The great secret of The Da Vinci Code is that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, supposedly from the tribe of Benjamin, thus creating a powerful political alliance. As Jesus approached his death he placed the leadership of the Church into her hands but this was usurped by Peter.

Mary and her child fled to France where they ended up founding the Merovingian dynasty. They are now protected by the Priory of Sion and on and on it goes.

We are going to concern ourselves with only the first of these claims.

There are several pieces of 'evidence' that are presented in The Da Vinci Code to support this claim.

First, Langdon states that Jewish custom condemend celibacy (58.330). Therefore, so the logic goes, someone would have mentioned it in the Gospels in order to explain this unnatural lifestyle. It simply makes more sense if Jesus had been married.

This is untrue. Josephus, who we mentioned earlier, was celibate as were the Essene community responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls as was the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 7:8). This doesn't prove that Jesus was celibate but indicates that it is not so unlikely as we are led to believe.

While marriage was more common than bachelorhood it was not condemned nor was it so uncommon that it would require some explanation.

The second piece of 'evidence' is from the Gnostic Gospel of Philip which Teabing quotes while making three errors (58.331)!! After incorrectly identifying it as one of the earliest Christian documents he makes an error of omission.

The text from the Gospel of Philip is fragmented and is not as clear as Teabing makes out. Darrell Bock, in his book, Breaking The Da Vinci Code, includes the full text and an explantion in his chapter on Mary Magdalene.

And the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. [… loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […].' The brackets indicate broken locations in the manuscript where there is no reading because the manuscript is damaged. (2004, 21)

Notice that it doesn't say where he kissed her. It could have been on the cheek, the forehead or the lips.

The third mistake is the assertion that the word 'companion' is Aramaic for consort or spouse. There are several layers to this mistake.

To begin with, the text is written in Coptic and is a translation of a Greek text which makes the Aramaic scholar suferfluous. The word 'companion' in the text is a Greek loan word, koinonos which is most commonly translated 'companion'. If the author of the Gospel of Philip wanted to name Mary as Jesus' wife there were other Greek words at his disposal (Bock 2004, 23).

It is, therefore, unclear as to who Mary is related to in this passage and the exact nature of the relationship. Given the Gnostic context a spiritual closeness is more likely than a physical one.

Teabing goes on to show Sophie 'several other passages' which clearly indicate the romantic aspect of Jesus' relationship with Mary. He also states that there are 'countless references' to their union (58.333).

The reality is that there are no other passages which indicate that Jesus was romantically involved with Mary and absolutely no references to their marriage.

Not even in the Gnostic texts will you find a reference to their marriage.