Mary Magdalene
© 2007 Dr. Barbara Thiering
The information about Mary Magdalene has been given in various contexts in other parts of this site, but I have been asked to bring it all together in a biography. It is undoubtedly a matter of the greatest popular interest at the present time. What is given here is the historical evidence, to be distinguished from the myth that is rapidly forming.
To begin at the beginning:
Christianity began in the movement called Essene, one of the major world-views among Jews in the 1st centuries BC and AD. They had been very much influenced by Greek thought, which regarded sexual activity as debasing.
Essenes believed that the holiest kind of life was one that renounced sex and marriage altogether, practiced by monastics and hermits. But they had another purpose also, to preserve the great dynasties of the Zadokite priests and the Davids, who had once ruled the Jerusalem temple but had now lost power. They solved the problem by instituting a second order, one that allowed sex only for the sake of having sons.
The dynasts lived normally in monasteries, but when they reached their late thirties they left temporarily for a marriage, preferably with a young girl in her teens. A first wedding permitted them to live together for a trial marriage, then when the girl was three months pregnant, there was a second wedding from which there could be no divorce. The man returned to the monastery after the birth, to come back to his wife only after intervals of years for further conceptions. The girl lived in a female community, continuing as a nun.
The rigors of the sexual discipline caused occasional breaches. One such lapse gave rise to the story of the Virgin Birth. Joseph was a descendant of the Davids, destined to regain the kingship if the Essenes achieved their aim of returning to power. He had entered the long betrothal period preceding the first wedding, with the young girl Mary. Only a few months before their wedding, during the restrained courtship that was permitted, they had given way to passion, and Jesus was conceived. From the strict Essene viewpoint he was illegitimate, and could not inherit. From a more liberal viewpoint such as was held by some asssociated ascetics, he was legitimate, and their political purposes would be served if he became king. By the use of double meanings, the word Virgin could simply mean a nun, as Mary had been. Popular Greek thought welcomed the story of the Virgin Birth that was composed to cover what had actually happened.
Jesus when he reached maturity was bound by the same rule, and there was no pre-nuptial sex in his case. His bride was Mary Magdalene. Several facts about her become apparent from the pesher, the device for giving yet concealing the actual history. One was that she was 27 years old when she married Jesus, not a young girl, and there is an indication that she had been married previously and was a widow. She had been married to a priest, and so came within the rules for permissible Essene marriages.
The other fact about her, expressed by saying that she had had “seven demons” was that she belonged to the political party of the Magians, and she shared their vigorous militant ideals. Magians were Essenes who had scholarly schools in the Diaspora, but held looser views on morality that earned them the title of “seekers-after-smooth-things”. Its leader in the time of Jesus was Simon Magus, and Jesus and Mary Magdalene were close friends of Simon and his mistress Helena. Helena like Simon appears under many pseudonyms, one of them Martha.
In March 33 AD, the season of the crucifixion, Mary Magdalene was three months pregnant with Jesus’ child. Their second wedding took place on the Wednesday before Good Friday, Mary figuring as the woman with the alabaster cruse of ointment. Jesus underwent crucifixion for the reason that he was a political associate of the anti-Roman militants Simon Magus and Judas Iscariot. Jesus and Simon were rescued by a conspiracy of their friends. From that central experience the story of the Resurrection arose. It had the same character as the Virgin Birth, told in a double way that revealed yet concealed what had actually happened.
A daughter was born to Mary Magdalene in September 33 AD. She was named Tamar, the name of the virgin daughter of King David. In its Greek form it was Damaris. She appeared under that name at a later stage of Acts, at the time of her marriage to Paul, who by then was the closest confidant of Jesus.
Two sons were born next, at the intervals of time required by the Essene rule. Jesus Justus, named after his father with the added title meaning that he was the David crown prince, was born in June, 37 AD, and another son, whose name is not given, was born in March 44 AD.
That same season, March 44 AD, was that of the real climax of the history. It was the season of the assassination of Agrippa I, whose presence during the gospel period had been one of the factors causing Simon Magus and Jesus to be at enmity with him. His young son Agrippa II became his successor. He had been tutored by Paul, with the result that Christianity became established in his court. At the same time, the tolerance of the benign emperor Claudius caused many to change their politics. Jesus with Paul joined the pro-Roman court of Agrippa II, while Simon Magus remained with the militants, operating from their base in Damascus, but working also on the Tiber Island in Rome.
For Mary Magdalene, committed to the military method of spreading Judaism against Roman paganism, Jesus had betrayed all they had worked for. She separated from him and initiated a divorce, soon after the birth of their third child. The legalities of the divorce were carried out by Paul, who as a former Pharisee condoned divorce. He also officiated at the second wedding of Jesus, to Lydia. It took place in Philippi in Macedonia, for the Christian party was by now based in Europe, looking to Rome rather than Jerusalem.
What happened to Mary Magdalene? Since Simon Magus remained active in Rome, in a rival mission to that of the Christians under Peter, it is likely that she took comfort by remaining with Simon, in the form of mission that she believed was the true one. The history of John Mark gives a clue to her movements. He had been the “eunuch” for Jesus’ first marriage, a celibate who acted for both husband and wife during their separations. He departed from the Christians at the time of the schism with Simon Magus, and had no further association with Jesus, his place as “eunuch” being taken by Luke for the second marriage. In 58 AD John Mark under his own name of Eutychus was reconciled with Paul and the Christians, as told in the “miracle” of the “raising from the dead” of Eutychus. It is possible that Mary Magdalene had died, although of course there could be other reasons for the change.
Had she gone to the south of France, as recent writers exploiting their version of the hidden history have claimed? My answer would be No, when the evidenced political history is taken into account.
There would be good reason for believing that the descendants of Jesus were driven from Rome to the south of France at the time of the Diocletian persecutions of the 90’s. Estates of the Herods had been established there, in Lyons and Vienne, by earlier Herods in their banishment. Mission would be continued from there, in the revised form that had been brought about by Jesus and Paul.
But they remained remote mission stations, bases for a further drive into the darkest untamed regions of the world such as France, and that barbaric region at the ends of the earth, England. The great leaders of the ascetic orders did not risk going there themselves, but sent servants using their name because they taught their doctrine. Joseph of Arimathea, who was James the brother of Jesus, did not go to England himself. He died in Jerusalem in 62 AD. But he had sent a servant who formed communities holding a sacred meal, with the revered cup of wine that signified initiation.
Mary Magdalene would have remained the titular head of female ascetic communities in the Magian tradition, stemming from some of the Herodian houses in the south of France. They had been established very early, and would have looked to her as their remote great leader, a visionary figure from whom their inspiration came. That would be the reason for the persistence of the tradition about her in those regions. The slender clues have, however, been built up in the interests of the lucrative tourist trade, a familiar phenomenon in our own times.
With better intentions have been those feminists who have seen reason for a cult of Mary Magdalene, as a corrective to the denigration of women that has always been practiced by the Church. Some gnostic literature upholds her as a teacher, and she would have filled that role because women were appointed as the instructors of Gentiles in their first stages of education towards initiation. Gentiles were called “children”, to whom the women were “Mothers”.
But have we not moved beyond the cult of human beings, both of Jesus or of any female? Is it not a form of idolatry to worship representatives of ourselves? “God” is far greater than the human. We are now in the midst of one of the major theological crises, the challenging of the notion of “God” that itself is a human construct. It also has its regrettable oversimplifications, but it is timely.
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_Magdalene.html
Visualizzazione post con etichetta marymagdalene. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta marymagdalene. Mostra tutti i post
lunedì 4 febbraio 2008
venerdì 1 febbraio 2008
REVISIONING MARY MAGDALENE BY KIMBERLY BURGE
Reviews
Revisioning Mary Magdalene
An opportunity for more inclusive expressions in the church.
by Kimberly Burge
"Mary stood outside the tomb, crying" (John 20:11). My NIV Study Bible has a footnote for this verse: "Perhaps Jesus appeared first to Mary because she needed him most at that time." Apparently justification is needed by these scholars for Jesus' decision to share the good news of his resurrection with Mary Magdalene; after all, as a woman, her testimony could not hold up in a court of law. (I'm still searching the footnotes on why Jesus wanted to appear to Peter, James, and John.)
Rereading this passage recently, I was reminded of what a difficult time Christians have had for 2,000 years accepting and acknowledging the enormous role Mary Magdalene played in the Easter story, and indeed throughout Christ's ministry. Mary Magdalene has been canonized, revered, modeled, reviled, blamed, excused, feared, and dismissed by church leaders and the faithful alike. She has been idealized as the penitent prostitute (even though passages only refer to seven demons being driven from her); this for a woman who appears in only a handful of scriptural verses. Now several studies are taking a new look at this enigmatic woman and the complicated roles thrust upon her by the church and society.
