In Dan Brown's best seller 'The Da Vinci Code', the reclusive author makes a meal out of the 'fact' that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. My interest in this subject doesn't focus on wether Dan is a great writer or wether Jesus and Mary were married, that is speculative, but in why it upsets the fundamentalists so much. If they say they love the man they call their Lord, why wouldn't it fill their hearts with joy to indulge the concept that it might be true? If one of your dear friends died childless and someone came along with 'proof' of a possible, previously unknown, love affair, marriage or offspring, what sort of friend would you be if you were appalled by that chapter of his life and refused to entertain the idea? So with that in mind, I ask your indulgence to look at what we know and what we should think about, if we are to have a valid opinion on a subject that seems to occupy the thoughts of billions of peoples.
The fundamentalist say the New Testament is the infallible word of God, they quote it regularly and are prepared to ram it down the throats of any unsuspecting heathen they come across. So, no matter what you think of it personally, let's scrutinize it for any references on what it has to say in regards to whether or not we have been sold a pile of horse poo or not. The first thing that occurs to me is that Jesus, as an eligible aged man, doesn't seem to have a problem associating with women, he even seems to to relate to them as human beings worthy of respect and consideration. He doesn't rebuke them for touching the hem of his garment nor condemn them for, so called, illicit behaviour, his travelling companions seemed to have wives and the Rabbis of the day, of which he was one, were expected to be married family men.
When he agrees to attend the wedding at Canna, the place where is said to have turned water into wine, he seems to hold the honoured position of the man in charge of the wine. This is a responsibility usually reserved for the groom and it was then he began to refer to Himself as the Bridegroom. After that he holidays with Mary at the home of a friend on the Sea of Galilee and rebukes the host for not wanting her in their party. She wipes his feet with her hair, anoints his head with oil, runs out to greet him when they were both staying at Martha's place and is predominant at the crucifixion, possibly with child. These are all activities one would normally attribute to a wife, so with absolutely no references in the New Testament to indicate he wasn't married, what possible reason could the fundamentalists have for not wanting us to believe he was?
Could it possibly be that they have an ulterior motive? Would they actually choose lies over truth to promote some secret agenda or is it that they are so deluded by their prejudices against women, that with no evidence what so ever, they could pass judgement on a widow and orphan's claims for legitimacy. Sadly, I must say, after looking at all the evidence and considering their historical record of bad behaviour, that the fundamentalists really don't have a case when it comes to challenging Dan Brown.