ON THE ORIGINS OF "A" MAGDALENE LEGEND
The legends of Mary Magdalene are particularly powerful and have persisted for two thousand years. Theologians and Popes alike have discussed the role of this enigmatic woman in the foundation of the Christian faith. Her story has been told in countless books and sermons but she is of most interest to us because the church at Rennes-le-Château is named after her. Not that striking in itself as several churches and cathedrals are named in her honour. However, Saunière took the motifs of this woman further - building a Villa Bethania (Bethany villa) and a Tour Magdala (Magdala Tower, where Magdala is said to be the home town of Mary Magdalane) on his own private domains. It seemed very uncommon that a priest should build in this manner so focussed on this Saint on private land that he owned.
Mary Magdalene is important in her own right in the later Priory of Sion mythology. The Priory of Sion is the fabled 'secret society' which became the medium by which the story of Saunière eventually came to be known more widely outside of France. Through many publications the Priory promulgated a story of Saunière, associating his activities somehow to a 'buried treasure' of an inestimable value. This 'treasure' they said was 'spiritual'. The Priory texts repeatedly referred to the Magdalene in some obscure but important manner.
Although there are no references to a Jesus bloodline in these "Priory of Sion" texts - a link was later forged based on a hypothesis made by the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. It is noted that “The authors of the 1980's bestseller The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail re-interpreted the Dossiers [i.e the Priory of Sion publications] in the light of their own Biblical obsessions – the secret buried in the documents ceased to be the Merovingian bloodline and became the bloodline of Christ – the genealogies [documents alleged to have been found by Saunière in his church during renovations] led to Christ's descendants...". Some researchers have gone as far as to suggest that Lincoln et al contaminated the 'real' story about Rennes-le-Château and forever ruined the real 'message' by interpreting the Priory information as a 'sacred bloodline'. Was it appropriate that Lincoln et al arrived at this theory from information about a lost heir of Dagobert II and a buried treasure at Rennes-le-Château?
Most of the Rennes Affair and its 'modern' incarnation stem from this Plantard and Cherisey propaganda. In this propaganda, particularly for Cherisey - 'a' Magdalene 'story' takes on a quite extraordinary importance. For example in Le Serpent Rouge, Mary Magdalene is equated with the Egyptian Goddess Isis for no apparent reason. The importance is always because of her role as some sort of mediator in the burial of Jesus Christ. In Stone & Paper Cherisey says: 'the treasure hunter will be looting a centuries-old necropolis containing bodies in a well-preserved state of mummification, aptly symbolised by Mary Magdalene as the patron saint of embalmers'. Here we have a reference to a necropolis or crypt, which contains mummified bodies …. and that the crypt is symbolised by the Magdalene because she was a patron saint of embalmers. But how can she be a symbol for embalmers and of a necropolis? She is mostly associated with the resurrection of Christ. Having gone to the tomb of Christ, following Jewish ritual to check that the person buried was really dead, she found an empty tomb. We assume she went to the correct tomb so what had happened to the body? Had it been stolen? She seemed convinced that it had, saying this at least three times.
Chérisey mentions this 'necropolis' in several other manuscripts and publications. It certainly seems to hold some importance for him. We should ask ourselves whether he describes a literal 'necropolis' or whether he is using poetic license to further illustrate some imagined point he is trying to make. And why should Mary Magdalene 'aptly' symbolise this centuries old crypt or necropolis? How did she become associated with such a crypt which may not even be as old as her? Why should she even be a symbol for embalmers? Are we supposed to 'read between the lines' and 'see' that the Magdalene in some way presided over the 'embalming' of the historical Christ? In the Gospel of John, the discription of the burial could suggest a sort of embalming:
"After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesusalem by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews'.
The Jewish tradition was to wash the dead body, wrap it in linen and bury it by dusk on the day of death. The relatives then visited the tomb daily for three to five days to confirm death. Embalming of that body would therefore suggest there was no fear of premature burial.
Embalming of course is mostly associated with an Egyptian ritual, however, there are famous Jews who were previously embalmed in the manner of the Egyptians. The Jewish holy book, The Torah: A Modern Commentary, tells the story of Jacob's burial in Genesis 49; 50:
"When Jacob finished his instructions to his sons, he drew his feet into the bed and, breathing his last, he was gathered to his people. Joseph flung himself upon his father's face and wept over him and kissed him. Then Joseph ordered the physicians in his service to embalm his father, and the physicians embalmed Israel. It required forty days, for such is the full period of embalming. The Egyptians bewailed him seventy days."
The commentary goes on to explain that the purpose of mummification, widely practiced in Egypt, was to preserve the body as an aid to the soul as it made its journey to a new life. The body would be treated with myrrh and similar spices (i.e. as described in the Gospel of John), washed, wrapped, and then placed within a cave in a mountain. The Torah makes reference to the caves in the land of Canaan that held the sacredly prepared bodies of Abraham and his wife Sara, Isaac and his wife Rebekah, Jacob and his wife Leah. Of Joseph's death, The Torah states, "Joseph died at the age of one hundred and ten years; and he was embalmed and placed in a coffin in Egypt."
The 'spices' used in the Gospel of John have often been noted - the Gospel refers to seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloes being used in the burial of Jesus. What for? Myrrh was used by the ancient Egyptians, along with natron, for the embalming of mummies, and as we saw above the Torah suggests that some Jewish families were embalmed. Does Cherisey mean to draw attention to the embalming of Jesus to which Mary Magdalene was a witness? How does this relate to 'a centuries-old necropolis containing bodies in a well-preserved state of mummification, aptly symbolised by Mary Magdalene as the patron saint of embalmers'.
Has it nothing at all to do with Mary Magdalene and more to do with later in the poem, when Cherisey mixes and equates Mary Magdalene with the Egyptian queen Isis?
However there is another possibility for the use of these spices. Was it to help heal the body of someone who may still be alive? While the myrrh can be legitimatly argued to have been mentioned in the Gospel of John as a ritual and recognition of the kingship of Jesus even in his death, it is with the combination of aloe, which was never used for religious ritual but was used to heal wounds etc that the solution may be found.
Myrrh is used as an antiseptic in mouthwashes, gargles, and toothpastes and for prevention and treatment of gum disease. Myrrh is also currently used in some liniments and healing salves that may be applied to abrasions and other minor skin ailments. Myrrh has been recommended as an analgesic for toothaches, and can be used in liniment for bruises, aches, and sprains.
Myrrh was also an ingredient of Ketoret, the consecrated incense used in the First and Second Temple at Jerusalem, as described in the Hebrew Bible and Talmud. An offering was made of the Ketoret on a special incense altar, and was an important component of the Temple services. According to the book of Matthew, gold, frankincense and myrrh were among the gifts to Jesus by the Magi "from the East."