Susan Haskins' book, Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor, presents an exhaustive study of the cult and mythology that has surrounded this "apostle to the apostles." Beginning with the references in each gospel, Haskins shows how Mary Magdalene's story became interwoven with other (often unnamed) women in the Bible, particularly Mary of Bethany and, in Luke's gospel, the woman—a sinner, assumed by many interpretations to be a prostitute, although again that is not at all clear—who anoints Christ's feet. Hence the subsequent, and inaccurate, depiction of Mary Magdalene as a repentant prostitute.
Pope Gregory the Great, at the end of the sixth century, did his part in creating the muddle by declaring that these three women were one and the same, thus reducing the number of women characters in the scriptures and re-creating them to serve the patriarchal needs of the church. From such a foundation, Haskins meticulously traces the development of Mary's public persona—and the general attitudes toward women's sexuality—in art, literature, church pronouncements, and public perceptions.
Perhaps most revealing of these social judgments are the artistic depictions of Mary presented in the book. Nearly 100 illustrations—from a wall painting, circa A.D. 240, of Mary approaching the tomb to a 1991 poster advertising a Louvre exhibit and featuring Gregor Erhardt's naked figure of the saint—comprise an extraordinary range of portrayals that allows Haskins further comment. Haskins pays particular attention to the frequency and ways in which Mary was depicted naked, most often with explicitly erotic overtones that occasionally, in the case of Victorian times, for example, degenerate into pornography.
The inclusion of all of these illustrations certainly augments Haskins' development of her subject. The detail from one in particular, Botticelli's "Lamentation," has particularly haunted me. In this painting of the Pieta grouping, Mary Magdalene "cradles [Christ's] head in her arms, her face pressed against his, her hair falling around him, an image both intimate and tender." Painfully so, I found. The image of Mary, eyes shut tightly, her mouth slightly open, exhaling slowly (I imagine), her breath resting on Christ's lifeless body, speaks to me about Mary's devotion, strength, and commitment to her Lord, in life and death and resurrection. That characterization is one I strive to emulate in my own life, perhaps far more than the weeping, repentant prostitute.
Haskins' study is both fascinating and illuminating. I learned here that the term "maudlin"—defined as "weakly and tearfully sentimental, especially when drunk"—crept into the English language as a variation of the medieval French pronunciation of Magdalene, although Mary Magdalene was never described as drunk in the scriptures.
While the academic and comprehensive nature of the work sometimes makes for a slow read, the dignity and intensity with which Haskins treats her subject made me want to continue on the journey to present times, when new revisionist studies of Mary Magdalene reveal "the true feminine model, one which, according to the gospels, embodies strength, courage, and independence." Haskins writes, "If the ‘victimization' of Mary Magdalene can stand as a metaphor for the historically subordinate position of women in Christianity, now that the woman so long regarded as a penitent sinner has been shown in her true light, then it may be that Christianity's view of woman in history itself requires some kind of radical revision."
While Haskins' book provides a solid grounding in the evolution of this pre-eminent New Testament figure, two other resources expound on the role played by both her and the other early women leaders of Christ's church. The Gospel According to Mary, by Miriam Therese Winter, tells the very familiar story, parables, and teachings of Jesus, but through the imaginary eyes of a first-century woman, using as her sources the female disciples, "women who had been transformed by Jesus."
The book remains faithful to the gospel message and parallels carefully the stories told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—with the explicit participation of the women highlighted. The healing miracles recounted here particularly illustrate both the determined faith of women who followed Jesus and his limitless compassion, as does his interaction with both women and men throughout this "gospel."
Jesus' reinstatement of Peter is especially poignant from this point of view. Questioning Peter about his capacity to love, Jesus continues to ask, "Peter, do you know that I love you? Forgive yourself, as I have forgiven you." Finally, Jesus pierces Peter's heart: "Can you love yourself as I have loved you?" This "evangelist" writes, "Relieved of his crushing burden of guilt, Peter broke down and wept, saying, ‘Help me to learn to love myself as much as I love you.'" In this version, the love of God flows freely and abundantly in unabashed form. Winter's retelling would weave beautifully into any liturgy or prayer service.
In Mary Ellen Ashcroft's The Magdalene Gospel, storytelling provides the forum for the exchange of these women's experiences. Again a fictionalized account, the women followers are gathered together the day after Jesus' death, grieving, hearing, remembering, and searching for healing. Their stories are told with emotion, raw and unchecked. We hear Mary Magdalene's account, but also those of Mary the mother of Christ; Rhoda, the name given to the woman bent over for 18 years, whom Jesus healed; and Mary and Martha of Bethany. Ashcroft honors these women by allowing their stories to be told from their own points of view.
The tone of the work is, understandably, dark, but occasionally creeps dangerously close to hopelessness. From the vantage point of knowing how the story ends, I found myself wishing that I could have listened to these women speak with the joy of the resurrection. I also found attempts to make the language contemporary sometimes left it stilted instead, while the italicized interjections relaying action and others' reactions to each woman's story was often unnecessarily intrusive. But I think this could make a beautifully staged dramatic piece, and I appreciate the inclusion of so many women usually left in the shadows.
I've just recently turned to Mary Magdalene—disciple of Christ, the woman of the scriptures, not the representation promulgated by the church—as a source of inspiration for my own Christian journey. I'm finding in her, and many other biblical women, characters that are complex and multidimensional, and faith that is both fierce and sustaining. Susan Haskins closes her impassioned book by asking, "Nietzsche wrote that every culture needed myth and was impoverished when it lost or lacked myth. In losing the myth of Mary Magdalene, however, has not our culture not only nothing to lose, but also everything to gain?" As I pray for and work in my own way to see Christ's treatment of women demonstrated more fully in my church, I need Mary the disciple, not the myth.
The Gospel According to Mary: A New Testament for Women. By Miriam Therese Winter. Crossroad Publishing Co., 1993.
The Magdalene Gospel. By Mary Ellen Ashcroft. Doubleday, 1995.
Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor. By Susan Haskins. Riverhead Books, 1993.
Kimberly Burge was an executive assistant at Sojourners when this article appeared.
Revisioning Mary Magdalene. by Kimberly Burge. Sojourners Magazine, March-April 1997 (Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 51-53). Reviews.
(Source: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9703&article=970332a)
www.sojo.net
Sojourners Magazine • 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 • Washington DC 20010
Phone: (202) 328-8842 • Fax: (202) 328-8757
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&mode=printer_friendly&issue=soj9703&article=970332a
Revisioning Mary Magdalene
An opportunity for more inclusive expressions in the church.
by Kimberly Burge
"Mary stood outside the tomb, crying" (John 20:11). My NIV Study Bible has a footnote for this verse: "Perhaps Jesus appeared first to Mary because she needed him most at that time." Apparently justification is needed by these scholars for Jesus' decision to share the good news of his resurrection with Mary Magdalene; after all, as a woman, her testimony could not hold up in a court of law. (I'm still searching the footnotes on why Jesus wanted to appear to Peter, James, and John.)
Rereading this passage recently, I was reminded of what a difficult time Christians have had for 2,000 years accepting and acknowledging the enormous role Mary Magdalene played in the Easter story, and indeed throughout Christ's ministry. Mary Magdalene has been canonized, revered, modeled, reviled, blamed, excused, feared, and dismissed by church leaders and the faithful alike. She has been idealized as the penitent prostitute (even though passages only refer to seven demons being driven from her); this for a woman who appears in only a handful of scriptural verses. Now several studies are taking a new look at this enigmatic woman and the complicated roles thrust upon her by the church and society.
Susan Haskins' book, Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor, presents an exhaustive study of the cult and mythology that has surrounded this "apostle to the apostles." Beginning with the references in each gospel, Haskins shows how Mary Magdalene's story became interwoven with other (often unnamed) women in the Bible, particularly Mary of Bethany and, in Luke's gospel, the woman—a sinner, assumed by many interpretations to be a prostitute, although again that is not at all clear—who anoints Christ's feet. Hence the subsequent, and inaccurate, depiction of Mary Magdalene as a repentant prostitute.
Pope Gregory the Great, at the end of the sixth century, did his part in creating the muddle by declaring that these three women were one and the same, thus reducing the number of women characters in the scriptures and re-creating them to serve the patriarchal needs of the church. From such a foundation, Haskins meticulously traces the development of Mary's public persona—and the general attitudes toward women's sexuality—in art, literature, church pronouncements, and public perceptions.
Perhaps most revealing of these social judgments are the artistic depictions of Mary presented in the book. Nearly 100 illustrations—from a wall painting, circa A.D. 240, of Mary approaching the tomb to a 1991 poster advertising a Louvre exhibit and featuring Gregor Erhardt's naked figure of the saint—comprise an extraordinary range of portrayals that allows Haskins further comment. Haskins pays particular attention to the frequency and ways in which Mary was depicted naked, most often with explicitly erotic overtones that occasionally, in the case of Victorian times, for example, degenerate into pornography.
