AFAIK, the term rabbi, or rabbouni, means teacher, and yes, he is called rabbouni a couple of times by apostles in the New Testament. Whether or not marriage was customary, much less ** required ** at that time, in order to **be** a rabbi, I do not know. That’s an important distinction.
We know that at the age of 12 he amazed the elders of the temple with his knowledge of scripture, and that at the beginning of his ministry at age 30 he stood and read from prophecy that pointed to himself as the Messiah.
Subsequently, the Pharisees set out to trip him up and denounce him at every turn, culminating in Caiphas turning him over to the Romans after that little incident involving the moneychangers, and Judas’ betrayal.
So it’s unlikely he was considered a capital R- Rabbi with any such official status in the Temple. But yes, clearly the ragtag bunch of his followers considered him a very special teacher.
And yes, I know Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute; the New Testament indicates she was a wealthy woman who had suffered, and been healed of “seven demons” by Jesus. In gratitude, she joined among a group of women who “provided from out of their means” to support Jesus’ ministry.
That does not mean they were married.
Some gnostic writings of the 4th century suggest Mary Magdalene was closer to Jesus than the other apostles, hinting at kissing and so forth.
Also there are numerous shrines honoring Mary Magdalene in what is now the south of France; according to some legends that is where she spent her final days.
The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail incorporate these two items amongst a whole lot of other made-up pure-dee folderol to deduce that the “holy grail” was not, as we’ve been told, the cup from which Christ drank at the last supper, but instead (the authors claim) the bloodline of Jesus in the Carthaginians (or Merovingians—it’s been awhile since I read it) and that Jesus’ physical heirs are alive today and plotting world domination.
So I stand by my original assertion that the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail is preposterous nonsense.
I've read it too. . . and there are a lot of leaps of logic and assumptions of facts not truly in evidence. . . and some "facts" that are made up out of whole cloth.