Ms. Sandra Alawine seems to believe that Jesus had a wife in her advocacy for The Da Vinci Code (“Try reading book before criticizing it, she says,” Friday, March 31).

I must confess that I have not read the The Da Vinci Code. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to read it to have a rational historical view of Jesus. Before we are able to determine what is true or not about any historical figure, we must establish the criterion (standard) for such evaluation.

Standards of history are based on two components. First, we must have a witness. An account qualifies as witnessed only if the source lived contemporaneously with the person under consideration or the account relied upon other witnesses. Otherwise, all you have is some baseless assumptions.

The second component is the reliability and trustworthiness of the witness. The trustworthiness of a witness is determined by the track record of the witness. Since it is impossible to determine whether a writer has told the truth about every detail, one can get a sense of the trustworthiness of an account by the details that can be verified either by archaeology or by other records written by other contemporaries.

Biblical writers, Luke in particular, fit the criterion to be a reliable trustworthy witness, whereas writers in the second century do not qualify. We know this because it is very easy to prove that nearly every book (I believe all) of the New Testament was written in the first century.

Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. Concerning Luke, he says: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.”

In addition to this, Joseph P. Free, author of Archaeology and Bible History, wrote, “In addition to illuminating the Bible, archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts.” So whatever may be said about the fiction of The Da Vinci Code or the movie The Passion of the Christ, the above testimony shows Luke was not writing fiction when he wrote about Christ.

When we examine the Bible with a desire to know what it says, rather than trying to rewrite it and assign new biased meaning to it, we will see clearly that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, not after the order of Aaron under the law (Hebrews 7:11-17). Thus any traditions under the Mosaic law would not have any bearing upon Christ’s obligation to married as a “Jewish Rabbi.” Furthermore we find that the church is the bride of Christ in Ephesians 5:23-32. Jesus was not attempting to conform to any manmade traditions of His day. See Mark 7:5-13; Luke 6:1-11; and Matthew 21:12-13.

The purpose for which Jesus came into the world was to save us from sins (Matthew 1:21). Thus His perfect life (no lying, fornication, etc.) was all that was needed for that purpose. He did not need to sanctify anything by having a wife in the flesh. It is the burden of proof of those who advocate this idea to come forth with something of substance to sustain their idea.

Ms. Alawine shares with us some wishful thinking about Mary. The chief part is when she said, “Some scholars cite the story of Mary with the alabaster jar anointing the feet of Jesus as the most direct witness to their marriage.” If ever there was an example that shows Jesus was not married, it would be this one. These “scholars” should ponder a few questions. Since they believe this was Jesus’ wife, do you think the disciples knew it too, or was Jesus hiding it from them? Clearly, if she was married to Jesus, His close companions would know. Yet the text, Mark 14:4-5, says his disciples “were indignant” about this “waste.” Don’t you think it is pretty bold to chastise the wife of your Lord and Master right in front of His face? In my opinion, this example only shows the great lengths some “scholars” have gone to reject the deity of Jesus, the Savior of the world.

Ms. Alawine writes, “Belief in a married Jesus does not require any more faith than a resurrected Jesus.” It is not faith that would lead us to believe Jesus was married to Mary. Baseless speculation that rejects the divine record of the Bible is what is needed to accept this. The Bible says He arose. It does not say He was married.

Ms Alawine says, “Searching for answers does not make one sacrilegious; neither does writing a fictional book based on historical data.” Based on what she wrote, the book certainly was fiction and it was not based on historical data.

Inherent in the word “sacrilege” is the synonym “irreverent” or “disrespectful.” Given the weight of evidence against these fanciful ideas, I think it is very disrespectful to make these kind of suggestions. This does not seem like “searching for answers” but an irreverent attitude to “create or manufacture answers.”





Abraham Smith

Columbus