Aloe vera is a commonly used species for healing, and included are A. perryi and A. ferox. The Ancient Greeks and Romans used Aloe vera to treat wounds. Aloe vera is used in alternative medicine and first aid. Both the translucent inner pulp and the resinous yellow aloin from wounding the aloe plant are used externally to relieve skin discomforts.
In all of this we see a continued association of Mary Magdalene with Isis. There is a correlation of the imagined role of Mary Magdalene in the Christian religion with that of Isis in the Egyptian religion: and this is the role of Anubis, who was an ancient god of Egypt and who was a guide of the dead on their path to the underworld long before Osiris had become an important deity. He was responsible for mummifying Osiris after his murder and therefore he became patron saint of embalmers. Is the Magdalene a kind of Anubis then for Chérisey? If so, this is disturbing because for him presumably the Magdalene symbolises the overseeing of the embalming of the body of Jesus, guiding the dead, in this case Jesus, on his path to some sort of underworld!
Mary Magdalene is important in her own right in the later Priory of Sion mythology. The Priory of Sion is the fabled 'secret society' which became the medium by which the story of Saunière eventually came to be known more widely outside of France. Through many publications the Priory promulgated a story of Saunière, associating his activities somehow to a 'buried treasure' of an inestimable value. This 'treasure' they said was 'spiritual'. The Priory texts repeatedly referred to the Magdalene in some obscure but important manner.
Although there are no references to a Jesus bloodline in these "Priory of Sion" texts - a link was later forged based on a hypothesis made by the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. It is noted that “The authors of the 1980's bestseller The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail re-interpreted the Dossiers [i.e the Priory of Sion publications] in the light of their own Biblical obsessions – the secret buried in the documents ceased to be the Merovingian bloodline and became the bloodline of Christ – the genealogies [documents alleged to have been found by Saunière in his church during renovations] led to Christ's descendants...". Some researchers have gone as far as to suggest that Lincoln et al contaminated the 'real' story about Rennes-le-Château and forever ruined the real 'message' by interpreting the Priory information as a 'sacred bloodline'. Was it appropriate that Lincoln et al arrived at this theory from information about a lost heir of Dagobert II and a buried treasure at Rennes-le-Château?
Most of the Rennes Affair and its 'modern' incarnation stem from this Plantard and Cherisey propaganda. In this propaganda, particularly for Cherisey - 'a' Magdalene 'story' takes on a quite extraordinary importance. For example in Le Serpent Rouge, Mary Magdalene is equated with the Egyptian Goddess Isis for no apparent reason. The importance is always because of her role as some sort of mediator in the burial of Jesus Christ. In Stone & Paper Cherisey says: 'the treasure hunter will be looting a centuries-old necropolis containing bodies in a well-preserved state of mummification, aptly symbolised by Mary Magdalene as the patron saint of embalmers'. Here we have a reference to a necropolis or crypt, which contains mummified bodies …. and that the crypt is symbolised by the Magdalene because she was a patron saint of embalmers. But how can she be a symbol for embalmers and of a necropolis? She is mostly associated with the resurrection of Christ. Having gone to the tomb of Christ, following Jewish ritual to check that the person buried was really dead, she found an empty tomb. We assume she went to the correct tomb so what had happened to the body? Had it been stolen? She seemed convinced that it had, saying this at least three times.
Chérisey mentions this 'necropolis' in several other manuscripts and publications. It certainly seems to hold some importance for him. We should ask ourselves whether he describes a literal 'necropolis' or whether he is using poetic license to further illustrate some imagined point he is trying to make. And why should Mary Magdalene 'aptly' symbolise this centuries old crypt or necropolis? How did she become associated with such a crypt which may not even be as old as her? Why should she even be a symbol for embalmers? Are we supposed to 'read between the lines' and 'see' that the Magdalene in some way presided over the 'embalming' of the historical Christ? In the Gospel of John, the discription of the burial could suggest a sort of embalming:
"After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesusalem by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews'.
The Jewish tradition was to wash the dead body, wrap it in linen and bury it by dusk on the day of death. The relatives then visited the tomb daily for three to five days to confirm death. Embalming of that body would therefore suggest there was no fear of premature burial.
Embalming of course is mostly associated with an Egyptian ritual, however, there are famous Jews who were previously embalmed in the manner of the Egyptians. The Jewish holy book, The Torah: A Modern Commentary, tells the story of Jacob's burial in Genesis 49; 50:
"When Jacob finished his instructions to his sons, he drew his feet into the bed and, breathing his last, he was gathered to his people. Joseph flung himself upon his father's face and wept over him and kissed him. Then Joseph ordered the physicians in his service to embalm his father, and the physicians embalmed Israel. It required forty days, for such is the full period of embalming. The Egyptians bewailed him seventy days."
The commentary goes on to explain that the purpose of mummification, widely practiced in Egypt, was to preserve the body as an aid to the soul as it made its journey to a new life. The body would be treated with myrrh and similar spices (i.e. as described in the Gospel of John), washed, wrapped, and then placed within a cave in a mountain. The Torah makes reference to the caves in the land of Canaan that held the sacredly prepared bodies of Abraham and his wife Sara, Isaac and his wife Rebekah, Jacob and his wife Leah. Of Joseph's death, The Torah states, "Joseph died at the age of one hundred and ten years; and he was embalmed and placed in a coffin in Egypt."
The 'spices' used in the Gospel of John have often been noted - the Gospel refers to seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloes being used in the burial of Jesus. What for? Myrrh was used by the ancient Egyptians, along with natron, for the embalming of mummies, and as we saw above the Torah suggests that some Jewish families were embalmed. Does Cherisey mean to draw attention to the embalming of Jesus to which Mary Magdalene was a witness? How does this relate to 'a centuries-old necropolis containing bodies in a well-preserved state of mummification, aptly symbolised by Mary Magdalene as the patron saint of embalmers'.
Has it nothing at all to do with Mary Magdalene and more to do with later in the poem, when Cherisey mixes and equates Mary Magdalene with the Egyptian queen Isis?
However there is another possibility for the use of these spices. Was it to help heal the body of someone who may still be alive? While the myrrh can be legitimatly argued to have been mentioned in the Gospel of John as a ritual and recognition of the kingship of Jesus even in his death, it is with the combination of aloe, which was never used for religious ritual but was used to heal wounds etc that the solution may be found.
Myrrh is used as an antiseptic in mouthwashes, gargles, and toothpastes and for prevention and treatment of gum disease. Myrrh is also currently used in some liniments and healing salves that may be applied to abrasions and other minor skin ailments. Myrrh has been recommended as an analgesic for toothaches, and can be used in liniment for bruises, aches, and sprains.