The inclusion of all of these illustrations certainly augments Haskins' development of her subject. The detail from one in particular, Botticelli's "Lamentation," has particularly haunted me. In this painting of the Pieta grouping, Mary Magdalene "cradles [Christ's] head in her arms, her face pressed against his, her hair falling around him, an image both intimate and tender." Painfully so, I found. The image of Mary, eyes shut tightly, her mouth slightly open, exhaling slowly (I imagine), her breath resting on Christ's lifeless body, speaks to me about Mary's devotion, strength, and commitment to her Lord, in life and death and resurrection. That characterization is one I strive to emulate in my own life, perhaps far more than the weeping, repentant prostitute.
Haskins' study is both fascinating and illuminating. I learned here that the term "maudlin"—defined as "weakly and tearfully sentimental, especially when drunk"—crept into the English language as a variation of the medieval French pronunciation of Magdalene, although Mary Magdalene was never described as drunk in the scriptures.
While the academic and comprehensive nature of the work sometimes makes for a slow read, the dignity and intensity with which Haskins treats her subject made me want to continue on the journey to present times, when new revisionist studies of Mary Magdalene reveal "the true feminine model, one which, according to the gospels, embodies strength, courage, and independence." Haskins writes, "If the ‘victimization' of Mary Magdalene can stand as a metaphor for the historically subordinate position of women in Christianity, now that the woman so long regarded as a penitent sinner has been shown in her true light, then it may be that Christianity's view of woman in history itself requires some kind of radical revision."
While Haskins' book provides a solid grounding in the evolution of this pre-eminent New Testament figure, two other resources expound on the role played by both her and the other early women leaders of Christ's church. The Gospel According to Mary, by Miriam Therese Winter, tells the very familiar story, parables, and teachings of Jesus, but through the imaginary eyes of a first-century woman, using as her sources the female disciples, "women who had been transformed by Jesus."
The book remains faithful to the gospel message and parallels carefully the stories told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—with the explicit participation of the women highlighted. The healing miracles recounted here particularly illustrate both the determined faith of women who followed Jesus and his limitless compassion, as does his interaction with both women and men throughout this "gospel."
Jesus' reinstatement of Peter is especially poignant from this point of view. Questioning Peter about his capacity to love, Jesus continues to ask, "Peter, do you know that I love you? Forgive yourself, as I have forgiven you." Finally, Jesus pierces Peter's heart: "Can you love yourself as I have loved you?" This "evangelist" writes, "Relieved of his crushing burden of guilt, Peter broke down and wept, saying, ‘Help me to learn to love myself as much as I love you.'" In this version, the love of God flows freely and abundantly in unabashed form. Winter's retelling would weave beautifully into any liturgy or prayer service.
In Mary Ellen Ashcroft's The Magdalene Gospel, storytelling provides the forum for the exchange of these women's experiences. Again a fictionalized account, the women followers are gathered together the day after Jesus' death, grieving, hearing, remembering, and searching for healing. Their stories are told with emotion, raw and unchecked. We hear Mary Magdalene's account, but also those of Mary the mother of Christ; Rhoda, the name given to the woman bent over for 18 years, whom Jesus healed; and Mary and Martha of Bethany. Ashcroft honors these women by allowing their stories to be told from their own points of view.
The tone of the work is, understandably, dark, but occasionally creeps dangerously close to hopelessness. From the vantage point of knowing how the story ends, I found myself wishing that I could have listened to these women speak with the joy of the resurrection. I also found attempts to make the language contemporary sometimes left it stilted instead, while the italicized interjections relaying action and others' reactions to each woman's story was often unnecessarily intrusive. But I think this could make a beautifully staged dramatic piece, and I appreciate the inclusion of so many women usually left in the shadows.
I've just recently turned to Mary Magdalene—disciple of Christ, the woman of the scriptures, not the representation promulgated by the church—as a source of inspiration for my own Christian journey. I'm finding in her, and many other biblical women, characters that are complex and multidimensional, and faith that is both fierce and sustaining. Susan Haskins closes her impassioned book by asking, "Nietzsche wrote that every culture needed myth and was impoverished when it lost or lacked myth. In losing the myth of Mary Magdalene, however, has not our culture not only nothing to lose, but also everything to gain?" As I pray for and work in my own way to see Christ's treatment of women demonstrated more fully in my church, I need Mary the disciple, not the myth.
The Gospel According to Mary: A New Testament for Women. By Miriam Therese Winter. Crossroad Publishing Co., 1993.
The Magdalene Gospel. By Mary Ellen Ashcroft. Doubleday, 1995.
Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor. By Susan Haskins. Riverhead Books, 1993.
Kimberly Burge was an executive assistant at Sojourners when this article appeared.
Revisioning Mary Magdalene. by Kimberly Burge. Sojourners Magazine, March-April 1997 (Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 51-53). Reviews.
(Source: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9703&article=970332a)
www.sojo.net
Sojourners Magazine • 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 • Washington DC 20010
Phone: (202) 328-8842 • Fax: (202) 328-8757
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&mode=printer_friendly&issue=soj9703&article=970332a
MARY MAGDALENE FROM BREAKING THE DA VINCI CODE
PART IV
JESUS AND MARY MAGDALENE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Da Vinci Code (pp. 247-248)
“‘The woman they are speaking of,’ Teabing explained, ‘is Mary Magdalene. Peter is jealous of her.’ ‘Because Jesus preferred Mary?’ ‘Not only that. The stakes are far greater than mere affection. At this point in the gospels, Jesus suspects that He will soon be captured and crucified. So he gives Mary Magdalene instructions on how to carry on His Church after He is gone. As a result, Peter expresses his discontent over playing second fiddle to a woman. I daresay Peter was something of a sexist.’ Sophie was trying to keep up. ‘This Saint Peter, the rock on which Jesus built His Church?’ ‘The same, except for one catch. According to these unaltered gospels, it was not Peter to whom Christ gave directions with which to establish the Christian Church. It was Mary Magdalene.’ Sophie looked at him. ‘You’re saying the Christian Church was to be carried on by a woman?’ ‘That was the plan. Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene.’”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key figure in “The Da Vinci Code’s” grand conspiracy theory is Mary Magdalen. The novel contends that Mary Magdalen was not only a devoted follower of the Lord, but was in fact His lover, His wife, and the mother of His child. It was the Lord’s intent, the novelist insists, that His wife and lover become the leader of the Christian Church after His death. The male leadership of the early church, we are told, fiercely resented the prominence of Mary and she was marginalized and ignored in the years which followed the Lord’s death. That pattern culminated when Constantine and his co-conspirators found it necessary to transform Christianity into a patriarchal religion based upon the identification of Jesus as the Son of God. The facts of Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalen, their sexual relationship with one another, the children which were produced by that relationship, and Christ’s intent that Mary become the leader of His Church were then brutally suppressed and denied. Dan Brown goes so far as to describe this effort as “the greatest cover-up in human history.” (Lutzer, p.49) The real truth about the man Jesus, His wife Mary, and the children which their marriage produced was kept alive through secret organizations and cryptic codes focusing on the ancient legend of the “Holy Grail.” Leonardo Da Vinci was supposedly one of the heroes who helped to perpetuate this legacy through his art - thus the novel’s title “The Da Vinci Code.”
In the Gospels of the New Testament Mary Magdalene is one of the most prominent of the Galilean women who followed Jesus in the course of His public ministry. Mary was from the town of Magdala, an important agricultural, fishing and trading center on the southern end of the Sea of Galilee. The Greek name of this town was Tarichaea and its population was predominantly Gentile. Josephus notes that the town had its own hippodrome and was notorious among the Jews for its immorality. Mary is introduced in the Gospel of Luke in this way:
“The Twelve were with Him and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” (Luke 8:2-3)
The seven demons from whom the Lord had delivered Mary Magdalene are also mentioned in Mark 16:9. Mary was included among the courageous core of women who followed Jesus to the cross and remained by His side throughout His execution and burial.
