~
Warning: This is not a review of the movie adaptation but my take on the controversy. Whenever people ask me about my opinion on the subject of Dan Brown’s novel, I refuse to give them a straight answer. I believe that if anyone can’t sleep because of the subject, they should start doing their own research. After all, answers are found by those who seek.
So why did I choose to make this post? Firstly, so that I can just give them a link to the research (not to mention that people reading this would have to endure a lengthy article) and simply because it has taken me years to compile the material on Christian history and it is such a waste if I don’t write about it. Writers will be writers – even the struggling ones.
PremiseThere is so much abundance of material to tackle the topic and I found it hard to choose where to start. While technically, the Priory of Sion did exist at least when it was registered in the 1950’s, there is no factual evidence to suggest the sect was present during the Crusades and the Inquisition so I had to exclude Priory documents in this research. However, I found that I didn’t need the Priory documents to build the case. I also must mention that Jesus’ marital status is just a part of the research. An incidental facet which cannot be avoided when one chooses to divulge into the broad and deep subject of the history of Religion, Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church.
Since I will only be writing here about the Da Vinci Code’s theorem, I will for the moment, exclude other historical references and researches that may otherwise also be regarded as “supporting” documents. I decided to follow through on the chronologies on Holy Blood, Holy Grail and references here are written in verbatim from the same so as not to reinvent the wheel.
Personally, if you take the bias of religion from the controversy and if we were talking about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, there is only one conclusion – the two celebrities were getting it on - no matter how much they deny it. But alas, religion is a very influential element in everything.
It is important to mention at this point that whatever is written here is made from an objective and unbiased approach that is free from religious tradition and suggestions. Thus, as would any self-respecting historian, I will not be taking in the Bible as a factual historical reference. So if you feel the need to comment with Biblical verses, save them for yourselves. If you must, it would be wise to comment with an equally academic and objective approach. However, I did not entirely discard the Bible in this research. On the contrary, I did make references to it. The Bible may not be historically accurate but it was built upon actual historical events.
--
The Palestine at the time of Christ
Forgive the delay but in looking for answers, especially about something that happened 2000 years ago, it is vital that we understand the historical background upon which the stage was set – The Palestine at the first century. From HB, HG:
Historically, Palestine during the first century has been the center of dynastic rivalries and full scale wars. During the 2nd century B.C., the Holy Land was a bit unified under one Judaic kingdom – as documented on the Old Testament books of Maccabees. By 63 B.C. the land was again in turmoil and in danger of conquest. Half a century before Jesus was born Palestine fall under the rule of Rome. Rome at the time was too busy over expanding and conquering to install proper administrative power on her lands. Hence, a line of puppet kings and rulers were installed into position. This line is found to be that of the Herodians. First on the line was Antipater who ruled in 63 B.C. who was succeeded by Herod the Great who ruled until 4 B.C.
Placing ourselves during that time, it will not be different from our situation during the Marcos regime from which the cronies rose to power or Cory Aquino’s administration which was merely a puppet display manipulated by the US. But unlike the Filipinos, the Jews at the time had a hope - The prophetic revelation that from the line of David will come forth a Messiah. But since we’re dealing with the time of the first century, we need to point out that Messiah did not translate into “Savior” or “Divine” as it traditionally means today. During their time, Messiah simply meant “Anointed King”.
The Pharisees, Sadducees, the Essenes and the Nazoreans
The Jews at the time can be recognized into two of the most popular sects – the Sadducees – the wealthy, land-owning class which had strong Roman ties; and the Pharisees – the adherents of Judaic reformation which weren’t as aggressive as the former. There were other sects worth mentioning: The Essenes, a rather mystic and Gnostic sect that prevailed through centuries and has influenced religions such as Islam and the Celtic church in Europe (we shall come back to them in a while). Another group that will come up further on our story was the Nazorites – a progressive group with a militant capability. One of the first signs of mistranslation of Biblical texts actually derives from the title “Jesus of Nazareth”. Scholars have then corrected this and pointed out that the original text translated to “Jesus the Nazorean” which would refer to Jesus’ sectarian affiliation rather than his birthplace. Further research will lead to the fact that the place called Nazareth could not have existed during Jesus’ lifetime. It does not figure on ancient Roman maps, documents or the Talmud. It does not appear even on the early writings of Saint Paul which were composed before the Gospels. In fact, Nazareth only appeared as a town during the revolt of AD 66-74.