Myrrh was also an ingredient of Ketoret, the consecrated incense used in the First and Second Temple at Jerusalem, as described in the Hebrew Bible and Talmud. An offering was made of the Ketoret on a special incense altar, and was an important component of the Temple services. According to the book of Matthew, gold, frankincense and myrrh were among the gifts to Jesus by the Magi "from the East."
Aloe vera is a commonly used species for healing, and included are A. perryi and A. ferox. The Ancient Greeks and Romans used Aloe vera to treat wounds. Aloe vera is used in alternative medicine and first aid. Both the translucent inner pulp and the resinous yellow aloin from wounding the aloe plant are used externally to relieve skin discomforts.
In all of this we see a continued association of Mary Magdalene with Isis. There is a correlation of the imagined role of Mary Magdalene in the Christian religion with that of Isis in the Egyptian religion: and this is the role of Anubis, who was an ancient god of Egypt and who was a guide of the dead on their path to the underworld long before Osiris had become an important deity. He was responsible for mummifying Osiris after his murder and therefore he became patron saint of embalmers. Is the Magdalene a kind of Anubis then for Chérisey? If so, this is disturbing because for him presumably the Magdalene symbolises the overseeing of the embalming of the body of Jesus, guiding the dead, in this case Jesus, on his path to some sort of underworld!
This may be too literal an interpretation though.
Perhaps the key in another of Cherisey's text's [the text is Stone & Paper] are the 'bodies in a well-preserved state of mummification' statement - and it is the preservation and survivance as it were that is the essential point. And in Stone & Paper Chérisey associates this all with Saunière when he says: "As regards the affair of the treasure, these texts have two other meanings [the texts are the famous Saunière 'parchments']. Firstly, the potential discoverer should be warned that, finding oneself in Judas's situation, he would not have the right to take any more than the tenth part. Abbé Saunière learned to his cost how expensive it was to exceed the fees of the wicked apostle, having died on 22nd January 1917, a few days after going once too often to the well. Secondly, the discoverer will have to get used to the prospect of looting a necropolis where the dead dwelt for centuries in a natural state of mummification and in quite a good state of preservation. From this angle, one might consider Mary Magdalene the sinner in her capacity as patroness of embalmers, which would be very fitting, bearing in mind that Christ declared that she had poured out the perfume for his burial".
Judas? Expensive perfume used for anointing and burial? A perfume that the Apostles estimated was worth 300 pieces of silver, which could have been sold and the produce of the sale distributed among the poor? That Judas, in his capacity as treasurer, recovered his
losses by selling Christ for 30 pieces of silver, collecting a 10% return? Is Chérisey intimating that Saunière was doing the same and it cost him his life? Saunière looting a necropolis? The nearest we come to having evidence of that is the well known reports of Saunière digging up the graves in his church cemetery for no apparent reason (other than his response that he was making more room for the dead!) and the complaints of the families of those dead! How on earth do all these shenanigans relate to the body of Christ, Mary Magdalene, embalming, financial gain, Saunière, crypts, gold, Bethany, a Tour Magdala and the sudden suggestion that the gold of Rennes is in fact the gold of Solomon!
In another line of the poem Serpent Rouge its written that 'Once they had called her Isis, queen of the healing springs, COME TO ME ALL YOU WHO SUFFER AND WHO ARE OVERWHELMED AND I WILL COMFORT YOU, otherwise: MADELEINE, with the famous vase full of healing balm. The initiates know the true name: NOTRE DAME DES CROSS.' Is Isis associated with healing? Yes she is. But does the Magdalene carry healing balm? No she doesn't. She carries, depending on your point of view, anointing oils or plants for embalming. For a burial. She hadn't supposedly come to heal Jesus. And anyway, this vase has some correlation with an anointing that had taken place around the week before Jesus' Crucifixion.
So the figure of Mary Magdalene was important to the author of the poem (probably Chérisey) for some reason. Is this importance he attaches really linked to the affair at Rennes-le-Château and Saunière or has Chérisey just grafted an idea on to the end of the story of Saunière? For some other purpose?
The particular version of the ‘enigma’ of Rennes-le-Château is wound around the myths of Mary Magdalene, whether from Saunière's activities or the handiwork of Chérisey et al. In this article (over three parts) I will look at the Magdalene ‘legend’ and how it survived. By looking at this simple question perhaps we can illumine certain aspects of this historical character and ask why Saunière held her in such high esteem. Was it because she was the first to see the Risen Christ and to proclaim the ‘Good News’? Or did he have some other interest in this religious Saint and icon? Or is this perceived 'other interest' only in the eyes of Chérisey which later became polluted with the idea of Lincoln et al - a hidden 'bloodline'?
*******************
How did the Magdalene legends ‘survive’ & what was the motive for ensuring that survival? Are the legends purely in the imaginations of the people who wanted to invent life histories for biblical characters because information was so scant in the Gospels themselves? Or is it possible that persons close to the Magdalene knew her ‘story’ and preserved it and handed it down for future generations? Why did the Magdalene legends of the Medieval Age appear when they did? Did certain groups find new information about her?
Apart from the biblical narratives and the Gnostic literature not much is known historically about Mary Magdalene. In the Gospels she is identified as the most important messenger of Jesus Christ because she was present moments after the Resurrection. She proclaims this ‘Good News’ to the male disciples and then she is entirely lost to history. Later, legends sprung up which posit that she went to Ephesus, or perhaps Southern France. Are these legends based on historical accuracy? Is it possible? Or is it more likely that she stayed in Jerusalem after the Crucifixion living a quiet contemplative life after the death of Jesus?
Mary Magdalene may have left the Holy Land immediately after the Crucifixion. Historians have suggested that the disciples and other members of the entourage of Jesus fled Jerusalem after his death as their lives were in danger. This was because the Roman administration, who had convicted Jesus to die as a ’rebel’ and insurrectionist, wanted to root out any remaining
troublemakers’ of the ’Jesus’ party to quell any perceived unrest. We have seen elsewhere that
a political fight which seem to have been going on at the time of the birth of Jesus was with the struggle of the supremacy of the Herodian dynasty over a more legitimate Jewish dynasty, of which Jesus may have been a representative. The Jews themselves may have wanted Jesus killed for blasphemy although the Jewish priests were allowed to carry out their own trials for these offences. So it seems Jesus died from an essentially Roman punishment, that of Crucifixion.
