From my book:

“Clearly, the legend of Helen is meant to be a Gnostic allegory for the fall of Sophia (which is in turn an allegory of the fall of the soul), but the parallels between Simon Magus and Jesus should also make us look more closely at the parallels between Helen and Mary Magdalene.

Both Helen and Mary Magdalene have represented Sophia’s presence in the physical world; wouldn’t the fact that Helen was incarnated as a prostitute have had some bearing on what was thought of Mary Magdalene’s pre-Jesus life as well? This is a question that hasn’t been fully explored by scholars, but as the studies of Mary Magdalene’s roles in Gnosticism continue, it very well could be the earliest indirect reference to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute.”

Apparently, someone in academia picked up the gauntlet I tossed down in this section in 2004. Here is the first paragraph of the conclusion of a 2007 thesis that very studiously explores the theme I mentioned above as well as the importance of MM’s medieval identity as a fallen woman.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the article that follows, found at the CatholicHerald.com, we see a member of Catholic clergy defending Mary Magdalene’s traditional reputation as a sinner. This is interesting to me since it seems that the choices on this issue are:

1. Disregard the tradition entirely
2. Embrace the tradition and defend it

Embracing the tradition simply because it is tradition, without defending its historical likelihood, doesn’t appear to be an option.

Here is the article:

Straight Answers: Myths, Truths about Mary Magdalene
by Fr. William P. Saunders

Not a word uttered about the fact that Rome has distanced itself from the tradition. After concluding his defense of the sinner reputation by agreeing with Pope Gregory the Great, Fr. Saunders goes on to say (emphasis is mine):

As far as The Da Vinci Code is concerned, what one cannot construe is some of the misconceptions they erroneously present: for instance, that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus, the mother of Jesus’ child, a participant at the Last Supper, His prophetic successor, and a priestess. Such conclusions, despite the best efforts of pseudo scholars, have no foundation in sacred Scripture, sacred tradition, other historical resources or even heretical texts.

I find this amusing for some reason, even though he is clearly echoing the most commonly cited reasons for Mary Magdalene’s conflation with the other women. Maybe because one tradition is being overwritten by another for which there is about just as much evidence.

This is an article I found this morning in the Pocono Record, which appears to be a smallish Pennsylvania periodical:

Theologian: Clergy need to learn why ‘Da Vinci’ resonates
by Helen Yanulus

A professor in the Theology/Religious Studies department of the Jesuit school, University of Scranton , Eric Plumer, is apparently working on a book called The Da Vinci Phenomenon: Why the Religious Claims Made in ‘The Da Vinci Code’ Have Struck Such a Chord in America. A rather unweildy title, but my heart sings with the knowledge that an institutional scholar is taking the reaction to DVC seriously in potentially positive ways. He echoes my own sentiment on the phenomenon in some ways:

Eric Plumer…noted that Brown’s religious thriller is “selling like hotcakes” because an element of the book — which was adapted for the big screen and made its debut last weekend — has resonated with readers.

That interest swirls around the role of Mary Magdalene.

Plumer’s belief is that Mary Magdalene’s mistaken reputation as a harlot is behind the resonance as people realize how her faulty identity and the devaluing of women throughout Christian history has damaged the appreciation of the feminine in Western culture. I believe that the appeal of the book goes beyond this into an extra-Christian interest in the “sacred feminine,” but we’re going in the right direction here.

Although Plumer obviously believes that Jesus was celibate, he goes on to reflect on issues of sexuality and the acceptance of women in Jesus’ ministry:

“Many people like the idea that Jesus was more human and capable of understanding love between a man and a woman, although Brown got his facts wrong,” Plumer said. “Jesus was celibate, but that doesn’t mean he had no sexual feelings, or he wouldn’t be human.”

Plumer noted that thoughts of sexuality were at one time regarded as degrading, impure and disgusting. But Jesus didn’t have that fear of women or sexuality.

“It’s not Dan Brown’s fault that the novel is so popular. Churches have to ask themselves, ‘What aren’t we doing?’” Plumer said.

“I think people sense that women were left out. That wasn’t the attitude of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ attitude towards women isn’t fully reflected in the church.”

Well, thank you, Professor Plumer. Although I think there is more to the resonance with DVC than what has been covered in this article, I applaud you for initiating this dialogue from within academia.

I received an email from a gentleman just a little while ago that is very interesting. He’s articulate, a good speller, and seems like a very intelligent person. And yet he says:

I was very moved when I read in the gospel the even though Mary was a sinner and a prostitute that Jesus Christ did not look down on her but forgave her for her sins.

He goes on to say, ironically, that the Gospels are the most accurate source of information that we have about Mary Magdalene. I agree, but where did he get his Gospels?

I suspect that his knowledge of MM as a sinner relies on her composite identity with Mary of Bethany and Luke’s anonymous sinner. But still, I remind my gentle readers, the Gospels do not say that Mary Magdalene was a sinner or a prostitute. Anywhere. Or that Jesus forgave her.

For some time I’ve given consideration to putting a challenge up on Magdalene.org. It would go something like this:

$1,000,000 for the first person who can point out the passage in the Gospels that says Mary Magdalene, specifically, was a sinner of any kind!