By the way, modern research has already told us that the Nazorean party is intricately tied into the armed and militant group known as the Zealots which again will appear further into our inquiry.
--
The Synoptic Gospels
Now that we have our historical background, we move to our foremost references – the Gospels, namely the four synoptic Gospels.
It is unanimous from modern historians that the Gospels were not composed during Jesus’ lifetime. They (including the Gnostic gospels) mostly date from the revolt of 66-74 to 132-135, the latest would be no later than 150. although all will agree that they are certainly based on actual accounts. However, everyone is familiar with how oral or even written tradition or account can be blurred, distorted or exaggerated. We can although concur that they are derived from either first, second or third hand accounts.
The earliest of the Gospels is that of Mark – composed sometime between 66 and 74. Although not an original disciple, the author is historically known to have come from Jerusalem and was a constant companion of Saint Paul. In fact, Mark’s Gospel bears the mark of Pauline thought. This information will be vital in researching about the history of Orthodox Christianity but let us save that for later. The Gospel of Mark was written in Rome and as Clement of Alexandria stated, was addressed to a Greco-Roman audience.
Interestingly, when one considers that Mark was Paul’s consort, and they wished for their works to survive and for the message to be preserved, they could not possibly present the Christ as anti-Roman. In fact, it is easy to realize that the four gospels were written to exonerate the Romans and to put the blame of Jesus’ death back to the Jews. This was interesting because even when Christ suffered from a Roman trial, died of a Roman sentence, we will only remember one thing – the Jews who praised Jesus when he entered Jerusalem were the same Jews who condemned him to death. This concept surely appealed to the Roman rulers.
Biblical scholarship has pointed out that there are concrete similarities and chronologies on the Synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. History suggests that they are derived from a single common source or at least oral tradition. It is curious to note that even theologians today point that the Gospel of John is set far apart in theme, in chronology and in events from the three aforementioned gospels. The fourth gospel, the gospel of John, which was composed the latest in 100 AD in the Greek city of Ephesus is historically and theologically known to have sourced from another account which bear almost first hand testimonies to the life and teachings of Christ.
Distinct features on John’s gospel include the fact that there is no nativity scene or description of Christ’s birthplace. And while the 3 other gospels focus on Christ’s activities on the northern province of Galilee, the fourth gospel concentrated mostly on the events on Judea and Jerusalem which concluded Christ’s career. There were other scenes that did not appear at all in the other gospels – the wedding at Cana, the roles of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea and the raising of Lazarus (although you will find out further below that the raising of Lazarus was originally included in original Gospel of Mark).
We, who went through Catholic subjects in secondary school, are taught also that John’s was the independent Gospel with much deeper meanings - Deeper in fact that it is almost Gnostic in nature.
--
The Authenticity of the Gospels
While proving that the Gospels were not historically accurate and eventually edited by Constantine isn’t the primary subject, let me point out one factual incident in history that would prove that at least one of the Gospels were subject to editing and/or omissions.
In AD 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria compiled the first list of works that was to be included in the New Testament. This list was ratified by the Church Council of Hippo in 393 and again by the Council of Carthage 4 years later. At these councils, a selection was agreed upon. These selections of works were assembled to form the New Testament we know today and the other books were then ignored. How can a council of clerics make such infallible decisions of which to include and to omit? The influence of the Holy Spirit tries to reconcile this historical fact but since this is not a theological argument, we need to point such suggestions aside for the moment.
Again, how can bishops (not even the pope) decide infallibly on the fate of the circulating books / gospels when those ignored gospels possess equal or even more veracity and authenticity? There must have been vested interest that is not of divine purpose at least.