There are those, however, who consider that there were no ‘persecutions’ of Christians at this time, precisely because there were no Christians. Therefore there was no reason for the early followers of Jesus to have left Jerusalem. These followers of Jesus were Jews. The Jews however did have a long history of uprisings against their Roman oppressors. Its possible that if Mary didn't leave Jerusalem in the immediate aftermath of the Crucifixion she had most probably left before the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. Unrest in Jerusalem which culminated in the fall of the Temple began in around AD66. Prior to this, as Goodman reports, Roman comments
about Jews ‘were rarely hostile before the outbreak of war in 66’. The Bible tells us that initially the early disciples did flee at the time of the arrest of Jesus. But they are said to have regrouped together, a few days later, either in Jerusalem or in Galilee.
The relatives of Jesus had lived in Nazareth since the first century. Some of them were prominent early Christians. Among those named in the New Testament are his mother and four of his brothers: James, Simeon, Joseph and Jude. According to the Gospels, some of the family were opposed to the mission and ‘religion’ of Jesus. The relatives of Jesus, despite this, were accorded a special position within the early church, as displayed by the leadership of James in
Jerusalem. Pagan observers of early Christian groups (for example Celsus) also mention a group named after a certain woman called Mariamme (the ancient way of writing Mary), but the particular Mary of the ‘religion’ is not identified. Was it the Virgin Mary aka Mary of Nazareth or another Mary prominent in the early religion, such as Mary Magdalene? Perhaps this group had some relationship to the Nassenes, mentioned by Hippolytus1, in his Refutatio, whose teachings were supposed to have been passed down from James, the Brother of the Lord, through a woman named Mariamme. This Mariamme has been equated with Mary Magdalene by some observers via a 'heretical' group which split off from the early Johanine Community as recorded in the Gospel of John (where the role of Mary Magdalene is most prominent) and where the traditions of this 'heretical' group later amalgamated with the ancient Mandeans (where the Mandeans revere John the Baptist and where the Gospel of John records that disciples of John the Baptist were originally among the disciples of Jesus but may have split off from the Jesus Party at a later date).2
We know that Mary Magdalene was with the early disciples after the Resurrection. For example, in the Gospel of Mary, she is shown as being in conversation with the other
disciples. As Karen King reports, when the Apostles are downhearted and depressed, she says: ‘Do not mourn or grieve or be irresolute, for his grace will be with you all and will defend you. Let us rather praise his greatness, for he prepared us and made us into men."
The text goes on to describe the dispirited disciples then having a change of heart - for the better, and they began to discuss the words of Jesus. Peter asks Mary: ‘Sister, we know that the Saviour loved you more than other women [cf. John 11:5, Luke 10:38-42]. Tell us the words of the Saviour which you have in mind since you know them; and we do not, nor have we heard of them."
Mary then describe's what Jesus had said to her. When Mary had finished and had become silent, the text in the Gospel of Mary continues; “But the apostle Andrew said to the gathered brethren, 'Say what you think concerning what she said. For I do not believe that the Saviour said this. For certainly these teachings are of other ideas." Peter also opposed her in
regard to these matters and asked them about the Saviour. "Did he then speak secretly with a woman [cf. John 4:27], in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?" Then Mary grieved and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart or that I am lying concerning the Saviour?"
Levi answered and said to Peter, "Peter, you are always irate. Now I see that you are contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Saviour made her worthy, who are you to reject her? Surely the Saviour knew her very well [cf. Luke 10:38- 42]. For this reason he loved her more than us [cf. John 11:5]. And we should rather be ashamed and put on the Perfect Man, to form us [?] as he commanded us, and proclaim the gospel, without publishing a further commandment or a further law than the one which the Saviour spoke." When Levi had said this, they began to go out in order to proclaim him and preach him’.
One can see from these exchanges, that although Mary was with the other disciples from the
beginning, she was already being disputed by them, and her authority questioned at this very early stage. Andrew says she is teaching ‘other ideas’. Then Levi speaks up accusing Peter of
behaving like their own enemies of Jesus and his ‘movement’. Peter was treating the Magdalene as their enemies treated them. Levi also confirms that Mary knew Jesus very well. This idea is reiterated in the Gospel of Philip where the Magdalene is described as thus: 'And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her [.....]. The rest of the disciples [...]. They aid to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."
Karen King said in her introduction in The Nag Hammadi Library said: 'the confrontation of Mary with Peter, a scenario also found in The Gospel of Thomas, Pistis Sophia, and The Gospel of the Egyptians, reflects some of the tensions in second-century Christianity. Peter and Andrew represent orthodox positions that deny the validity of esoteric revelation and reject the authority of women to teach. The Gospel of Mary attacks both of these positions head-on through its portrayal of Mary Magdalene. She is the Saviour's beloved, possessed of knowledge and teaching superior to that of the public apostolic tradition. Her superiority is based on vision and private revelation and is demonstrated in her capacity to strengthen the wavering disciples and turn them toward the Good’.
If these discussions and scenarios are correct, I think we can safely say that Mary Magdalene was not considered important enough by some of the male disciples and that they even considered her a little ’mad’. This may have been the cultural norm then, but it is clear from the above texts that some of the male followers of Jesus accepted her testimony. However, it is possible that Mary would have been ostracised on the grounds of teaching 'other ideas', even though some disciples were championing her views. She probably parted company with the other disciples very early on. This can be evidenced by Paul, one of the earliest followers of Jesus, who omits any mention of the Magdalene whatsoever. It seems a strange anomaly for him not to mention her. But perhaps this is because, like Andrew and Peter, Paul represented Orthodox positions regarding Jesus. Maybe she was not seen as significant in any way for them. It does seem strange that we have some texts where Peter and Andrew discuss the relevance of the Magdalene but Paul never mentions the issue at all. And Paul knew Peter.
Apart from this it seems that those closest to the life of Jesus then completely disappear from the historical record. The family at Bethany which was such an intimate part of Jesus’ life vanish and are never heard of again. Lazarus and Mary of Bethany so important in his ministry disappear. The brothers and cousins of Jesus vanish from the record too. And instead of their first hand testimonies, we rely on the New Testament Gospels - that are second hand and not
direct witnesses to the life of Jesus.
Mary Magdalene in Early Tradition
Concerning Mary Magdalene the facts actually speak for themselves. Richard Atwood said: ‘Mary Magdalene and the other women, to whom Jesus turned towards immediately prior to his Crucifixion, and it was Mary Magdalene to whom Jesus first appeared as the Risen Christ’ . The ‘central message of the Christian faith, had its beginnings and its source in the heart and soul of women, and specifically in Mary Magdalene’ .