It’s a safe bet as far as I’m concerned. It is a bit snarky though, which is why I haven’t done it. Still, on my more cynical days, I find emails like the one I received earlier discouraging. It isn’t that Mary Magdalene is still considered a redeemed harlot. It isn’t that some people believe she was a sinner, or even that she was a prostitute. I find all of that understandable just based on tradition.

What bothers me is when people claim to have read these things in the Gospels themselves. The fellow who sent me the email did not read in his New Testament that Mary Magdalene was a sinner and a prostitute and that Jesus forgave her sins. That is what he believes happened according to his reading of the Gospels.

There’s a difference between what is there and what we believe is there. Sometimes the difference is subtle, and sometimes, as in the case of Mary Magdalene, the difference is glaringly obvious. It seems to me that a great deal of the disagreement that arises between Christians and non-Christians, and even between Christians of different stripes, is caused by differences in the material believed to be there.

That’s fine. We are all entitled to interpret our experience of a text in different ways. But for heaven’s sake, don’t claim to have read something if it just isn’t there.

This is a short but good article that I found at Cleveland.com:

Mary Magdalene in fact and fiction
by David Briggs (The Plain Dealer columnist)

The thrust of this article is that one sexual fiction about Mary Magdalene-that she was a prostitute-has been popularly replaced by a different sexual fiction; namely, that she was Jesus’ wife and the mother of his children. This isn’t the first I’ve come across this point. Voiced mostly by feminists concerned that no woman, Mary Magdalene included, should be remembered primarily for her sexuality (positive or negative), the issue is even more volitile given that both seem to be imagined reputations anyway. Why not focus on things that we’re told Mary Magdalene actually did, rather than what she may or may not have done with her female plumbing?

But to manufacture a new sexual myth around Mary Magdalene and reduce her role to supportive spouse is hardly what people celebrating strong, independent women leaders in early Christianity consider helpful.

“It ultimately undercuts women’s leadership because it focuses on the fiction of Mary of Magdala’s marital status rather than the fact of her leadership as the primary witness to Jesus’ Resurrection,” according to Sister Christine Schenk, executive director of Cleveland-based FutureChurch, an independent Catholic group.

I don’t disagree. Although there is definitely some “looking the other way” going on in regards to what mythology today’s women find valuable about Mary Magdalene, I think it is extremely important to look at Mary Magdalene’s most likely historical identity. Far and away, this is the role she filled as apostle of the apostles. Within Christianity, this is definitely the most important aspect of Mary Magdalene’s story.

“Rather than speculate falsely that Mary of Magdala was married to Jesus,” Schenk said, “it would be better to imitate her generosity and courage in accompanying a condemned political prisoner through a torturous death; and her faith in proclaiming God’s resurrection.”

Not surprisingly, the only expert quoted in the article is Sister Christine Schenk, who has been working with FutureChurch for many years to get as many Mary Magdalene feast day celebrations started as possible. This organization lobbies for female ordination as well as a married priesthood, and Mary Magdalene is their “poster girl.” Although I’m supportive of the FutureChurch cause, it’s good to keep their goals in mind when considering their position on Mary Magdalene’s identity.

Everyone takes everything about The Da Vinci Code so seriously; there are those who take the book itself seriously, and there are those who take their response to the book seriously. All in all, there is a lot of brow-furrowing going on over the whole thing, so it was refreshing to come across this article in Mother Jones:

Cramming for the Code
by Bill Santiago (comedian)

I have to admit that I was put off by Santiago’s tone at first, myself being caught up in the gravity of my subject. He does, after all, refer to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. But a little later in the same paragraph, I found myself laughing at the anachronistic imagery:

At the heart of the book, Jesus doesn’t die on the cross at all. He lives and marries, taking none other than the prostitute Mary Magdalene as his wife, who immediately puts an end to Saturday night poker games with the disciples. Apparently, while the resplendently repentant M & M was washing the Savior’s feet with her tears, drying them with her hair, kissing them and anointing them lovingly with a balm from The Bethlehem Body Shop, he was thinking, “This babe’s a keeper.”

Santiago mentions the DVC lawsuit by Baigent and Leigh, and even takes a moment for a cynical weigh-in on the Gospel of Judas:

Anyway, the judge threw out the suit, saying both books sucked and that he himself planned on buying a pirated DVD. And just as the court proceedings fizzled on the grounds that the suit was nothing but a shameless publicity ploy that could be superseded only by the suspiciously timed discovery of a long suppressed Gnostic text that would, like the Da Vinci phenomenon, call into question the history and foundations of early Christianity, KA-CHING, somebody leaks the “Gospel of Judas.”

and a little further on,

What if both the Da Vinci and Judas versions of events are correct? Maybe Judas didn’t even hang himself, but actually went on to hang out with Jesus–who was never crucified–and his wife. I mean, they all could have headed to France together, with Jesus and Mary’s son, Baby Jesus Jr., taking great joy in pulling on the beard of dear but shifty-eyed Uncle Judas.

For me, the article was a really good break from the status quo. Original, edgy, and timely. I recommend it highly.

Lighten up!