In fact, in 1958, Professor Morton Smith of Columbia University discovered in a monastery in Jerusalem, a letter that contained a missing fragment of the Gospel of Mark. This fragment was obviously not lost but was deliberately omitted and suppressed by the Bishop Clement of Alexandria – one of the venerated fathers of the church.
According to the discovery, Clement had received a letter from a certain Theodore, who complained of a Gnostic sect – the Carpocratians. The Carpocratians apparently were interpreting certain passages of the Gospel of Mark in accordance with their own Gnostic principles – principles that did not adhere to Roman Orthodoxy. Theodore attacked the Gnostic sect and reported this action to Clement. Clement replied with a letter to Theodore:
- You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians. For these are the “wandering stars” referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, “of the deep [things] of Satan,” they do not know tha they are casting themselves away into “the nether world of the darkness” of falsity, and, boasting that they are free, they become slaves of servile desires…
On the full account of the discovery of the letters (which is too lengthy to be included in this topic), Clement mentions of a secret gospel of Mark which Clement ordered was to be destroyed when Theodore got hold of them.
It is important that I include here part of that “secret” gospel of Mark that was edited out eventually:
- “And they come into Bethany, and a certain woman, whose brother had died, was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, ‘Son of David’, have mercy on me’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him wearing a linen cloth over [his] naked [body]. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God, and thence arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.”
While the episode is in no existing version of the Gospel of Mark, we are familiar with the scene – the raising of Lazarus. Even the Lazarus episode has come into question with Bible scholars. When Jesus was in Jordan and he received message that his “beloved disciple” has died, Jesus announced that it is good then that he was not in Bethany (the village of Lazarus, Mary and Martha) so that they (the disciples) would witness the event. The disciples then announced “Then we must haste back to Bethany that we may die with him (Lazarus)” – first, surely the disciples weren’t implying that they commit mass suicide! (HB,HG, 1982) And reading between the lines, it would sound that the episode has been set at an almost ritualistic procedure.
--
The Marital Status of Christ
Let me go back to our premise at this point. Religious bias aside and even if we were talking about current living monarchs like Prince William for example, we won’t bother trying to be careful of our assertions. Nor will the media be any kinder when it comes to a chance of covering controversial stories.
Consider this: The Naghamadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic Gospels total of up to 32 books suggesting that Jesus was indeed married versus the four Synoptic Gospels that neither explicitly tells of Christ’s marital status. By law of logic, the Synoptic Gospels can’t prove that Christ was married but at the same time, there is no suggestion that he wasn’t.
The Gospels state that many of Christ’s followers were married. Also, at no point did Christ advocate celibacy. On the contrary (and we must refer to scripture at this point), in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female… For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flash?” (19:4-5)
Surely, such a statement can hardly be ascribed to promoting celibacy. And logic follows that if Jesus did not preach about celibacy, there is no reason to assume that he practiced it. In fact, according to Judaic custom during the time of the Nazoreans and the Essenes, it was not only usual, but almost mandatory, that a man be married at a certain age. Towards the late first century, celibacy was condemned. It was, according to Judaic law, as obligatory for a Jewish father to find a wife for his son as it was to ensure that his son be circumcised.
Also, on another topic of research, it was known that Christ never intended to break Judaic law much less did he intend to form a new religion (Messianic Legacy, 1986). Research shows that Christ was an adherent to the law and wanted only to correct what the Sadducees were wrongly preaching and practicing.
Charles Davis, as reported in The Observer: (London, March 28, 1971, p.25)
- “Granted, the cultural background as witnessed… it I highly improbably that Jesus was not married well before the beginning of his public ministry. If he had insisted upon celibacy, it would have created a stir, a reaction which would have left some trace. So, the lack of mention of Jesus’ marriage in the Gospels is a strong argument not against but for the hypothesis of marriage…”
I find that the study above is logical. If Jesus did indeed remain celibate (and I’m not saying there’s anything wrong it that), his disciples would’ve asked why and it would’ve reflected anywhere in the Gnostic and Synoptic writings and even on the other books found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Mention of this in the scripture would’ve made a lot of sense on why the clergy adheres to celibacy. Lutherans have been one of the first to counter celibacy strongly.
