Even if I thought it possible that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had started a family, without incontrovertible proof, I will never support the idea. There is a sinister subtext here that is rarely discussed. Think of it this way: Jesus was the Son of God, and he fathered a child, who then carried his “divine” blood. This bloodline then spread throughout Europe (where else?), giving some people of European heritage yet another reason to think themselves superior. We have a word for this, people. It’s called “racism.”

Does this really happen? Yes.

It isn’t exactly common, because most white supremacists, to my knowledge, are good Bible-believing folks who wouldn’t be keen to think of Jesus as a married man. But there are those who have already begun referring to the bloodline of Jesus and MM in the same sentences as “white race” and “brown race,” which sends chills up my spine.

Most often, the racism I’ve seen is much more subtle, sort of a “pre”-racism. The claims themselves aren’t racist, but they could be used easily by any believer to support fully racist arguments. I’m beginning to lose track of the number of people who have contacted me claiming to be descended from Jesus’ blessed ancestry, and by gum, they have the genealogies to prove it. The people who are buying into this idea, as was inevitable, are now trying to sell it, capitalizing off of supposed revelations about their heritage.

This is scary stuff.

I think that what is preventing more people from sitting up and taking notice of this aspect of the bloodline idea is the sheer novelty of it. Everyone is so focused on asking “could it have happened?” that they aren’t seeing potential consequences. Additionally, sometimes this “good genes” line of thinking seems innocuous, even silly, like one fellow who claimed that aliens (Annunaki, a la Zecharia Sitchin) came to earth, impregnated human females, and seeded the population with their superior DNA. This then became the blood of kings and prophets, a family into which Jesus was eventually born, and of course, which he propogated. Although this story goes in the “put on your tin foil hat” file as far as I’m concerned and is something I don’t take seriously, it still has insidious undertones.

Let me recap known history, for those of us who haven’t abandoned it completely:

1. “Divine bloodline” theories are dangerous.
2. They offer no redeeming value to society.
3. They can never be proved.

Any questions?

RTE Radio has put the final installment of their four-part series on Mary Magdalene, Woman With The Wild Thing’s Heart, online: “Christianity, Mary Magdalene and the modern”. From the page that comes up, just click on the link to listen to the latest installment of the series, or scroll down and click on the link to listen to the series.

In this episode of this series, we are reminded of Mary Magdalene’s role as the primary witness of the resurrection. Experts discuss how that role was diminished, and the effect that would have on all women in Christianity. This is a fascinating discussion, perhaps the best of the four parts of the series. Participants take on issues ranging from The Da Vinci Code to feminism in an attempt to make sense of a subject with such broad scope. The final word in the show comes from Susan Haskins.

Technical note: You need to have Real Player installed in order to listen; you can download it for free from Real’s website (click on the link to “Get RealPlayer – Free”).

I’ve refrained from posting about this because, after all, this is a blog about Mary Magdalene, not The Da Vinci Code. However, I do find this case interesting, and wanted to comment on it briefly.

Dan Brown is being sued by Michael Baigent and Henry Lincoln, two of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail. They allege that Dan Brown infringed on their copyright by lifting their idea about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married and structuring his book around it. Their attorney says:

“[Baigent's and Lincoln's] historical conjecture has spawned many other books that developed aspects of this conjecture in a variety of directions.

“But none has lifted the central theme of the book.”

I’m curious, at this point, how they define “the central theme.” Is it that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were romantic, conceived at least one child, which was then taken to France, and subsequently married into the Merovingian bloodline? And that this secret was protected through history by the Knights Templar, the Freemasons, and a secret group called the Priory of Sion?

If what I perceive as the “central theme” of HBHG is anywhere close to their definition, then I can safely say that there are other books that have lifted these ideas wholesale. These books are usually non-fiction, and credit is given to the authors of HBHG. Dan Brown also nodded to HBHG in the course of his story, however, and since not many novels include footnotes, I’m not sure what else he could have done to acknowledge Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh. He even named a character after the authors, for crying out loud.

