Well I think this poll helps level the playing field for all of the others that demonstrate American stupidity. Now we can respond by saying, "Oh yeah? Maybe we don't know where Tanzania is, but 60% of Brits bought into a fiction novel."

If Dan Brown writes a thrilling novel that claims he's God and all welath should be distributed through him, would people believe that too? I think I'm in the wrong line of work.

Amusing to see so many people exercised over the idea that Jesus might have been a happily married man. After all, it was very unusual for Jewish males of the day not to be married off by about the age of 16, and that unmarried Rabbis were unheard of, not to mention how highly inappropriate it would have been for a single man to have women in his circle of followers.

And it's downright funny to think that folks would think that Opus Dei is in the assasination business...that kinda thing has been a no-no since Pope Gregory XIII!

Truthfully, there is very little overt historical evidence for or against the marriage of Jesus. The New Testament gospels do not tell us explicitly whether Jesus was married or not. They don't mention his having a wife. Nor do they state that he was unmarried.

Jesus was not required by law - either governmental or religious - to marry. And, though he was in many ways a normal Jewish man, in others ways he was quite unusual. If, when he reached the age at which young men in his day married, Jesus and his family realized that he had a special calling which would make marriage quite difficult, then he could surely have remained single. Clearly, his family was aware of his calling by His birth, His statements to them when they found Him at the temple, etc.

In Darrell Bock's book "Breaking the da Vinci Code," he argues that an unmarried Jesus is not at all improbable. Yes, most Jewish men of Jesus' day did marry, and marriage was often viewed as a fundamental human obligation, especially in light of God's command to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth." (Gen. 1:28)

However, by the first century there were recognized exceptions to this general rule. The first century Jewish writer, Philo of Alexandria, described the Essenes as those who "repudiate marriage . . . for no one of the Essenes ever marries a wife." Philo, Hypothetica, 11.14-17.

The Essenes not only escaped condemnation for their celibacy, they were often admired. Philo also wrote, "This now is the enviable system of life of these Essenes, so that not only private individuals but even mighty kings, admiring the men, venerate their sect, and increase . . . the honors which they confer on them." Id.

Another first century writer, Josephus, writes, "These Essenes reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons' children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners. They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man." Josephus, Jewish War, 2.8.2.

Josephus also notes this about the Essenes: "There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister one to another." Josephus, Antiquities, 18.1.5.

These citations clearly reveal that not all Jews of Jesus’ day considered marriage obligatory. And those who sought to avoid marriage for religious reasons were often admired rather than condemned.

Aside from the writers cited above, the Bible also does not condemn singleness. Indeed, it praises those who choose to remain single to devote themselves to the work of the Lord (e.g. 1 Cor. 7:25-38). In Matthew 19:12, Jesus explained that some people “have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven” (NIV). Note His conclusion: "The one who can accept this should accept it." It’s virtually certain that Jesus had accepted this. He had renounced marriage to fully devote Himself to the work of His heavenly Father. What’s more, since there was precedent in the first century for Jewish men to remain single for religious reasons, Jesus’ singleness would not have been condemned.

The real issue comes down to what an individual reader concludes about the veracity of the book, based on his or her understanding of the culture. Obviously, from a doctrinal point of view, if someone is persuaded by a work of fiction to reach flawed conclusions about Jesus, His life on earth, and the focus of His ministry, there is a very real danger that those readers will decide that if the book makes more sense than what they read in the Bible or in historical writings from the same period about this one thing, why would it not "make sense" to evaluate doctrinal issues by the same method?

This concern goes back to earlier threads on what difference it makes if Dan Brown's novel claims to be based on fact. We're seeing the results of something like this being translated to film and the impact it will have on people who don't know how to research the issue.

Nice, thoughtful comment, lawyerchik1. I wonder how Christianity would have evolved if the early Christians had fallen into the William E. Phipps camp...

One has to wonder why Jesus would sit back and do nothing while a bunch of guys were running around saying that he died and rose from the dead.

I think it is time for Christians to have some fun with the Da Vinci Code. I read somewhere that Dan Brown is a committed Christian. Hmmm! I wonder if this Da Vinci code is the biggest hoax ever played on the church since they supposedly found Noah's Ark on Mt Ararat. I wonder if Brown is watching all the hand wringing and denunciations and attention being paid to his book with great glee.

So I decided if you can't beat him, join him!

Not in the sense I agree with his take on history or Jesus but in the sense I like the fun he is having with us all in discovering fanciful conspiracies and using codes to hide explosive truths. I am not alone in this, the judge, Peter Smith, in the copyright infringement trial between Brown and the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail encoded a message in his judgment.

I have posted an article at my blog entitled "The Clergy Conspiracy – Decode this Post to Uncover An Explosive Truth!" I sent out the email yesterday and I have already had a number of replies or guesses at what the code spells.

Here is an additional clue. The number of letters in the sequence to be decoded is 20. Anyone want to give it a try? Click here.