We can also observe in the Gospels that Jesus was ascribed the title of “Rabbi”. This can be a self-employed title. But Jesus’ education was proven to be of the superior kind. His literacy, knowledge of scripture and the prophecy suggests that he underwent some kind of formal rabbinical training and was officially recognized as a Rabbi. If Jesus was indeed an official rabbi, then it is certain that he was married. Jewish Mishnaic Law is quite explicit this time on the subject. “An unmarried man may not be a rabbi” – Phipps, The Sexuality of Jesus, p. 44.
--
The Wedding at Cana
There has been much fuss about the Wedding at Cana on online forums but a detailed theorem was always amiss. Probably because the forum posters have just heard about the controversy or maybe they were lazy to type in the details.
The Gospel of John carries an interesting episode that is often overlooked or has escaped scrutiny. For most people, the wedding at Cana appears to be a simple modest wedding on a typical village and the bride and groom remained curiously anonymous. On this wedding, Jesus was present and his mother also happens to be there. At some point during the event, Mary, the mother of Christ tells Jesus that they’ve ran out of wine and in effect orders him to replenish it.
- “And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, ‘They have no wine’. Jesus saith unto her, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” (John 2:3-4) But Mary ignores him, “His mother saith unto the servants, ‘Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it’.” (5) and the servants promptly comply.
There at least a dozen of questions begged by the scene. Why would Mary observe to the needs of the guests as if she were the hostess? Why would Mary ask Jesus to replenish the wine as if it were they’re duty? And why would Mary command the servants as if they were their own? And why did the servants comply as if they were accustomed with receiving orders from Mary and Jesus?
Why would two “guests” take upon themselves the responsibility of catering - unless, of course it was Jesus’ own wedding day?
There is in fact further evidence to suggest that the wedding was actually Jesus’ own. Immediately after the miracle of water into wine was performed, the “governor of the feast” (their master of ceremonies) tasted the newly produced wine. “The governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith upon him,’ Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou has kept the good wine until now’.” (John 2:9-10)
It doesn’t take a genius at lateral thinking to conclude that the governor addressed the bridegroom and Jesus as one and the same. The simplest conclusion is usually the correct answer.
--
The Social Status of Jesus
While I find that there is no need to clarify Jesus’ social status / caste at the time, because this has been presented by Biblical scholars already in the past, uninitiated readers of this article might benefit from the information.
First and foremost, we know that Jesus did descend from the royal line of Solomon and David – which overthrew Saul, who belonged to the house of the Benjamites. Thus Jesus carried with himself royal blood. And all those who came from the house of David were never poor. The notion of Jesus being the “poor carpenter” has been in tradition for as long as we could remember. However, anthropological studies will agree that carpenters at that time were everything but “poor". The carpenters were at that time equal to our modern architects and masons. At that time, it must be noted that carpentry was an art and skill that requires mastery. It was also revealed last year in Discovery that the Egyptians did not employ slaves to build the pyramids but they employed high-steemed, well fed and housed competent masons and constructors who were extremely proud of what they were building - Quite contradictory to the popular and traditional belief.
There is evidence also that Jesus himself underwent proper education and rabbinical training prior to his career. Studies of Jesus’ contemporaries will reveal that he is connected with higher classmen of his time. These individuals will include affiliations with Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea who has his own land, garden and tomb – private burial was reserved for high-ranking officials all throughout time even now.
The wedding at Cana is confirmed at least to be no less than a high-society function. And if it is not Jesus’ own wedding, his being invited along with his mother suggests connections with the rich. The presence of servants will attest to that and the way the servants followed Mary and Jesus only proved that they had command over those servants even if they were not theirs. Also, the amount of wine Jesus produced during the wedding is no less than 600 liters – more than 800 bottles of wine – and that was in addition to what was already consumed. That’s a sure bet of at least 200 guest reservations. We can be at least sure that the wedding was no less extravagant than any wedding which held its reception at the Shangri-la Plaza.