“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed Him and cared for His needs.” (Mark 15:40-41; cf. John 19:25)
“So Joseph brought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.” (Mark 15:47)
On Easter Sunday morning. Mary is among the women who come out to complete the burial preparations only to discover the tomb empty and the body missing (cf. Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1;Luke 24:10). John’s Gospel reports that Mary remained outside of the grave weeping and became the first person to encounter the risen Lord Jesus:
“Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside of the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb, and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. They asked her, ‘Woman, why are you crying?’ ‘They have taken my Lord away,’ she said, ‘ and I don’t know where they have put Him.’ At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. ‘Woman,’ He said, ‘why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?’ Thinking He was the gardener, she said, ‘Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have put Him, and I will get Him.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Mary.’ She turned toward Him and cried out in Aramaic, ‘Rabboni!’ (which means Teacher). Jesus said, ‘Do not hold on to Me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to My brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to My Father and to your Father, to My God and your God.’ Mary Magdala went to the disciples with the news: ‘I have seen the Lord!’ and she told them that He had said these things to her.” (John 19:10-18)
Not only is Mary the first person to encounter the risen Christ, but she is also given the responsibility to announce the resurrection to the apostles who remain in hiding. Dan Brown contends that the Biblical Gospels are nothing more than a conglomeration of fictions concocted by a committee of male chauvinists. These evil conspirators, we are told, invented the concept of all male apostles to contradict and deny the fact that Jesus had actually entrusted the leadership of His Church to Mary Magdalene. If any of this nonsense were true, it is impossible to imagine why the Gospels would continue to portray Mary Magdalene in such a positive fashion. She was indeed, as the ancient fathers of the Church declared, “the apostle to the apostles.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Da Vinci Code - (pp. 244, 247)
“Teabing clarified, ‘The early Church needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being. Therefore any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus’ life had to be omitted form the Bible’... ‘But how could Christ have a bloodline, unless...?’ She paused and looked at Langdon. Langdon smiled softly, ‘Unless they had a child.’ Sophie stood transfixed. ‘Behold,’ Teabing proclaimed. ‘The greatest cover-up in human history. Not only was Jesus Christ married, but He was a father. My dear, Mary Magdalene was the Holy Vessel. She was the chalice that bore the royal bloodline of Jesus Christ. She was the womb that bore the lineage from which the sacred fruit sprang forth.’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only documentation for any leadership role attributed to Mary Magdalen comes from gnostic writings of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, most notably the famous Nag Hammadi collection uncovered in 1945. (Cf. Notes pp. 29ff.) The dates of the Greek originals upon which the Coptic Nag Hammadi documents were based has been the subject of intense debate among scholars. Those sympathetic to neo-gnosticism often make fabulous claims about the reliability and the antiquity of these writings. They see in these documents a way to undermine and deny the content of historic Christianity. However, responsible historians, without an ideological axe to grind, reject those enthusiastic endorsements and strident attacks as unwarranted. Dr. Phillip Jenkins, of Pennsylvania State University, sums up the consensus of academic opinion:
“In most cases, all that can be known for certain about a given Nag Hammadi document is that the particular manuscript was written before the late fourth century, when it was concealed: the date of composition remains highly uncertain. Conceivably, even at this very late date, the ink might not have been too dry on some of these writings. While the canonical gospels were completed by 100 or so, it is unlikely that any of the Nag Hammadi materials date from much before 150, and most probably were written between about 150 and 250, or later. Indeed, the fact that we find so many efforts in the late second and early third century to specify the orthodox canon may indicate that it was in exactly these years that spurious and heterodox works were pouring forth from their creators in unprecedented numbers.” (Jenkins, pp. 92-93)
While the sources of these texts appear to have been written at least 100 years after the books of the canonical New Testament, they do provide an intriguing glimpse into 3nd Century gnostic thought. Most of the works are “pseudographical,” that is, falsely attributed to authors of the apostolic age to enhance their own authority and stature. At the same time, they reveal the gnostic’s disdain for history and the bewildering, often contradictory, varieties of gnostic philosophy. There is very little new historical information in these writings and the positions taken in one work are often specifically rejected in another. The contrast between these later works composed on the heretical fringes of the early Church and the books of the New Testament - consistent in content and rich in history - is overwhelming.
Both of the unfortunate patterns typical of gnostic writings - anti-historical bias and inconsistency - are evident in the Nag Hammadi documents’ treatment of Mary Magdalen. No additional details about her life or background are provided, and the perspective which they present on any potential leadership role which she may have played in the early church is ambiguous at best.
Mary fares best in “The Gospel of Phillip” (c. A.D. 225). The text describes her as the “companion” of Jesus - “Three Marys walked with the lord; His mother, His sister, and Mary Magdala, His companion.” (Barnstone, p. 267) Later we are told that the other disciples objected to the prominence accorded to Mary Magdalen. In response, Jesus indicates that she is more spiritually perceptive than any of the other disciples: “They said, ‘Why do you love her more than us?’ The savior answered, saying to them, ‘Why do I not love you like her? If a blind man and one who sees are together in darkness, they are the same. When the light comes, the one who sees will see light. The blind man stays in the darkness.’” (Barnstone, p. 273) Another of the gnostic writings that has survived outside of the Nag Hammadi collection is actually attributed to Mary Magdalen, although most scholars believe that “The Gospel of Mary” was not composed until after A.D. 200. Only fragmentary pieces of this text remain which makes its interpretation all the more difficult. But what’s left is enough to cause considerable controversy. Mary recounts the special visions which Jesus had bestowed upon her alone: “Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brothers, ‘Do not weep, and do not grieve or be irresolute, for his grace will be fully with you and will protect you. Rather, let us praise his greatness. He prepared us and made us truly human.’ When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the good and they began to discuss the words of the savior. Peter said to Mary, ‘Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than other women. Tell us the words of the Savior that you remember, which you know and we do not. We have not heard them.’” (Barnstone, p. 479) Peter’s attitude evidently changed after Mary had spoken as he and his brother Andrew objected to the concept of the Lord granting revelation through the voice of a woman. This provokes a spirited debate among the apostles: “When Mary said this, she fell silent since the Lord had spoken to her of all these things. But Andrew answered, saying to the brothers, ‘Say what you think about what she said. I do not believe that the savior said this. These teachings are of strange ideas.’ Peter also opposed her about all this. He asked the others about the savior, ‘Did he really speak to a woman secretly, without our knowledge and not openly? Are we to turn and listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?’ Then Mary wept and said to Peter, ‘My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think I concocted this in my heart, or I am lying about the savior? Levi answered, saying to Peter, ‘Peter, you are always angry. Now I see you contending against this woman as against an adversary. If the savior made her worthy, who are you to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us. We should be ashamed and put on the perfect person and be with him as he commanded us, and we should preach the gospel, without making any rule or law other than what the savior said.’” (Barnstone, p. 481) In the second half of the 3rd Century a gnostic gospel entitled “Pistis Sophia” (“The Wisdom of Faith”) was composed which also accords a primary leadership role to Mary Magdalen. Jesus announces to His disciples that Mary and St. John are to lead His Church: “But Mary Magdalene and John the Virgin will surpass all my disciples and all men who shall receive mysteries in the Ineffable, they will be on my right hand and on my left, and I am they and they are I.” (Schneemelcher, p. 366) As in the other texts, Peter expresses the resentment and frustration of the other apostles: “My Lord, we are not able to suffer this woman who takes the opportunity from us, and does not allow any one of us to speak, but she speaks many times.” (Brock, pp. 85-86) Mary notes Peter’s opposition to her role as she complains to Jesus: “My Lord, my mind is understanding at all times that I should come forward at any time and give the interpretation of the words which Pistis Sophia spoke, but I am afraid of Peter, for he threatens me and hates our kind.” (Brock , p. 86)
And yet, at the same time, other prominent gnostic writings like “The Gospel of Thomas,” written in the mid 2nd Century, present a somewhat less flattering picture of the role of Mary: “Simon Cephas said to them, ‘Mary should leave us. Females are not worthy of life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I shall guide her to make her male, so she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’” (Barnstone, p. 69)
The gnostic writings which advocate a major apostolic role for Mary Magdalen were written in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries when gnostic heretics were locked in bitter controversy with the defenders of orthodox Christianity. The twenty-seven books of the canonical New Testament had been well established by this time throughout the Church as the definitive source of Christian doctrine. This explains the gnostic attempt to attribute their writings to apostolic authors who had been dead for centuries. One of the major selling points of the gnostic heresy was the argument that gnosticism liberated women from the repressive constraints placed upon them by the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. Gnostic women were allowed and encouraged to do the very things which they could not do in Christian churches. The effectiveness of that strategy can be seen in the classic book “Against Heresies” written by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon in the Roman province of Gaul at the end of the 2nd Century. Irenaeus lamented the susceptibility of Christian women to these clever falsehoods from a gnostic teacher in his region named Marcus. Marcus would entice the women to worship the goddess and join with him in consecrating the elements of her sacrament and prophesying in her name before the congregation of his followers.
“By there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself as having improved upon his master. He is a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above...Handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate them in his presence...He devotes himself especially to women and to those such as are well-bred, and elegantly attired, and of great wealth, whom he frequently seeks to draw away as these by addressing them in such seductive words as these, ‘I am eager to make thee a partaker of my Grace...Behold Grace has descended upon thee, open thy mouth and prophesy.’...Some of his disciples too, addicting themselves to the same practices have deceived many silly women and defiled them.” (ANF,1, p. 334-335)
Mary Magdalen, as the most prominent female in the canonical gospels, became the convenient foil of these attacks upon historic Christianity. By presenting her as the beneficiary of unique spiritual insight, designated by Jesus as a preeminent leader of His Church, the gnostics sought to undermine and overcome the authority of the male leadership of orthodoxy and transform the Christian religion. Dan Brown’s uncritical embrace of these questionable and contradictory writings makes him the darling of feminists and neo-gnostics everywhere. That is evidently much more important to him than historical accuracy or credibility. The assertion of an apostolic role for Mary Magdalen is without support in Scripture or the traditions of historic Christianity. The sources upon which The Da Vinci Code selectively depends were written long after the completion of the Bible by false teachers far out of the fringes of the Christian faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Da Vinci Deception - (pp. 244,247)
“Teabing clarified, ‘The early Church needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being. Therefore any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus’ life had to be omitted from the Bible’... ‘But how could Christ have had a bloodline, unless?... ‘She paused and looked at Langdon. Langdon smiled softly, ‘Unless they had a child.’ Sophie stood transfixed. ‘Behold,’ Teabing proclaimed, ‘The greatest cover-up in human history. Not only was Jesus Christ married, but He was a father. My dear, Mary Magdalene was the Holy Vessel. She was the chalice that bore the royal bloodline of Jesus Christ. She was the womb that bore the lineage from which the sacred fruit sprang forth.’”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assertion that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ lover, His wife, and the mother of His children is the central component in The Da Vinci Code’s conspiracy theory. This, we are told again and again, is the great secret which Constantine suppressed, which institutional Christendom sought to eliminate through bloody persecution and witch-hunt for centuries, and which the Renaissance genius Leonardo da Vinci both concealed and conveyed in the masterpieces of his art.