It was the male disciples who were the first ‘unbelievers’. For when the women reported
what they had seen at the Empty Tomb the disciples decided that it ‘appeared to them as nonsense and they would not believe’ (Luke 24:11). The Magdalene Tradition is said to have been best preserved by the writer of the Gospel of John. For John she was the most important person relating to the mysteries of Jesus. It was Mary Magdalene, he said, who saw the entombment of Christ, and it was she who also saw the ‘empty tomb’ and all that that signified. The women, and in particular Mary Magdalene, are the primary witnesses of the entire story of the death, resurrection and later appearances of Jesus. There is virtually an unbroken presence from the scenes at the Cross, up to the appearances of Jesus to the women, and especially Mary Magdalene. They are not only witnesses but also ambassadors & messengers (i.e. the women are the recipients and transmitters of the message from God).
Atwood continued: ‘That the disciples became the key proponents of the Christian message is unquestioned. That the disciples play only an indirect and insignificant role in this account, and that the women were the first initial recipients and transmitters of this Good News is equally unquestionable and no legitimate attempts can be made to limit the significance of Mary Magdalene …’.
'In spite of Mary Magdalene’s remarkable and important and significant role, and in spite of the position given to her by Jesus himself, one must wonder that the New Testament writers have dealt with her in such a reserved and limited manner. Was the reason to suppress the role of the Magdalene in order to advance the role of the male disciples? This thought cannot easily be ruled out. And as we saw in the other apocryphal Gospels, this scenario is almost certain'.
And so Mary may have left the scene very early on. But where would she go?
Recent archaeology has shown the remains of the oldest Christian church, which was used
by Christ's followers who fled Jerusalem after the crucifixion. The underground chapel, hidden beneath the Saint Georgeous Church in Rihab, near the Syrian border, is thought to date from between AD33 and AD70, and would have served as both a place of worship and a home. Abdul Qader Husan, head of the Rihab Centre for Archaeological Studies, said: "We have evidence to believe this church sheltered the early Christians – the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ." A mosaic inscription on the Saint Georgeous floor pays homage to the "70 beloved by God and Divine" who escaped to northern Jordan from the persecution of the Christians in Jerusalem. Would
Mary have gone with these? Or would she have been ostracised from this Community also?
Another place identified as a place of refuge once the situation in Jerusalem became unstable
(ca. AD66) is Pella. As part of the kingdom of Agrippa it offered in A.D. 66 a safe refuge to the little Christian community of Mt. Sion who, under the leadership of St. Simon, took refuge there during the revolt of the Jews and the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans (Eusebius, "H.E.", III, v; Epiphanius, "Haer.", xxix, 7).
Little is know about the family of Simon, yet there are reasons to believe that he was a
"brother of the Lord." Both Matthew and Mark mentioned a Simon as the brother of Jesus.
When Christ returned to Nazareth and began teaching in the synagogues, the astonished people queried, "'Is not this the carpenter..., the brother of James, Joseph, Jude and Simon?'" In the lists of the apostles, all three Synoptics mentioned a Simon together with James and Jude. When St Mark enumerated the names of James, Jude and Simon as brethren of the Lord, he used the same sequence that he used in his list of the apostles. This is further evidence that Simon was an apostle like James and Jude, also brethren of the Lord. This assumption is supported by Hegesippus' statement that a Simon, the second bishop of Jerusalem, was a son of Clopas, the brother of the foster father St Joseph.
We know James, the brother of Jesus, was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, as directed by Jesus
himself. We also know that James disagreed with the ‘teachings’ of the Apostles Peter and Paul and this group of ‘coalescing’ Christians . Later, Paul also disagreed with the Jewish view of Jesus’ movement. Would Mary have stayed close to this Jerusalem group and family members of Jesus? We have seen above that Pagan observers of early Christian groups (for example Celsus) mentioned a group named after a certain woman called Mariamme but as we saw the particular Mary of the ‘religion’ is not identified. Was it the Virgin Mary aka Mary of Nazareth or another Mary prominent in the early religion, such as Mary Magdalene? Was this group related to the Nassenes, mentioned by Hippolytus, in his Refutatio, whose teachings were supposed to have been passed down from James, the Brother of the Lord, through a woman named Mariamme. Perhaps it is possible that this was Mary Magdalene?
After all, the sect promoted by Peter and Paul were the same who were ostracising Mary and James, the brother of Jesus. When Simon, brother of Jesus, second bishop of Jerusalem left for Pella did Mary travel with them?
Other apocryphal literature say that Mary Magdalene went to Rome. They appear to be
legendary suggesting that she went to see Tiberius. ‘One tradition concerning Mary Magdalene says that following the death and resurrection of Jesus, she used her position to gain an invitation to a banquet given by Emperor Tiberius. When she met him, she held a plain egg in her hand and exclaimed "Christ is risen!" Caesar laughed, and said that Christ rising from the dead was as likely as the egg in her hand turning red while she held it. Before he finished speaking, the egg in her hand turned a bright red, and she continued proclaiming the Gospel to the entire imperial house.’
It is interesting that this writer says Mary ‘used her position to gain an invitation to a banquet given by Emperor Tiberius’. What was her social standing and position to be able to do this? Tiberius himself was dead by AD37 and in AD26 he exiled himself from Rome. How could Mary see Tiberius in Rome when he was exiled by AD26? Perhaps he was visiting Rome? When Tiberius died, his adopted grandson Caligula became Roman Emperor, and upon his death Claudius became Emperor, ruling from AD41 to AD54.
The East also have other traditions. According to these, Mary Magdalene retired to Ephesus with the Theotokos (Mary, the Mother of God) and there she died. Her relics were transferred to Constantinople in 886 and are there preserved. Gregory of Tours, writing in the sixth century, supports the tradition that she retired to Ephesus, with no mention of any connection to
Gaul. But by the Middle Ages, a whole cult had spread around Mary. The medieval book called the "Golden Legend" finally reporting among other things, that "Mary Magdalene was wedded to John the Evangelist." This is the same Evangelist that went with the Virgin Mary to
Ephesus. And he was attested biblically as the Beloved Disciple, with whom Jesus had entrusted the care of his mother. We will have more to say on this later.
What is the latest scholarship on the identity question of Mary Magdalene?
Mary’s identity
‘In a sermon whose text is given in Patrologia Latina, Pope Gregory stated that he believed "that the woman Luke called a sinner and John called Mary was the Mary out of whom Mark declared that seven demons were cast" (Hanc vero quam Lucas peccatricem mulierem, Joannes Mariam nominat, illam esse Mariam credimus de qua Marcus septem damonia ejecta
fuisse testatur), thus identifying the sinner of Luke 7:37, the Mary of John 11:2 and 12:3 (the sister of Lazarus and Martha of Bethany), with Mary Magdalene, from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons, related in Mark 16:9'.
While most Western writers shared this view, it was not seen as a Church teaching, but as an opinion, the pros and cons of which were discussed. With the liturgical changes made in 1969, there is no longer mention of Mary Magdalene as a sinner in Roman Catholic liturgical materials. The Eastern Orthodox Church has never accepted Gregory's identification of Mary Magdalene with the sinful woman.’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_I).