The biggest difference I can see between those books that have reproduced the “central theme” of HBHG and The Da Vinci Code is that DVC has sold 30 million copies. In fact, I find it quite interesting that Baigent and Lincoln are engaging in this lawsuit, considering that their book has enjoyed a renewed popularity since DVC was published. To me, the suit seems to be more about Dan Brown’s deep pockets than about intellectual property.

As a friend commented when he sent the above link, “the conspiracy is now under copyright.” I wonder: if the judge finds in their favor, will Baigent and Lincoln go after all other authors that make use of their theory?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Update (10:27pm): This article gives a hint at the arguments Dan Brown’s team will use to defend him. The fact that so many books have lifted information from HBHG in the past could work out very well for Brown. He asserts that he hadn’t read HBHG until nearing the end of his book, and that he didn’t depend on it when developing his outline and synopsis. This shouldn’t be difficult for anyone to believe; he could have read only the books of Margaret Starbird and come up with the ideas that appear in DVC, peppering it with a few more things from HBHG as it neared completion.

As an observer, I would say that a very clever lawyer would need only to assemble the pieces of DVC that have appeared both in HBHG AND other titles that made use of the conspiracy in question and see how many HBHG-specific pieces are left over. I’ll wager that it won’t be many.

I’m developing quite a collection of materials related to the Syriac habit of replacing Mary Magdalene in John’s resurrection narrative with the Virgin Mary. The following excerpts are from a hymn of the East Syriac tradition, dated around the 5th or early 6th century. The author is unknown. I came across this in Sebastian Brock’s book, Bride of Light: Hymns on Mary from the Syriac Churches (1992). He has written more about it in an article called “Mary and the Gardener: an East Syrian dialogue soghitha for the Resurrection,” Parole de l’Orient II (1983), but I haven’t yet located that resource.

On Sunday, early in the morning, along came Mary to the tomb.

“Who will show me,” she was saying, “my Son and my Lord for whom I am seeking?”

and

“His resurrection gives witness to her who bore Him; His mother gives witness to His resurrection.

“Both height and depth are my witnesses that, transcending nature, He was both born and has now risen.”

She heard His voice and recognized Him, for He repeated the words, “Mary, Mary.”

It has troubled me for some time that the Mary Magdalene movement, such as it is, is heavily dependent on the notion of conspiracy.

The historian branch of the movement, which values Mary Magdalene as the “apostola apostolorum” tends to view her conflation with Mary of Bethany and the anonymous sinner of Luke, as well as her subsequent reputation as a prostitute, as an intentional slander. This denigration of Mary Magdalene would serve then to more easily oppress women.

The mystic branch of the Mary Magdalene movement tends to see conspiracy wherever it looks. The Roman Catholic Church has hidden the “true” meaning of Christianity, and historians present only the perspective of the winners. There is a general distrust of academia, and a somewhat disturbing current of anti-intellectualism.

It occured to me a couple of years ago that if the movement, divided as though it is, is to survive and flourish, it must shift the focus away from conspiracy. I think that the historical branch of thought has a much better chance of longevity because there are so many potential areas of focus that don’t rely on changing anyone’s theological beliefs. The mystic branch, however, is much more complicated.

Let’s pretend, for just a few minutes, that there is a central, unifying theology that everyone in this part of the movement accepted. This central theology teaches that the basis for Christianity as we know it is incorrect, that in the beginning Christianity was something completely different, and the truth has been hidden from us for two-thousand years, for a variety of nefarious reasons. The emphasis on “truth” here is the original teaching of Christianity. However, what I’ve found is that where “truth” is concerned, the emphasis isn’t placed on the supposed original teachings nearly as often as it is placed on the fact that these original teachings were suppressed. The truth then, rather than being spiritually enriching, is something that feeds suspicion and ill-will toward the offending institution. “Truth” isn’t that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married (for example), the “truth” is that the fact that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married was intentionally hidden.

This, to me, is an unfortunate and negative basis for a spiritual movement, but it is there in spades. As much as I would like to believe that the DVC phenomenon is based on something of depth, I’m also considering the possibility that the draw of conspiracy is actually what’s fueling it. As someone commented to me recently, “it may be a fad, but a fad can lead to genuine revelation.” That might be so, but I think that might only be true only for a small minority. And again, what is “revelation?” Is it that there is more to Christianity? Or is it that there is more to Christianity than we have been told?