This claim is not new to Dan Brown or his Da Vinci Code. It has been repeatedly advanced in recent years by New Age mystics and amateur conspiracy theorists. Dan Brown’s personal favorite appears to be a 1982 occult classic entitled “Holy Blood - Holy Grail” by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. (The name of one of the novel’s central characters, “Sir Leigh Teabing” is an anagram based on the names of Baigent and Leigh.) This amazing book purports to reveal the secret history of Christ and the shocking legacy of the Holy Grail. The book asserts not only that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered children through her, but also that Christ did not die on the cross, and that secret documents concealed beneath the Temple Mount in Jerusalem revealed this secret to the Knights Templar who then dedicated themselves to the perpetuation of Christ’s royal descendants through the Merovingian line of French royalty. In the novel, Sir Leigh Teabing specifically cites this work as the “international bestseller” which “brought the idea of Christ’s bloodline into the mainstream.” (DVC, pp. 253-254) The other works mentioned as authorities in the field to prove that “the royal bloodline of Christ has been chronicled in detail by scores of historians” (DVC, p. 253) are The Templar Revelation by Lynn Pickett and Clive Prince, The Woman with the Alabaster Jar and The Goddess in the Gospels by Margaret Starbird. Richard Abanes offers this telling analysis of the authors cited as authoritative historians:
“None of these authors are, in fact, historians. Starbird holds an M.A. in Comparative Literature and German. Baigent has an undergraduate degree in psychology and has recently been pursuing an M.A. in Mysticism and Religious Experience. And Leigh is ‘ primarily a novelist and a writer of short stories.’ What about Lincoln? He is a BBC television personality and scriptwriter. And Picknett and Prince are actually conspiracy theorists with a penchant for occultism, the paranormal, and UFOs.” (Abanes, pp. 41-42)
Such are the “scores of historians” that document the remarkable theory upon which the entire plot of The Da Vinci Code is based. Lutheran historian Dr. Paul L. Maier argues that despite the zeal of these “sensationalizing authors” that there is not “one spark of evidence from antiquity”, “not a scintilla of evidence anywhere in the historical sources” to suggest that Jesus may have gotten married to Mary Magdalene. (Hanegraff, Maier, p. 18)
In the novel, Teabing pontificates that the marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene was “ a particularly troubling earthly theme which kept recurring in the gospels.” (DVC, p. 244) This is not true. There is of course, no reference whatsoever to any such marriage in the canonical gospels of the New Testament. That, Sir Leigh concludes, is the reason why they were included in the canon while other - more accurate documents - were not. Evidently the gospels of which the fictional historian speaks are the gnostic writings of the Fourth Century. But even here there are, in fact, no references to a marriage between Jesus and Mary. The most compelling evidence Brown can produce is a quotation from the gnostic “The Gospel of Phillip.” The passage cited says:
“And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to Him, ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’” ( DVC, p. 246)
Sophie, the novel’s heroine, then makes the obvious observation that these words in no way constitute an affirmation of any marriage between Christ and Mary Magdalene. Professor Teabing goes on to clinch his argument with the assertion that “As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion in those days literally meant spouse.” (DVC, p. 246) This categorical assertion is false and misleading in every way. Actually, the oldest copy of the Gospel of Phillip extant today is written in Coptic, not Aramaic, and that copy is a translation of an original Greek text. Thus, what an Aramaic term may or may not have meant is hardly relevant. Even if, theoretically, one might argue that the Aramaic word could have been used in an earlier oral tradition - assuming the highly dubious authenticity of this document - the point remains invalid nonetheless. For as Craig Bloomberg of Denver Seminary (a real Aramaic scholar!) will tell you: “no Aramaic or Hebrew words for companion normally mean spouse.” (Abanes, p. 38)
What then does this passage mean when it says that “Christ loved her more than all the other disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth.”? The answer to that question must be determined from the context of the passage itself and from the use of similar language in other contemporary documents. “The Gospel of Phillip” does not define the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in terms of physical intimacy or marriage as Dan Brown would have us believe. In fact, the same text goes on to commend Mary for her unique spiritual insight as one who sees the light while the other disciples remain in the darkness. In that regard, The Da Vinci Code’s translation of the text is misleading -“Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth.” In the original text both parts of the phrase, not merely the first part as in this translation, are comparative. “The Gnostic Bible,” a standard scholarly translation of the passage, more accurately reads: “The companion is Mary of Magdala. Jesus loved her more than His students. He kissed her often on her face, more than all His students.” (Barnstone, Meyer, p. 273) There is no sexual connotation whatsoever in this language. “The Gospel of Phillip” later quotes Jesus defining the significance of His kiss as an act of spiritual nourishment that leads to spiritual enlightenment: “For it is by a kiss that the perfect conceive and give birth. For this reason we also kiss one another. We receive conception from the grace that is in one another.” (58:30-59:6) The “Apocalypse of James,” another gnostic writing of the same period, uses exactly the same language to describe Christ’s special revelation its author: “And He kissed my mouth. He took hold of me saying, ‘My beloved! Behold, I shall reveal to you those things which neither the heavens nor the archons have known.’” (Olson, Miesel, p. 95)
The Da Vinci Code also contends that Jesus must have been married because “the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried.” (DVC, p. 245) Once again, the novel’s assertion directly contradicts the historical evidence. Archaeological exploration near the Dead Sea has indicated that the Jewish Essene community at Qumram included both married and single men and women. The two most prominent non-Christian Jewish writers of the period, Josephus and Philo, both refer to the practice of celibacy among the Jews. Our Lord Himself refers to celibacy when He describes those “who have renounced marriage for the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:12) It is also significant to note that in his defense of an apostle’s right to marry if he so chooses, St. Paul cites “the other apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas” as those who have taken wives. (1 Corinthians 9:5) Surely, if Jesus Himself had been married, Paul would not have failed to mention that fact to conclusively clinch his argument. Once again, The Da Vinci Code’s conclusion is untenable and the evidence cited to support it is inaccurate.