No doubt the Church had its own reasons for back pedalling on this issue, perhaps to try and stop associations of all three women in the biblical texts with Mary Magdalene because of recent ideas being disseminated that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus. It seems opportune, especially as the Church made no move to challenge the idea of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute for 2000 years, and now changing their viewpoint without saying a word about it!
The Eastern Orthodox church has always held that Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and
Luke’s sinner, were different people. However, in the biblical texts themselves, in particular the Gospel of John, the author (known as the ‘Beloved Disciple’) allows an identification of Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene. We will discuss this below, but what did early church father’s teach?
Irenaeus (ca. 130—ca. 200) in his treaty against heresy (Adv.H) speaks of the anointing sinful
woman it seems, without thinking of Mary Magdalene or Mary of Bethany. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150—ca. 200) identified the anointing of Bethany in Mt.16:6-13 and Mk. 14:3-9 with John.12:1-8. If an assumption is made that only one anointing took place, one must assume it was done by the same woman. Tertullian assumes the same. That there was only one anointing, and therefore one woman must be involved. Some scholars however believe that this is an inaccurate interpretation. In very early Church tradition, the Fathers spilled much ink on the identity of Mary Magdalene, and whether she was synonymous with the sinful woman
of Luke 7, or whether she was one and the same as Mary of Bethany (sister of Lazarus). Related to this identity question rests the Southern French Magdalene legend (variously found at Vezeley and Saint Baume). For if these biblical characters are not identified as the same person, then the legends of her arrival in France cannot be ‘accurate‘ either. The historical question regarding these Western legends are based on hagiographical writings which support the tradition that the Magdalene came to France and these exist only as early as the eleventh
century (or perhaps the 10th century).
Other early church fathers seem to have followed the church fathers before them.
This Mary was perhaps the single most important person in the new faith’s most crucial three days. Yet after these, she is not mentioned again -- not in Acts, not in the various epistles, not in earliest martyrology -- and that is doubtless why in succeeding generations readers, hungry for a more detailed picture of this woman rumoured from the first to have been something “special”
to Jesus, have given her the characteristics and experiences of other Marys and unnamed biblical women.
This contamination of several Mary's gets positively rediculous after a while. It may be pertinent to mention here the bizarre case of mistaken identity regarding Mary Magdalene in the early centuries of the forming Christian faith. This concerns the identity of the Virgin Mary, Christ’s ‘mother’ - labelled by historians as Mary of Nazareth and that of Mary Magdalene, where these two identities are frequently mixed up. For example, in the Gospel of Peter and the Pistis Sophia Mary of Nazareth is just as important a figure as Mary Magdalene. Some even see these figures as one and the same. And the particular spelling of the name Mary throughout early textual traditions are no reliable indicator of which Mary is being referred to either.
How can Christ’s mother ever have been mistaken with Mary Magdalene?
It is recorded in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas that James was an important leader of the early Church stating "The disciples said to Jesus: We know that you will depart from us;
who is it who will lead us?" Jesus said to them, "Wherever you have come from, go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came to be." The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew also mention a James as Jesus' brother: "– Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
There is a Mary later mentioned as the mother of a James, both in the Gospel of Mark and in the Gospel of Matthew. Catholic interpretation generally holds that this James is to be identified with James the son of Alphaeus, and James, the brother of Jesus. Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.
This has some bearing on our earlier assertion that if the disciples of Jesus were related to
him then why not some of the female ‘followers’ such as Mary Magdalene and Mary Salome (especially as Mary Salome had two sons who were disciples)? In the Gospel of John Mary Magdalene herself is portrayed as part of a small group of Jesus’ near relatives. This is interpreted from the lines at the scene of the Crucifixion: Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
A common interpretation is to identify Salome as the sister of Jesus' mother, thus making her Jesus' aunt. In some places Salome is also identified with Mary of Cleophas and venerated as
"Saint Mary Salome". However, other traditional Catholic interpretations associate Mary of Cleophas with Mary the mother of James and Joses. In the Gospel of Mark, Salome is among the women who went to Jesus' tomb to anoint his body with spices. They discovered that
the stone had been rolled away, and a figure in white then told them that Jesus had risen, and asked them to tell Jesus' disciples that he would meet them in Galilee. In Matthew, just two women are mentioned in the same story: Mary Magdalene and the somewhat ambiguous "other Mary". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just).
As you will see below, a Coptic manuscript confuses this episode and also suggests that Mary Magdalene is the sister of Christ’s mother!
Biblical scholars, when referring to John 19:25 opt for the common interpretation of four
women standing at the Cross. That is Jesus’ mother, her sister, Mary of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. There is another interpretation and this involves the suggestion that Mary Magdalene is herself a relative of Jesus. When John 19:25 is viewed as a parallelism Mary Magdalene is introduced as the sister of Jesus’s mother. The idea of sisters is not considered accurate because of the oddity of two sisters bearing the same name of Mary. However the
original word in the Greek language could have been used in a wider sense, that of kinswoman, such as sister-in-law or niece. So according to John, Mary Magdalene would have belonged to the group of relatives of Jesus.
Salome, another Mary at the foot of the Cross, according to Mathew was the mother of
Zebedee's children - who were both disciples of Jesus. But Salome has also been presented as a sister of Jesus’s mother. Or a relative in some way. In the Secret Gospel of Mark it is written: ‘And the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there with his mother and Salome’. An interesting analysis by Fowler has led to the identity of this ‘young man whom Jesus loved’ and his connection to the Bethany group (a group very important to Jesus in his ministry) and essentially to the figures at the foot of the Cross where Jesus died. For Fowler the biblical Bethany youth and Lazarus are the same person especially as, in his view, there are the echoes of Secret Mark within canonical Mark [which] help to tell a coherent tale, and, what is more, tell one that is not merely parallel to but continuous with the story of Lazarus in John.
It revolves around Secret Gospel of Mark (SGM ) verse 1:1-13 and the canonical Gospel of Mark. Secret Mark is to be inserted in the text of canonical Mark at designated points. Clement indicates that this first chapter of Secret Mark fits into the popular version of Mark between 10:34 and 10:35. Of this scheme Smith says: [Professor Pierson] "Parker had observed that the Lazarus story in John and the resurrection story in the secret Gospel occur at the same period in Jesus' career: Jesus has gone up from Galilee to Judea and thence to Trans-Jordan. I now saw that the framework of Mk. 10:1-34 plus the resurrection story of the secret Gospel was parallel to the framework of Jn. 10:40-11:54 plus the Lazarus story. This means that the secret Gospel fits the Markan framework at that place at which Clement said it stood in Mark!