Herod, when Jesus was born also organized what was to be known as the Massacre of the Innocents. If Jesus was born of a poor family like those born under our modern fly-overs, there is no reason for our current president to be troubled by the family’s presence. However, if a prophecised ruler was born under the Ayala-Zobel Empire, the administration has much to be concerned about. It has been reconciled that the nativity may have occurred in a manger / stable because the family was in hiding from the supposed massacre of the innocents.
If Jesus was married to the Magdalene, then the Magdalene might have carried at least an equal social status. Biblical scholars have pointed out that one of Mary Magdalene’s friends was the wife of one of Herod’s political officials. Also, it has been studied that the Magdalene’s line can be traced back to the house of the Benjamites / Benjamins. If the house of David were in war with the house of the Benjamites, then Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s marriage would have served a much higher purpose than just a marriage of convenience. It would have united two royal, warring Jewish clans of that time which would further the Jew’s claim, once again, to power on Judea.
It has also been studied over and over since the 1950’s that Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus and Mary the Magdalene is one and the same. The number of material that could support this is too many that I chose not to linger with them on this article. Mary of Bethany was accounted for anointing Jesus with spikenard ointment that came from an alabaster container. On another account, it was a Mary (assumed to be the Magdalene) who anointed the Master’s feet with spikenard ointment. In Mark’s gospel, the costliness of the spikenard ointment was emphasized. This would also confirm that the anointing of Christ was a definitive and important ritual for him to be the Messiah which we know originally translated to “Annointed King”.
- Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with the ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. (John 11:1-2)
Looking through medieval artworks, and written tradition, Mary Magdalene has always been depicted, portrayed and written as “The Woman with the Alabaster Jar”. Google for the paintings if you need to.
The Magdalene is referred to in the Bible as the “woman with whom 7 demons has passed”. This was clearly misinterpreted as “the prostitute” or “the sinner”. This statement, however never meant that Mary was possessed by 7 demons. Nor did it ever mean that she was a sinner. This misinterpretation happened because no one of our time then knew that The Gospel of Mary Magdalene existed. And in reading the gospels of Mary Magdalene, Mary had a vision of how a soul ascends from the body and thus be freed of it’s mortal limitations. In the story, Mary recalls that in her vision, the soul, before the “powers” accepts it’s entry into the heavens shall pass by the Seven Powers of Wrath. These 7 powers took the form as follows:
- Darkness
Desire
Ignorance
Deathwish
Fleshy kingdom
Foolish fleshy wisdom
Angry person’s wisdom
The Gospels of Mary – Marvin Meyer p. 20
--
The Gnostic Gospels
Christianity, as it is today, is NOT a unified sect or religion. It is broken up into hundreds of different versions which is still based on a single deity – Christ. To name some – the The Roman Catholics, Born Again Christians, Reformed Christians, Lutherans, Jehova’s Witness, Ang Dating Daan, Adventists etc..
Christianity was never under a single theme / orthodoxy. Roman Catholic orthodoxy contradicted the Christian Churches in Egypt, Scotland and even the Church in Jerusalem. The Celtic Church has been in perpetual conflict with the Vatican until they were finally obliterated during the Crusades. The Essenes, who are essentially Gnostic survived longer and part of the text and principles were merged into the Talmud and the Koran.
The 1st to 2nd century Gnostic movement was just another one of those versions of Christianity. However, the main principle of Gnostic thought is that the soul is divine and in death, we release the soul so it becomes free and one with the divinity (see The Gospel of Judas and The Gospel of Thomas). Also, they mainly teach that enlightenment can be achieved by looking deep into one’s self (this principle follows that of Buddhism) and there is no need for the clergy.
We know of course that the Church forbids self-interpretation of the Bible - Something that I personally found odd from the start. And Gnosticism directly contradicts this principle. For the Roman Church, there has to be a monopoly on interpreting the Bible for Rome to maintain political power. Since the Gnostics clearly clashed with Roman Orthodoxy, they received the fullest degree of then emperor Irenaeus’ wrath. But Gnosticism survived through other written tradition like the Essene thought and Islam and Hinduism – mainly because it did not preach that Jesus was God. Indeed, we know that Jesus, for Islam and the Essenes is a powerful and influential messenger but not divine.