It is not theoretically impossible that Jesus could have chosen to marry. Had He been married there is no reason why He could not have carried on a normal sexual relationship with His wife within the context of that marriage. However, the reality of the personal union of the divine and the human natures in Christ would seem to rule out the possibility of the procreation of children. But the real question is not could Jesus have married - a question which must remain theoretical - but rather, did Jesus marry. As we have noted, there is no hint or suggestion anywhere in Scripture or in the traditions of the ancient church that Jesus was married. All of the modern speculation about a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalen is just that, idle speculation without any Biblical or historical basis. Erwin W. Lutzer is correct when he concludes: “The Da Vinci Code bases its conclusions on imaginary data, hoping that gullible readers will give them credence.” (Lutzer, p. 52)
Given our Lord’s single minded commitment to His mission and ministry this should not be surprising. Jesus did not come into this world for Himself. The God/man lived only to accomplish the plan of salvation and to offer His life as the innocent sacrifice for the sins of mankind. And yet, in the language and imagery of Scripture, Jesus is indeed a bridegroom. His perfect bride is not a particular individual, but the entire Church, all the people of God. Thus John the Baptist declared of the Christ : “I am not the Christ, but am sent ahead of Him. The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who awaits the bridegroom awaits and listens for Him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine.” (John 3:28-29) Jesus uses the same imagery of the bridegroom and the bride to describe His earthly ministry: “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while He is with them? They cannot they have Him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.” (Mark 2:19-20; cf. Matthew 22:1-14; 25:1-13) St. Paul used Jesus as the example of the perfect husband. He urged Christian husbands to demonstrate the same selfless love for their wives that Christ has showered upon His bride, the Church:
“Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, to make her holy cleansing her with the washing with water through the Word, and to present her to Himself as a radiant Church without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:25-27; cf. Also 2 Corinthians 11:2)
The great theme of the marriage of Christ and His bride, the Church recurs in the Bible’s triumphant conclusion:
“Hallelujah! For the Lord our God Almighty reigns! Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear. (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.) Then the angel said to me, ‘Write: Blessed are those who are called to the marriage feast of the Lamb.’” (Revelation 19:6-9)
A few verses later, in the closing words of Scripture, the Church plead’s for the glorious return of her victorious Bridegroom in Revelation 22: “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’” (Revelation 22:17)
For the feminist advocates of New Age religion there is much more at stake here than the status of Mary Magdalen. Mary is perceived to be the personification of all women and her proper recognition will signal the liberation of women from the curse of male domination within the Church. Susan Haskins , author of Mary Magdalen - Myth and Metaphor, writes: “In the radical revision of much of what until now had been accepted interpretations of the early Church and women’s participation in it, Mary Magdalen’s figure has emerged in bold relief, restored to her New Testament role as chief female disciple, apostle to the apostles and first witness of the resurrection. The significance of this re-evaluation has so far gone mostly unacknowledged by the Church or Rome, whilst it is only partially conceded by other churches, because of the residual patriarchalism of those institutions. If the ‘victimization’ of Mary Magdalen can stand as a metaphor for the historically subordinate position of women in Christianity, now that the woman, so long regarded as a penitent sinner has been shown in her true light, then it may be that Christianity’s view of woman in history itself requires some kind of radical revision...From the early centuries of the Christian era, Mary Magdalen has, like the women she represents, been the scapegoat of the ecclesiastical institution, manipulated, controlled, and, above all, misrepresented.” (Haskins, pp. 392-393)
For some in the feminist camp, the agenda is even more ambitious. Margaret Starbird sees in the rehabilitation of the Magdalen not only the liberation of women in the Church, but the restoration of the long suppressed feminine component of the deity and the belated recognition of the divine within every human being, male and female. “When I speak now of reclaiming the lost Bride, I am at once thinking of restoring the historical wife of Jesus to her rightful place at his side, and, at the same time, on a deeper plane, thinking of how this will help to restore the ‘partnership paradigm’ - the imaging of the Divine as both the Bride and Bridegroom - in the holy inner sanctum of our collective psyche...The celibate male image of God worshiped for nearly two thousand years of western civilization is a distorted image that desperately needs to be corrected...At some point in my journey I understood that my original goal had evolved into a much larger purpose. I now realize that I am charged not only with restoring the Bride to Christianity - the Goddess in the Gospels - but also with restoring the partnership paradigm that was the cornerstone of ancient civilizations....The doctrine of the sacred partnership of humanity and divinity in each human individual will be the fundamental tenet of a Church of the Holy Spirit.” (Starbird, pp. 151-153)
http://www.osl.cc/believe/daVinci/BREAKING%20DA%20VINCI%20CODE%204.htm
JESUS AND MARY MAGDALENE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Da Vinci Code (pp. 247-248)
“‘The woman they are speaking of,’ Teabing explained, ‘is Mary Magdalene. Peter is jealous of her.’ ‘Because Jesus preferred Mary?’ ‘Not only that. The stakes are far greater than mere affection. At this point in the gospels, Jesus suspects that He will soon be captured and crucified. So he gives Mary Magdalene instructions on how to carry on His Church after He is gone. As a result, Peter expresses his discontent over playing second fiddle to a woman. I daresay Peter was something of a sexist.’ Sophie was trying to keep up. ‘This Saint Peter, the rock on which Jesus built His Church?’ ‘The same, except for one catch. According to these unaltered gospels, it was not Peter to whom Christ gave directions with which to establish the Christian Church. It was Mary Magdalene.’ Sophie looked at him. ‘You’re saying the Christian Church was to be carried on by a woman?’ ‘That was the plan. Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene.’”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key figure in “The Da Vinci Code’s” grand conspiracy theory is Mary Magdalen. The novel contends that Mary Magdalen was not only a devoted follower of the Lord, but was in fact His lover, His wife, and the mother of His child. It was the Lord’s intent, the novelist insists, that His wife and lover become the leader of the Christian Church after His death. The male leadership of the early church, we are told, fiercely resented the prominence of Mary and she was marginalized and ignored in the years which followed the Lord’s death. That pattern culminated when Constantine and his co-conspirators found it necessary to transform Christianity into a patriarchal religion based upon the identification of Jesus as the Son of God. The facts of Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalen, their sexual relationship with one another, the children which were produced by that relationship, and Christ’s intent that Mary become the leader of His Church were then brutally suppressed and denied. Dan Brown goes so far as to describe this effort as “the greatest cover-up in human history.” (Lutzer, p.49) The real truth about the man Jesus, His wife Mary, and the children which their marriage produced was kept alive through secret organizations and cryptic codes focusing on the ancient legend of the “Holy Grail.” Leonardo Da Vinci was supposedly one of the heroes who helped to perpetuate this legacy through his art - thus the novel’s title “The Da Vinci Code.”
In the Gospels of the New Testament Mary Magdalene is one of the most prominent of the Galilean women who followed Jesus in the course of His public ministry. Mary was from the town of Magdala, an important agricultural, fishing and trading center on the southern end of the Sea of Galilee. The Greek name of this town was Tarichaea and its population was predominantly Gentile. Josephus notes that the town had its own hippodrome and was notorious among the Jews for its immorality. Mary is introduced in the Gospel of Luke in this way:
“The Twelve were with Him and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” (Luke 8:2-3)
The seven demons from whom the Lord had delivered Mary Magdalene are also mentioned in Mark 16:9. Mary was included among the courageous core of women who followed Jesus to the cross and remained by His side throughout His execution and burial.
“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed Him and cared for His needs.” (Mark 15:40-41; cf. John 19:25)
“So Joseph brought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.” (Mark 15:47)
On Easter Sunday morning. Mary is among the women who come out to complete the burial preparations only to discover the tomb empty and the body missing (cf. Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1;Luke 24:10). John’s Gospel reports that Mary remained outside of the grave weeping and became the first person to encounter the risen Lord Jesus:
“Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside of the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb, and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. They asked her, ‘Woman, why are you crying?’ ‘They have taken my Lord away,’ she said, ‘ and I don’t know where they have put Him.’ At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. ‘Woman,’ He said, ‘why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?’ Thinking He was the gardener, she said, ‘Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have put Him, and I will get Him.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Mary.’ She turned toward Him and cried out in Aramaic, ‘Rabboni!’ (which means Teacher). Jesus said, ‘Do not hold on to Me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to My brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to My Father and to your Father, to My God and your God.’ Mary Magdala went to the disciples with the news: ‘I have seen the Lord!’ and she told them that He had said these things to her.” (John 19:10-18)
Not only is Mary the first person to encounter the risen Christ, but she is also given the responsibility to announce the resurrection to the apostles who remain in hiding. Dan Brown contends that the Biblical Gospels are nothing more than a conglomeration of fictions concocted by a committee of male chauvinists. These evil conspirators, we are told, invented the concept of all male apostles to contradict and deny the fact that Jesus had actually entrusted the leadership of His Church to Mary Magdalene. If any of this nonsense were true, it is impossible to imagine why the Gospels would continue to portray Mary Magdalene in such a positive fashion. She was indeed, as the ancient fathers of the Church declared, “the apostle to the apostles.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Da Vinci Code - (pp. 244, 247)
“Teabing clarified, ‘The early Church needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being. Therefore any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus’ life had to be omitted form the Bible’... ‘But how could Christ have a bloodline, unless...?’ She paused and looked at Langdon. Langdon smiled softly, ‘Unless they had a child.’ Sophie stood transfixed. ‘Behold,’ Teabing proclaimed. ‘The greatest cover-up in human history. Not only was Jesus Christ married, but He was a father. My dear, Mary Magdalene was the Holy Vessel. She was the chalice that bore the royal bloodline of Jesus Christ. She was the womb that bore the lineage from which the sacred fruit sprang forth.’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only documentation for any leadership role attributed to Mary Magdalen comes from gnostic writings of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, most notably the famous Nag Hammadi collection uncovered in 1945. (Cf. Notes pp. 29ff.) The dates of the Greek originals upon which the Coptic Nag Hammadi documents were based has been the subject of intense debate among scholars. Those sympathetic to neo-gnosticism often make fabulous claims about the reliability and the antiquity of these writings. They see in these documents a way to undermine and deny the content of historic Christianity. However, responsible historians, without an ideological axe to grind, reject those enthusiastic endorsements and strident attacks as unwarranted. Dr. Phillip Jenkins, of Pennsylvania State University, sums up the consensus of academic opinion:
“In most cases, all that can be known for certain about a given Nag Hammadi document is that the particular manuscript was written before the late fourth century, when it was concealed: the date of composition remains highly uncertain. Conceivably, even at this very late date, the ink might not have been too dry on some of these writings. While the canonical gospels were completed by 100 or so, it is unlikely that any of the Nag Hammadi materials date from much before 150, and most probably were written between about 150 and 250, or later. Indeed, the fact that we find so many efforts in the late second and early third century to specify the orthodox canon may indicate that it was in exactly these years that spurious and heterodox works were pouring forth from their creators in unprecedented numbers.” (Jenkins, pp. 92-93)
While the sources of these texts appear to have been written at least 100 years after the books of the canonical New Testament, they do provide an intriguing glimpse into 3nd Century gnostic thought. Most of the works are “pseudographical,” that is, falsely attributed to authors of the apostolic age to enhance their own authority and stature. At the same time, they reveal the gnostic’s disdain for history and the bewildering, often contradictory, varieties of gnostic philosophy. There is very little new historical information in these writings and the positions taken in one work are often specifically rejected in another. The contrast between these later works composed on the heretical fringes of the early Church and the books of the New Testament - consistent in content and rich in history - is overwhelming.