It’s a subtle difference, but one that should be noticed.

This image was part of the apse in the church of St. Clement at Taüll, in the Spanish Pyrenees. She appears beneath a triumphant ascended Christ, amid the college of apostles. Her name is inscribed as only “Sancta Maria.” Several similar images appear in churches in this general region and as far as anyone knows, no where else in the Christian world. But here’s the real kicker: it dates to the earliest part of the 12th century. For anyone who keeps track, that’s before Chretien de Troyes wrote the first romance of the Grail.

Joseph Goering, in his book, The Virgin and the Grail: Origins of a Legend (Yale, 2005), argues that this is an image of the Virgin Mary in a veiled reference to the Pentecost. The fact is that since being discovered, scholars have suggested all sorts of interpretations, and Goering’s is only one possibility out of many. The value of his work is in making a case for the possibility that these images of Mary holding a mysterious radiant vessel served as an inspiration for the Holy Grail story invented by Chretien.

Richard Barber, author of The Holy Grail: Imagination and Belief (Harvard, 2004), also mentioned these images, but did not include any photos in his book. His analysis was intriguing; he believes that they are the last stage in an evolution of portrayals of Ecclesia, a personified figure of the Church. Ecclesia sometimes appears in medieval crucifixion images, occasionally holding a vessel in which she catches Christ’s blood. These depictions were not uncommon from about the 9th century onward.

My interest, of course, is in whether the woman portrayed in these paintings could be Mary Magdalene. Goering says that he considered the possibility and dismissed it based on the authority of art scholars and the fact that Mary Magdalene was typically identified by her long hair. While this is true in later art, it isn’t necessarily so in art during that period and in that region. In fact, a depiction of the “Noli Me Tangere” in ivory from the same period of time (early 12th century), also Spanish, shows Mary Magdalene with her head completely covered, wearing robes very similar to the woman in the grail paintings. Furthermore, I find it interesting that the inscription with the “grail” paintings never identifies the Virgin by her nomina sacrum as in other medieval art, but instead refers to her as “Saint Mary.” (Nomina sacra are abbreviations that were used to identify holy figures in art and in sacred texts.)

To me, there are a few possibilities. I’m not yet convinced that this woman is either the Virgin or Mary Magdalene. At the moment, I’m leaning toward a composite of the two women that might have been prevelant in that area at the time. It is possible that the artists really did intend to depict the Virgin, but gave her Mary Magdalene’s primary attribute, a jar. In a few of the grail paintings, she holds only an ordinary vessel. It is the “glowing” vessels that are problematic. Before we can even begin to construct a possible meaning for the radiance, however, I think we need to positively identify the woman.

To that end, I’ll be doing more reading on medieval Catalan and Iberian art. I’d like to find out how Mary Magdalene was typically portrayed in that area at that time, or if she was at all. I’d also like to see other depictions of the Virgin that refer to her only as “Saint Mary.” I’m also very fascinated by depictions of Ecclesia. This is an area of art research I’ve been looking at more and more frequently, and my interest has been heightened since reading Goering’s book. Given the presence of the Virgin and Mary Magdalene at the crucifixion, their respective identification as Ecclesia at various times, the personified Ecclesia’s presence in crucifixion imagery, Ecclesia’s vessel, Mary Magdalene’s jar, and the tradition of occasionally identifying the woman in John’s resurrection narrative as the Virgin, I think a case can probably be made for a synthesis of the three.

I’m writing my thoughts on these images here now, even in their undeveloped state, because as soon as the “MM as Holy Grail” enthusiasts become aware of these images, they will cite them as proof of their theories. Although I am unfriendly to Magdalene-Grail interpretations of history, I am at least willing to now consider that Mary Magdalene could have had a role in the development of the Holy Grail romances.

A fellow emailed me to ask about the oldest known depiction of Mary Magdalene. Here is part of my answer:

The earliest known representation of Mary Magdalene is usually cited as the baptistry at Dura-Europos, which dates back to the second century. There is a fresco (perhaps two) that depicts the women approaching the empty tomb, of whom one was Mary Magdalene. This is how she is portrayed in the earliest Christian art, as an undistinguished member of a group. You can find an image in Susan Haskins’ book, Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor, with further information.

