Did Jesus marry Mary Magdalene?

Editor’s note: This article by Mark Rathel, a theology professor at The Baptist College of Florida, is the second of five exploring some of the claims of The Da Vinci Code in the weeks leading up to the May 19 release of the motion picture of the same name.

GRACEVILLE (FBW)–Dan Brown, in his best seller The Da Vinci Code, sets forth the view that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. His fictional characters, Harvard professor Robert Langdon and Sir Teabing, offer the following evidence in support of the marriage (pp. 243-250). First, Jewish society considered male singleness as a violation of social decorum. Second, if Jesus were a bachelor, one of the canonical gospels would have mentioned his singleness. Third, the Gospel of Philip and other Gnostic Gospels explicitly affirm the marriage between Jesus and Mary. Fourth, the Gospel of Mary records an encounter in Mary Magdalene’s words in which Peter expressed jealousy because Mary received special revelation; Jesus intended to found the church upon special teaching given to Mary. Fourth, the Catholic Church covered up the marriage by vilifying Mary as a prostitute.

Click on image for related coverage

What does the biblical record reveal about Mary Magdalene? First, Magdalene is not her last name. Magdalene derives from Magdala, a small village on the western edge of the Sea of Galilee. Second, Jesus cast out evil spirits from Mary and other women; specifically, Jesus cast out seven demons from Mary (Luke 8:2). Third, Mary joined a group of women comprised of married and single women in the traveling entourage of Jesus (Luke 8:1-3). Since the biblical text fails to associate a male with Mary and Susanna, these women were likely single. Some of the women in this entourage financially supported the ministry of Jesus through gifts from their private funds. Fourth, Mary, along with other women, followed Jesus on his journey from Galilee to Jerusalem and performed an unspecified ministry to Jesus (Matt. 27:55-56; Mark 15:40-41). Fifth, Mary served as a witness to the crucifixion (Mark 15:40), burial (Mark 15:47) and resurrection of Jesus (John 20:11-18). The testimony of Mary, therefore, provides a crucial link in the Gospel message of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

The New Testament describes Mary as a faithful disciple of Jesus. Yet, the biblical text provides no evidence of a relationship between Jesus and Mary that even hints of a marriage relationship.

Singleness was uncommon in first century Palestine, but the phenomenon was not unknown. The first century Jewish historian Josephus, the first century Jewish philosopher Philo, and the gentile unbeliever Pliny the Elder expressed admiration for a religious movement of devout Jewish males committed to singleness. Furthermore, the Old Testament provided a precedent for an unmarried prophetic figure. God commanded Jeremiah the prophet to a life of singleness because of his message of judgment (Jer. 16:1-4). Finally, the contention of Brown’s characters that if Jesus were a bachelor, then one of the canonical gospels would have mentioned the fact of his singleness is an argument from silence. This style of argument assumes the illogical conclusion that the absence of evidence (the failure to mention Jesus’ singleness) is evidence for singleness.

The late Gnostic Gospels generally portray Mary as the patron feminine disciple. As evidence of her marriage to Jesus, Brown appeals to a translation of the Gospel of Philip that states, “Christ loved her [Mary Magdalene] more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth.” Brown bases his claim on poorly preserved text. The definitive scholarly translation of the passage states: “[…loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […].” The words inside the brackets are missing and the translator must guess as to the actual wording. Rather than affirming the marriage of Mary and Jesus, the text raises questions. Did Jesus kiss Mary on the hand, cheeks, forehead, or lips? It is a stretch to claim that the Gospel of Philip portrays Mary as the wife of Jesus.

Further, Brown claims that The Gospel of Mary teaches that Mary received special revelation from Jesus, which aroused Peter’s jealousy. Brown concludes from this special revelation given to Mary that Jesus intended to found the church upon Mary, not Peter as claimed by the Catholic Church. Brown and others use this claim of special revelation to Mary to establish two claims. First, private visions possess authority equal to or superior to the apostles. Second, private visions to women entails that Christianity cannot be male dominated in leadership. In a book in which the criticism of secret movements is a major theme, Brown prefers gospels that commit adherents to secrecy.

Finally, Brown claims that the Catholic Church covered up the marriage by vilifying Mary as a prostitute. Pope Gregory (d. 604 A.D.) indeed did claim that Mary was a former prostitute. He incorrectly assumed that Mary was the sinful woman who anointed Jesus’ feet (Lk. 7:36-50). Gregory simply misread the Scripture; he did not use the power of the Church to oppress Mary. The Catholic Church later corrected this grievous misinterpretation.

Neither the biblical text nor extra-biblical sources support the idea of Jesus’ marriage to Mary.