Both of the unfortunate patterns typical of gnostic writings - anti-historical bias and inconsistency - are evident in the Nag Hammadi documents’ treatment of Mary Magdalen. No additional details about her life or background are provided, and the perspective which they present on any potential leadership role which she may have played in the early church is ambiguous at best.
Mary fares best in “The Gospel of Phillip” (c. A.D. 225). The text describes her as the “companion” of Jesus - “Three Marys walked with the lord; His mother, His sister, and Mary Magdala, His companion.” (Barnstone, p. 267) Later we are told that the other disciples objected to the prominence accorded to Mary Magdalen. In response, Jesus indicates that she is more spiritually perceptive than any of the other disciples: “They said, ‘Why do you love her more than us?’ The savior answered, saying to them, ‘Why do I not love you like her? If a blind man and one who sees are together in darkness, they are the same. When the light comes, the one who sees will see light. The blind man stays in the darkness.’” (Barnstone, p. 273) Another of the gnostic writings that has survived outside of the Nag Hammadi collection is actually attributed to Mary Magdalen, although most scholars believe that “The Gospel of Mary” was not composed until after A.D. 200. Only fragmentary pieces of this text remain which makes its interpretation all the more difficult. But what’s left is enough to cause considerable controversy. Mary recounts the special visions which Jesus had bestowed upon her alone: “Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brothers, ‘Do not weep, and do not grieve or be irresolute, for his grace will be fully with you and will protect you. Rather, let us praise his greatness. He prepared us and made us truly human.’ When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the good and they began to discuss the words of the savior. Peter said to Mary, ‘Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than other women. Tell us the words of the Savior that you remember, which you know and we do not. We have not heard them.’” (Barnstone, p. 479) Peter’s attitude evidently changed after Mary had spoken as he and his brother Andrew objected to the concept of the Lord granting revelation through the voice of a woman. This provokes a spirited debate among the apostles: “When Mary said this, she fell silent since the Lord had spoken to her of all these things. But Andrew answered, saying to the brothers, ‘Say what you think about what she said. I do not believe that the savior said this. These teachings are of strange ideas.’ Peter also opposed her about all this. He asked the others about the savior, ‘Did he really speak to a woman secretly, without our knowledge and not openly? Are we to turn and listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?’ Then Mary wept and said to Peter, ‘My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think I concocted this in my heart, or I am lying about the savior? Levi answered, saying to Peter, ‘Peter, you are always angry. Now I see you contending against this woman as against an adversary. If the savior made her worthy, who are you to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us. We should be ashamed and put on the perfect person and be with him as he commanded us, and we should preach the gospel, without making any rule or law other than what the savior said.’” (Barnstone, p. 481) In the second half of the 3rd Century a gnostic gospel entitled “Pistis Sophia” (“The Wisdom of Faith”) was composed which also accords a primary leadership role to Mary Magdalen. Jesus announces to His disciples that Mary and St. John are to lead His Church: “But Mary Magdalene and John the Virgin will surpass all my disciples and all men who shall receive mysteries in the Ineffable, they will be on my right hand and on my left, and I am they and they are I.” (Schneemelcher, p. 366) As in the other texts, Peter expresses the resentment and frustration of the other apostles: “My Lord, we are not able to suffer this woman who takes the opportunity from us, and does not allow any one of us to speak, but she speaks many times.” (Brock, pp. 85-86) Mary notes Peter’s opposition to her role as she complains to Jesus: “My Lord, my mind is understanding at all times that I should come forward at any time and give the interpretation of the words which Pistis Sophia spoke, but I am afraid of Peter, for he threatens me and hates our kind.” (Brock , p. 86)
And yet, at the same time, other prominent gnostic writings like “The Gospel of Thomas,” written in the mid 2nd Century, present a somewhat less flattering picture of the role of Mary: “Simon Cephas said to them, ‘Mary should leave us. Females are not worthy of life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I shall guide her to make her male, so she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’” (Barnstone, p. 69)
The gnostic writings which advocate a major apostolic role for Mary Magdalen were written in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries when gnostic heretics were locked in bitter controversy with the defenders of orthodox Christianity. The twenty-seven books of the canonical New Testament had been well established by this time throughout the Church as the definitive source of Christian doctrine. This explains the gnostic attempt to attribute their writings to apostolic authors who had been dead for centuries. One of the major selling points of the gnostic heresy was the argument that gnosticism liberated women from the repressive constraints placed upon them by the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. Gnostic women were allowed and encouraged to do the very things which they could not do in Christian churches. The effectiveness of that strategy can be seen in the classic book “Against Heresies” written by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon in the Roman province of Gaul at the end of the 2nd Century. Irenaeus lamented the susceptibility of Christian women to these clever falsehoods from a gnostic teacher in his region named Marcus. Marcus would entice the women to worship the goddess and join with him in consecrating the elements of her sacrament and prophesying in her name before the congregation of his followers.
“By there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself as having improved upon his master. He is a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above...Handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate them in his presence...He devotes himself especially to women and to those such as are well-bred, and elegantly attired, and of great wealth, whom he frequently seeks to draw away as these by addressing them in such seductive words as these, ‘I am eager to make thee a partaker of my Grace...Behold Grace has descended upon thee, open thy mouth and prophesy.’...Some of his disciples too, addicting themselves to the same practices have deceived many silly women and defiled them.” (ANF,1, p. 334-335)
Mary Magdalen, as the most prominent female in the canonical gospels, became the convenient foil of these attacks upon historic Christianity. By presenting her as the beneficiary of unique spiritual insight, designated by Jesus as a preeminent leader of His Church, the gnostics sought to undermine and overcome the authority of the male leadership of orthodoxy and transform the Christian religion. Dan Brown’s uncritical embrace of these questionable and contradictory writings makes him the darling of feminists and neo-gnostics everywhere. That is evidently much more important to him than historical accuracy or credibility. The assertion of an apostolic role for Mary Magdalen is without support in Scripture or the traditions of historic Christianity. The sources upon which The Da Vinci Code selectively depends were written long after the completion of the Bible by false teachers far out of the fringes of the Christian faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Da Vinci Deception - (pp. 244,247)
“Teabing clarified, ‘The early Church needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being. Therefore any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus’ life had to be omitted from the Bible’... ‘But how could Christ have had a bloodline, unless?... ‘She paused and looked at Langdon. Langdon smiled softly, ‘Unless they had a child.’ Sophie stood transfixed. ‘Behold,’ Teabing proclaimed, ‘The greatest cover-up in human history. Not only was Jesus Christ married, but He was a father. My dear, Mary Magdalene was the Holy Vessel. She was the chalice that bore the royal bloodline of Jesus Christ. She was the womb that bore the lineage from which the sacred fruit sprang forth.’”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assertion that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ lover, His wife, and the mother of His children is the central component in The Da Vinci Code’s conspiracy theory. This, we are told again and again, is the great secret which Constantine suppressed, which institutional Christendom sought to eliminate through bloody persecution and witch-hunt for centuries, and which the Renaissance genius Leonardo da Vinci both concealed and conveyed in the masterpieces of his art.