Another early piece of art that depicts a woman who was assumed to be Mary Magdalene is the Ruthwell Cross, from the seventh or eighth century, which shows Luke’s anonymous sinner woman anointing Jesus’ feet. Again, however, she isn’t actually named as Mary Magdalene.

I know that she appeared as herself in the popular “Noli Me Tangere” images of the Middle Ages, the earliest of which I can think of at the moment is from the twelfth century.

She didn’t take up residence at the foot of the cross in crucifixion images until the 13th century. Previous to that, if she appeared in crucifixion images, she was part of the retinue of women “watching from afar” or supporting the Virgin near the cross.

In addition to the above, I would add that she also appears as a member of a two-person group in the Chairete scene from the Gospel of Matthew, in which Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” meet the risen Christ on the road, take him by the feet and worship him. Often, the “other Mary” is the Virgin, but Mary Magdalene is always assumed to be the other woman present even though she is often undistinguished otherwise. (Here is a late example.)

My family and I went to Barnes & Noble tonight for some book browsing. While we were there, I happened to look at an Easter book for children. Amazingly, the book told the story of the resurrection with Jesus’ mother and other women discovering the empty tomb, running to tell the others, and then Mary Magdalene returning to the tomb with two disciples. When the men left, Mary saw the risen Christ.

This struck me as a peculiar version of events, so I read all of the other Christian Easter books for children that were on the display. All of them offered some harmonized version of the resurrection story, and oddly, out of seven or eight books, only two of them mentioned Mary Magdalene as the first witness. Only three of them mentioned women disciples in general as the first witnesses. The others all placed women at the empty tomb, sent them off to tell the others, and then had Jesus appearing to all of his friends.

I can accept that children need a simplified version of events, but would it have been so difficult to say that the women found the empty tomb, then Jesus appeared to them, and then he appeared to his friends? Or even that Mary Magdalene found the empty tomb, saw Jesus, and then he appeared to the rest? In most cases, the harmonization that occurs in these books harmonizes out the fact that in three of the four gospels, Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene.

Food for thought.

I am working on a project that involves compiling personal stories about Mary Magdalene. In order to put together a piece that is representative of the many different views of Mary Magdalene in circulation, I’d like to interview as many people as possible. Here are some details:

• The interview will be via email, and could involve the exchange of a few messages in order to really understand personal experiences of Mary Magdalene.
• I’d like to get a real diversity of perspectives, including (but not limited to!) the following:
  • women AND men who are interested in MM
  • traditional Christian approach to MM
  • Da Vinci Code inspired interest in MM
  • non-Christians who belong to another major religion (Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc.)
  • non-Christians who adhere to any other spiritual system
  • non-religious interest in MM
  • Gnostic, Holy Grail/bloodline, Holy Grail/sacred union, temple priestess, Beloved Disciple, etc. are all views that are welcome

Right now I am collecting email addresses from people who would like to participate. I’m going to sort through the responses and then get back to folks with my questions, but it should be relatively quick as I’m working on a short deadline.

If you would like to help out with this project by being interviewed, please write to interview@magdalene.org. Please include your email address and a brief message about your personal interest in Mary Magdalene.

Please feel free to pass this invitation around to anyone who might be interested, mailing lists, etc.

RTE Radio has put the third installment of their four-part series on Mary Magdalene, Woman With The Wild Thing’s Heart, online: “Meet the gnostics”. From the page that comes up, just click on the link to listen to the latest installment of the series, or scroll down and click on the link to listen to the series.

In the third episode of this series, experts discuss Gnosticism: what it was, and how Mary Magdalene studies were affected by the discovery of Gnostic texts in 1945. The notion of Mary Magdalene as “most loved” by Jesus is examined, along with a cursory treatment of the “making females into males” language. They included my very brief introduction to the subject of Gnosticism as well as my thoughts on one reason why the Nag Hammadi discovery was important.

Technical note: You need to have Real Player installed in order to listen; you can download it for free from Real’s website (click on the link to “Get RealPlayer – Free”).