness to the resurrected Lord (John 20:1-2, 10-18).
Despite these relatively few references, we should not downplay Mary’s importance. She must have been a significant follower of Jesus since she is almost always listed first among the women disciples, just as Peter is among the Twelve. This suggests that she was one of the most prominent of Jesus’ women disciples.
Did the early Church demote Mary?
The Da Vinci Code claims that although Jesus intended to make Mary his successor, Peter and the early church sought to discredit her by making her our to be a prostitute.
In fact, the truth is not nearly so scandalous or sensationalistic. As noted above, Mary’s inaccurate characterization as a prostitute arose from confusion in the church concerning various women and events. There is no historical evidence for more sinister motives to discredit her leadership. In fact, orthodox leaders in the church spoke highly of Mary and her prominence rose in the church through the centuries. She became a saint; a feast day was established in her honor (July 22), and an entire mass was dedicated to her. All this hardly constitutes a smear campaign!
Furthermore, if, as The Da Vinci Code claims, “the Church outlawed speaking of the shunned Mary Magdalene” (p. 261) and radically altered the Bible to suit its own political agenda (p. 231), why does Mary play such a prominent role in the Gospels? Not only is she named first in lists of women followers, but, as noted above, she figures prominently as the first witness to the resurrection. If the church wanted to destroy her reputation, it could have done a much better job of it! There is no evidence that the church demoted Mary from a position of authority or that Jesus intended her to have a more prominent role than the New Testament attributes to her.
Was the early church anti-women?
Of course in The Da Vinci Code, the plot to discredit Mary is part of the church’s larger campaign against women and the pure religion of the “sacred feminine.” The New Testament documents, it is claimed, were chosen to fit the church’s oppressive attitude toward women. In reality, however, the New Testament gives far greater status and dignity to women than the society of its day. For example, in the story of Mary and Martha (this is Mary of Bethany, not Mary Magdalene), Jesus praised Mary for taking the role of a disciple, as she sat at his feet learning from him (Luke 10:38-42). This is shocking in a Jewish context where a rabbi would never have a female disciple. A group of female disciples accompanied Jesus and supported his ministry, a practice that would have been counter-cultural in first century Judaism (Luke 8:1-3). Furthermore, if the Gospel writers were misogynist (hating women), why would they portray women as the ones who remained faithful to Jesus even at the cross (after the male disciples deserted him!) and as the first witnesses to the resurrection? In a Jewish culture where women were not considered reliable enough to testify in court, the Gospel writers portray them as the foundational witnesses to the Resurrection.
In the book of Acts and the New Testament Epistles, women assume prominent roles as prophets (Acts 21:9), house church leaders (Lydia: Acts 16:13-15), and teachers (Priscilla: Acts 18:26). Paul speaks of various women as his co-workers (Rom. 16:3; Phil. 4:2-3).
It is certainly true that some limitations are placed on leadership roles for women in certain New Testament texts, and that Jesus chose twelve men to serve as his apostles (Mark 3:13-19). The church today continues to debate whether the New Testament limitations were intended to adapt to specific first century contexts or whether they were meant to apply for all time. But in either case, there is little doubt that the New Testament gives much greater status and dignity to women than ancient society at large. Furthermore, the Bible clearly teaches the full equality of males and females as bearers of the image of God (Gen. 1:27) and as equal heirs of salvation (Gal. 3:28). The claim of The Da Vinci Code that the orthodox church transformed Jesus from “the original feminist” into a misogynist simply cannot be sustained.
Having answered Da Vinci Code claims related to Jesus, the Bible, and Mary Magdalene, in our next message we will examine the reasons for the popularity of The Da Vinci Code in our society today.