The parallels between the Gospel of John's story of Lazarus and Secret Mark's story about the youth are striking, although Secret Mark's story is shorter and sparer in its details. Secret Mark's designated location in the public or canonical version of Mark also supports the comparison: Mark 10:32, two verses before the place where Clement says that Secret Mark 1:1-13 is to be inserted, tells us that the disciples are apprehensive just as they are at John 11:8, early in the story about Lazarus. In both texts, fear of Jesus' arrest is the cause of their apprehension, although they are going to Jerusalem in Mark and Bethany's proximity is incidental, while they are on their way to Bethany in John and Jerusalem's proximity is perhaps incidental to Jesus if certainly not to his disciples.
In each story the incident occurs at Bethany, the sister of the deceased approaches Jesus on the road (but one sister in Secret Mark, and two in John), the dead man's sister shows Jesus the tomb and Jesus raises the man from the dead (entering the tomb and touching the deceased in Secret Mark, but keeping his distance in John). In Secret Mark, the young man immediately takes Jesus into his home which Lazarus eventually does (John 12:1-2). The Bethany youth/Lazarus could have been a disciple because disciples and apostles are overlapping but distinguishable categories and Jesus had many more disciples than apostles. Jesus is only said to have loved (using agapa or other forms of agapaô) the rich man (Mk 10:21), Lazarus, Mary and Martha (Jn 11:5), the beloved disciple (Jn 13:23, 19:26, 21:20), his disciples (Jn 13:1, 34; 15:9, 12), and his Father (Jn 14:31). SGM 2:1 also tells us that Jesus loved (êgapa) the Bethany youth. At John 11:3, Mary and Martha inform Jesus that their brother, "the one you love (phileis = "are fond of")," is seriously ill. (Jn 20:2 similarly uses phileis in referring to the beloved disciple.) John 11:5 then tells us that Jesus loved (êgapa) Lazarus, Mary and Martha. How does Jesus know the Bethany family? John does not say, but the implication is that the Bethany family has been devoted to Jesus for some time.
Later in the scene at the foot of the Cross in John ‘Jesus commands the beloved disciple to take Jesus' mother, Mary, as his own mother (Jn 19:25-27). Recall that SGM 2.1 says, "And the
sister of the young man Jesus loved was there with his mother and Salome." If the Bethany youth and beloved disciple are one and the same, we have the sister of a youth who is loved by Jesus turning up in the company of Jesus' mother and Salome so soon after the Bethany incident that the Bethany family could have been well-acquainted with Jesus and his mother before the Bethany incident in the tradition behind Secret Mark and John. …..If he is both the
Bethany youth and Gethsemane youth, the beloved disciple endangers himself when he enters the high priest's court with Jesus (Jn 18:15). Why he is not prosecuted may have to do with his wealth and position and even his acquaintance with the high priest (supported by Jn 18:15) and/or the realization on the part of Jesus' enemies that they only need to eliminate Jesus without whom the youth poses no threat (unsupported). In any case, nothing actually guarantees his safety, so that the bravery of the beloved disciple is quite remarkable. Ironically (there is that word again), John does not remark upon the unnamed disciple's courage at all but, instead, focuses on the contrasting cowardice of Peter (Jn 18:17)!
Another possible connection between figures in Secret Mark and Mark was suggested to Smith by professor R. Schippers of the University at Amsterdam, and involves the women Jesus meets at Jericho (SGM 2:1). The first woman on the list in Secret Mark appears to be the sister of the Bethany youth, the same woman introduced at SGM 1:1-2. Cross-referencing Secret Mark with John 11:1-44, this sister is identified with Mary/Martha (since John has given the youth/Lazarus two sisters instead of one). Schippers suggests that, in an early tradition, Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala were the same person or at least that stories about them were interchangeable. The other two women are identified as "his mother and Salome." Salome also appears among those present for the crucifixion at Mark 15:40 where the list is replete with names. Could the two lists, SGM 2:1 and Mk 15:40 be of the same three women? Though we have never heard of them before the crucifixion in Mark, we are told that they "had regularly followed and assisted him when he was in Galilee, along with many other women who had come up to Jerusalem in his company" (15:41).
The Greek text of Mk 15:40 literally lists these figures as follows: Mary Magdalene; Mary, James' (the Less) and Joses' mother; and Salome (Maria hê Magdalênê kai Maria hê Iakôbou tou mikrou kai Iôsêtos mêtêr kai Salômê [ Iôsê for Iôsêtos and other variations are found in some MSS]). The feminine article "ê" and the word for "mother" (mêtêr) that it modifies form a sort of womb enclosing the names of Mary's sons but excluding Salome. Salome is a companion of the two Marys, not one's absent daughter, pace Robert Eisenman. I do, however, find persuasive Eisenman's argument that Mary, the mother of James and Joses, is actually Jesus' mother, indeed, that "Joses" is most likely a variant of "Jesus."
Given the equivalence of the maternal Marys, we now have identified the women on the lists (SGM 2:1 and Mk 15:40) as the same persons. The same three women appear at 16:1, although Salome is not named along with the two Marys at 15:47. Neither does she appear with them at all in the other gospels. If Mary Magdalene is the sister of the youth she finds in Jesus' tomb, why does she not recognize him? I suspect that that this is because characters merged, separated and became obscure to the redactors depending upon the story's given stage of development, but it is also possible that some of the identities suggested here were never intended. (In that case, one could invoke the legal concept of severability.) Nevertheless, I think that, in addition to an extended tale about the Bethany youth, we have found a companion story about his sister as a perennial member of Jesus' entourage, often seen as part of a group of three women. Probably, the whole family of the Bethany youth was seen as having a relationship with Jesus beginning before the Bethany incident.” (http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/fowler.html)
Does this analysis support a very close connection between Mary Magdalene, Lazarus and the rich Bethany group and indeed how important they were to Jesus and how their money enabled him to carry out his mission? Does it also support a familial connection in some way? And does it also support a connection to the events surrounding the death and Resurrection of Jesus? And in fact that the disciples and Apostles were less important than this Bethany group, of which Mary Magdalene was attached?