It has been recognized by historians and Biblical scholars that the Gnostic gospels and the Nag Hammadi Library in whole is actually more historically accurate than the books found in the Bible. Why? Simply because the Nag Hammadi scrolls were never subject to scrutiny, omission and editing of the Roman Church as we have proven on what happened to the Gospel of Mark and the council of Nicea.
The Nag Hammadi library in 1952 brings to light some of the missing pieces of the history of Christianity. It contained the “rejected” but otherwise equally valid and authentic gospels of Philip, Thomas, Peter, Mary Magdalene, The Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Pistis Sophia and so on. But every historian and scholar will concur that these are essentially Christian of principle and centered on Christ’s teachings. Let me quote a text from The Second Treatise of The Great Seth – here, Jesus speaks in the first person during the time of the crucifixion:
- “I did not succumb to them as they had planned… and I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame b them… For my death which they think happened to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death… It was another… who drank the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon (of Cyrene), who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was anther upon whom they laced the crown of thorns… and I was laughing at their ingnorance.” (Second Treatise of the Great Seth, The Naghammadi Library in English p. 332)
The text I presented above is actually parallel to that of Jesus’ career which appeared in the Koran. In the Koran, Jesus is mentioned no less than 35 times under the titles “Messiah” and “Messenger of God”. Surely, messenger of God doesn’t equate to “Son of God”. And like the Gnostic text above, the Koran maintains that Jesus did not die on the cross:
- “They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did.” (Koran 4:157)
To further complete this article, excerpts from the Gnostic gospels need to be included. Below is the translated text from the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene). Peter was addressing Mary after Christ talked to her in private:
- “Sister, we know that the Saviour loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Saviour which you remember – which you know but we do not. Because we have not heard them.”
The above would suggest of some kind of preferential treatment Jesus gave unto Mary as he gave preferential treatment to his John, the beloved disciple. The recent translation of The Gospel of Judas Iscariot also shows that Jesus gave preferential treatment to his supposed “betrayer”.
Also, earlier text in the Gospel of Mary shows the Magdalene consoling the disciples after Jesus was crucified.
- The disciples were grieved. They wept profoundly and said, “How can we go to the gentiles and preach the good news of the kingdom of the child of humanity? If they did not spare him, how will we be spared?”
Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brothers, “Do no weep or grieve or be in doubt, for his grace will be with you all and will protect you. Rather, let us praise his greatness, for he has prepared us and made us truly human.”
When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the good, and they began to discuss the words of the [savior]. (13-16; The Gospels of Mary, Meyer)
This is further assertion that Christ has entrusted care of his ministry to Mary. Later yet, in the Gospel of Mary, Peter challenges Mary and confronts the other disciples.
- “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 made this up by myself or that I am lying about the savior?”
Levi answered and said to Peter, “Peter, you always are angry. Now I see you arguing against this woman like an adversary. If the savior made her worthy, who are you to reject her? Surely the savior knows her well. That is why he has loved her more than us. So we should be ashamed and put on perfect humanity and acquire it, as he commanded us, and preach the good news, not making any rule or law other than what the savior indicated.”
And on the Gospel of Philip:
- And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalen. But 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?” The Saviour answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you like her?”
The word "companion", as it is acknowledged today in studies of anthropology originally transliterated into "spouse" or more specifically "mate". The above texts not only show that Jesus did indeed love the Magdalen more than any of his disciples but also, it subtly states the discrimination and persecution of women at the time.
--
At this point, it is necessary to mention that this is a personal and a little academically inclined take. I do not claim any of the above as absolute truth but it must be considered that this hypothesis of Jesus’ marriage to the Magdalene is not an original idea brought about by The Da Vinci Code. History is merely repeating itself – from the publication of The Last Temptation by Kazantzakis in the 1960, to the Grail Legends in the middle ages and to Holy Blood, Holy Grail in 1982 and The Da Vinci Code of today. But each time, the issue is forgotten, only to be remembered a decade after when a new book about it appears.
--