This claim is not new to Dan Brown or his Da Vinci Code. It has been repeatedly advanced in recent years by New Age mystics and amateur conspiracy theorists. Dan Brown’s personal favorite appears to be a 1982 occult classic entitled “Holy Blood - Holy Grail” by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. (The name of one of the novel’s central characters, “Sir Leigh Teabing” is an anagram based on the names of Baigent and Leigh.) This amazing book purports to reveal the secret history of Christ and the shocking legacy of the Holy Grail. The book asserts not only that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered children through her, but also that Christ did not die on the cross, and that secret documents concealed beneath the Temple Mount in Jerusalem revealed this secret to the Knights Templar who then dedicated themselves to the perpetuation of Christ’s royal descendants through the Merovingian line of French royalty. In the novel, Sir Leigh Teabing specifically cites this work as the “international bestseller” which “brought the idea of Christ’s bloodline into the mainstream.” (DVC, pp. 253-254) The other works mentioned as authorities in the field to prove that “the royal bloodline of Christ has been chronicled in detail by scores of historians” (DVC, p. 253) are The Templar Revelation by Lynn Pickett and Clive Prince, The Woman with the Alabaster Jar and The Goddess in the Gospels by Margaret Starbird. Richard Abanes offers this telling analysis of the authors cited as authoritative historians:
“None of these authors are, in fact, historians. Starbird holds an M.A. in Comparative Literature and German. Baigent has an undergraduate degree in psychology and has recently been pursuing an M.A. in Mysticism and Religious Experience. And Leigh is ‘ primarily a novelist and a writer of short stories.’ What about Lincoln? He is a BBC television personality and scriptwriter. And Picknett and Prince are actually conspiracy theorists with a penchant for occultism, the paranormal, and UFOs.” (Abanes, pp. 41-42)
Such are the “scores of historians” that document the remarkable theory upon which the entire plot of The Da Vinci Code is based. Lutheran historian Dr. Paul L. Maier argues that despite the zeal of these “sensationalizing authors” that there is not “one spark of evidence from antiquity”, “not a scintilla of evidence anywhere in the historical sources” to suggest that Jesus may have gotten married to Mary Magdalene. (Hanegraff, Maier, p. 18)
In the novel, Teabing pontificates that the marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene was “ a particularly troubling earthly theme which kept recurring in the gospels.” (DVC, p. 244) This is not true. There is of course, no reference whatsoever to any such marriage in the canonical gospels of the New Testament. That, Sir Leigh concludes, is the reason why they were included in the canon while other - more accurate documents - were not. Evidently the gospels of which the fictional historian speaks are the gnostic writings of the Fourth Century. But even here there are, in fact, no references to a marriage between Jesus and Mary. The most compelling evidence Brown can produce is a quotation from the gnostic “The Gospel of Phillip.” The passage cited says:
“And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to Him, ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’” ( DVC, p. 246)
Sophie, the novel’s heroine, then makes the obvious observation that these words in no way constitute an affirmation of any marriage between Christ and Mary Magdalene. Professor Teabing goes on to clinch his argument with the assertion that “As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion in those days literally meant spouse.” (DVC, p. 246) This categorical assertion is false and misleading in every way. Actually, the oldest copy of the Gospel of Phillip extant today is written in Coptic, not Aramaic, and that copy is a translation of an original Greek text. Thus, what an Aramaic term may or may not have meant is hardly relevant. Even if, theoretically, one might argue that the Aramaic word could have been used in an earlier oral tradition - assuming the highly dubious authenticity of this document - the point remains invalid nonetheless. For as Craig Bloomberg of Denver Seminary (a real Aramaic scholar!) will tell you: “no Aramaic or Hebrew words for companion normally mean spouse.” (Abanes, p. 38)
What then does this passage mean when it says that “Christ loved her more than all the other disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth.”? The answer to that question must be determined from the context of the passage itself and from the use of similar language in other contemporary documents. “The Gospel of Phillip” does not define the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in terms of physical intimacy or marriage as Dan Brown would have us believe. In fact, the same text goes on to commend Mary for her unique spiritual insight as one who sees the light while the other disciples remain in the darkness. In that regard, The Da Vinci Code’s translation of the text is misleading -“Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth.” In the original text both parts of the phrase, not merely the first part as in this translation, are comparative. “The Gnostic Bible,” a standard scholarly translation of the passage, more accurately reads: “The companion is Mary of Magdala. Jesus loved her more than His students. He kissed her often on her face, more than all His students.” (Barnstone, Meyer, p. 273) There is no sexual connotation whatsoever in this language. “The Gospel of Phillip” later quotes Jesus defining the significance of His kiss as an act of spiritual nourishment that leads to spiritual enlightenment: “For it is by a kiss that the perfect conceive and give birth. For this reason we also kiss one another. We receive conception from the grace that is in one another.” (58:30-59:6) The “Apocalypse of James,” another gnostic writing of the same period, uses exactly the same language to describe Christ’s special revelation its author: “And He kissed my mouth. He took hold of me saying, ‘My beloved! Behold, I shall reveal to you those things which neither the heavens nor the archons have known.’” (Olson, Miesel, p. 95)
The Da Vinci Code also contends that Jesus must have been married because “the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried.” (DVC, p. 245) Once again, the novel’s assertion directly contradicts the historical evidence. Archaeological exploration near the Dead Sea has indicated that the Jewish Essene community at Qumram included both married and single men and women. The two most prominent non-Christian Jewish writers of the period, Josephus and Philo, both refer to the practice of celibacy among the Jews. Our Lord Himself refers to celibacy when He describes those “who have renounced marriage for the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:12) It is also significant to note that in his defense of an apostle’s right to marry if he so chooses, St. Paul cites “the other apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas” as those who have taken wives. (1 Corinthians 9:5) Surely, if Jesus Himself had been married, Paul would not have failed to mention that fact to conclusively clinch his argument. Once again, The Da Vinci Code’s conclusion is untenable and the evidence cited to support it is inaccurate.
It is not theoretically impossible that Jesus could have chosen to marry. Had He been married there is no reason why He could not have carried on a normal sexual relationship with His wife within the context of that marriage. However, the reality of the personal union of the divine and the human natures in Christ would seem to rule out the possibility of the procreation of children. But the real question is not could Jesus have married - a question which must remain theoretical - but rather, did Jesus marry. As we have noted, there is no hint or suggestion anywhere in Scripture or in the traditions of the ancient church that Jesus was married. All of the modern speculation about a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalen is just that, idle speculation without any Biblical or historical basis. Erwin W. Lutzer is correct when he concludes: “The Da Vinci Code bases its conclusions on imaginary data, hoping that gullible readers will give them credence.” (Lutzer, p. 52)
Given our Lord’s single minded commitment to His mission and ministry this should not be surprising. Jesus did not come into this world for Himself. The God/man lived only to accomplish the plan of salvation and to offer His life as the innocent sacrifice for the sins of mankind. And yet, in the language and imagery of Scripture, Jesus is indeed a bridegroom. His perfect bride is not a particular individual, but the entire Church, all the people of God. Thus John the Baptist declared of the Christ : “I am not the Christ, but am sent ahead of Him. The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who awaits the bridegroom awaits and listens for Him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine.” (John 3:28-29) Jesus uses the same imagery of the bridegroom and the bride to describe His earthly ministry: “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while He is with them? They cannot they have Him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.” (Mark 2:19-20; cf. Matthew 22:1-14; 25:1-13) St. Paul used Jesus as the example of the perfect husband. He urged Christian husbands to demonstrate the same selfless love for their wives that Christ has showered upon His bride, the Church:
“Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, to make her holy cleansing her with the washing with water through the Word, and to present her to Himself as a radiant Church without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:25-27; cf. Also 2 Corinthians 11:2)
The great theme of the marriage of Christ and His bride, the Church recurs in the Bible’s triumphant conclusion:
“Hallelujah! For the Lord our God Almighty reigns! Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear. (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.) Then the angel said to me, ‘Write: Blessed are those who are called to the marriage feast of the Lamb.’” (Revelation 19:6-9)
A few verses later, in the closing words of Scripture, the Church plead’s for the glorious return of her victorious Bridegroom in Revelation 22: “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’” (Revelation 22:17)
For the feminist advocates of New Age religion there is much more at stake here than the status of Mary Magdalen. Mary is perceived to be the personification of all women and her proper recognition will signal the liberation of women from the curse of male domination within the Church. Susan Haskins , author of Mary Magdalen - Myth and Metaphor, writes: “In the radical revision of much of what until now had been accepted interpretations of the early Church and women’s participation in it, Mary Magdalen’s figure has emerged in bold relief, restored to her New Testament role as chief female disciple, apostle to the apostles and first witness of the resurrection. The significance of this re-evaluation has so far gone mostly unacknowledged by the Church or Rome, whilst it is only partially conceded by other churches, because of the residual patriarchalism of those institutions. If the ‘victimization’ of Mary Magdalen can stand as a metaphor for the historically subordinate position of women in Christianity, now that the woman, so long regarded as a penitent sinner has been shown in her true light, then it may be that Christianity’s view of woman in history itself requires some kind of radical revision...From the early centuries of the Christian era, Mary Magdalen has, like the women she represents, been the scapegoat of the ecclesiastical institution, manipulated, controlled, and, above all, misrepresented.” (Haskins, pp. 392-393)
For some in the feminist camp, the agenda is even more ambitious. Margaret Starbird sees in the rehabilitation of the Magdalen not only the liberation of women in the Church, but the restoration of the long suppressed feminine component of the deity and the belated recognition of the divine within every human being, male and female. “When I speak now of reclaiming the lost Bride, I am at once thinking of restoring the historical wife of Jesus to her rightful place at his side, and, at the same time, on a deeper plane, thinking of how this will help to restore the ‘partnership paradigm’ - the imaging of the Divine as both the Bride and Bridegroom - in the holy inner sanctum of our collective psyche...The celibate male image of God worshiped for nearly two thousand years of western civilization is a distorted image that desperately needs to be corrected...At some point in my journey I understood that my original goal had evolved into a much larger purpose. I now realize that I am charged not only with restoring the Bride to Christianity - the Goddess in the Gospels - but also with restoring the partnership paradigm that was the cornerstone of ancient civilizations....The doctrine of the sacred partnership of humanity and divinity in each human individual will be the fundamental tenet of a Church of the Holy Spirit.” (Starbird, pp. 151-153)
http://www.osl.cc/believe/daVinci/BREAKING%20DA%20VINCI%20CODE%204.htm
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