Returning back to a Mariamme being the source of teaching for a very early Christian
group we find that the name also appears in the Gospel of Philip, where it is the name of Phillip's sister. And in fact this Mary is connected to the Mary of Mary and Martha fame, i.e. Mary of Bethany! By close analysis Mary of Bethany could be Mary Magdalene and if correct this scenario would suggest that this Mary is the sister of Philip! Philip was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. Later Christian traditions describe Philip as the apostle who preached in Greece, Syria, and Phrygia. The Gospel of Philip makes no claim to be from the apostle Philip, though, similarly, the four New Testament gospels make no explicit claim to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. The Gospel of Philip was written between 150 AD and 300 AD, while Philip himself died 80 AD, making it extremely unlikely to be his writing. Most
scholars hold a 3rd century date of composition. This Gospel does refer to Philip the apostle and he is the only apostle so mentioned in the text. It is intriguing then, that if we suppose that Mary Magdalene was the sister of Philip, then it is in this Gospel that information about Mary Magdalene is quite revealing. Much of the Gospel of Philip is dedicated to a discussion of
marriage as a sacred mystery, and two passages directly refer to Mary Magdalene and her close relationship with Jesus: There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.
That passage is also interesting for its mention of Jesus's sister (Jesus's unnamed sisters are mentioned in the New Testament at Mark 6:3), although the text is confusing on that point: she appears to be described first as the sister of Jesus's mother Mary, then as the sister of Jesus, although this may be a translation problem. Mary Magdalene is called Jesus's companion, partner or consort, using the word koinônos, of Greek origin, and the word hôtre, of Egyptian origin. The other passage referring to Mary Magdalene is incomplete because of damage to the original manuscript. Several words are missing. The best guesses as to what they were are
shown below in brackets. Most notably there is a hole in the manuscript after the phrase "and used to kiss her often on her...." But the passage appears to describe Jesus kissing Magdalene and using a parable to explain to the disciples why he loved her more than he loved them:
'And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [often] on her [ ]. 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?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.’
In Coptic tradition there are the same strange attributes given to various Mary’s which
are very confusing. For example, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem in his ‘Homily on the Dormition (late 5th or early 6th century) says:“the Virgin Mary’s name is Maria, which is interpreted as Mariam….. And because her native village was Magdalia she was also called Mary Magdalene”.
We can see here that in the minds of some the Virgin Mary was thought to be the same person
as Mary Magdalene. How could the early Church authorities make such errors or assumptions? In Late Antiquity the identities of the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene were merged. Why? Near the end of Cyril's narrative the Virgin entrusts all those ‘virgins’ living with her to the care of Mary Magdalene, who is now a very separate person. And in Syriac Christianity, it is the Virgin Mary and not Mary Magdalene who is the first witness to the Resurrection. Another
Coptic manuscript has the Resurrection seen as follows:
‘The Magdalene spread on her body the oil which remained with the sister of Lazarus, that which Christ had prescribed her to keep for the day of his burial; they buried (and) placed him in the new tomb of Joseph, in a garden. They rolled a large stone, placed it at the opening of the tomb (and) went in; but the Holy Magdalene went with her sister, Marie, Jesus’s mother. After the Sabbath, the morning of Sunday, Magdalene came to the tomb with the women; when they reached the tomb, they found an angel sitting on the stone rolled in front of the mouth of the tomb; the angel informed them: " The Lord is alive; go and tell his disciples". They left apprehensive, and did not say a word to anybody; then, Holy Magdalene turned to the tomb; she looked inside of the tomb; she saw two angels sitting, one [at its head] the other [and its foot] of the place where [was the body] of Jesus; they said to her: " [Woman]; O Marie ........... he is alive" ….The virgin said: " I would not believe, if i had not seen. ..." Peter rose with John; they came to the tomb; they saw the burial clothing's deposited; they saw Théotokos (the mother of God). They say:" Really, the Lord is alive?". But they are not persuaded seeing his/her sister. After that, Magdalene came. The virgin said to her sister: " My son, Is he alive? I did not see". When the mother of Jesus had heard these things, she left, with disorder, towards the tomb, saying words of suffering; her sister placed herself behind the tomb because of people of the guard; Magdalene came, in a meadow (garden?) then Jesus, appeared with his mother, behind the tomb; he spoke to her, then she thought that he was the gardener; the moment had come when he goes to his Father. Magdalene still being in front of the empty tomb - he called: "Mariham"; she heard his voice; she came, while running; and his mother known as: "Rabbouni, you are alive , really, you are alive". His mother placed herself on him to embrace; " Noli me tangere! " She started to cry: " Why, my Lord, and my son, have you made foreign to you today? "
It can be argued then, that Mary Magdalene was strong and independent in her own right.
She may have been well connected and could have had money at her disposal, enough to
support Jesus on his mission. She could well have been important in the Bethany family and perhaps also related to the mother of Jesus in some way if ancient witnesses are to be believed. This may help to explain Doumergue's assertion about the reliquary that is preserved in the cave of Sainte Baume (South of France). As we recall Doumergue said “The reliquary represents Magdalene and her close relations in the boat which drove them the from East to the South of France. At the front of the boat, a mummified body is stretched out. A woman sits over this body. She has the mother of Jesus'
She has the mother of Jesus' attributes? Now, no tradition says that the Virgin Mary came to the South of France. She is thus there only to identify the mummified body! …. Officially (for the Catholics), the reliquary represents the displacement of the body of Saint Anna (the grandmother of Christ) by Mary Magdalene. Indeed, some legends affirm that the body of Saint Anna was brought back to Gaul by Mary Magdalene. It would rest in the crypt of a church of the city of Apt (in the French's departement named Vaucluse, in the South of France...) But, in my opinion, these legends concerning Saint Anna’s body were manufactured to hide the memory of the repatriation of the body of Jesus in Gaul….. And, mysteriously, no text relative to Mary Magdalene speaks about the repatriation of the body of Saint Anna. These legends are present only at Apt. As if one had erased in the texts anything relating to Mary Magdalene’s repatriation of a body of a member of Jesus's family from the East to the West “ (http://www.rhedesium.com/interview-with-christian-doumergue.html).
It is strange that a reliquary showing the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene together (especially as they are confused in ancient texts regarding the body of Jesus) should have a mummified body in a boat with them.
Dr. Baker is professor of history at Western Kentucky University. He had this to say about Mary Magdalene - "she has variously been identified as the woman “caught in the very act” of adultery (John 8:3-11). Drawing on ancient traditions, William Blake (The Everlasting Gospel) and Nikos Kazantzakis (The Last Temptation of Christ) have made much of this match. But of course this woman was caught at her business (as was her male partner, though he apparently wasn’t accused) after Jesus had come to Jerusalem, and Magdalene was supposed to have been reformed by then, so other myths say. She has also been identified, perhaps more by modern novelists and screenwriters than by the ancients, as the woman at the well (John 4:4.29). But this woman was a Samaritan, not a Galilean like Magdalene; and nowhere is there any hint that Magdalene had had even one husband, let alone a whole series.
She has been identified as the woman who anointed Jesus’ head with a precious ointment. This happened in Bethany, at the table of Simon the leper (Mark 14:3-9; Matt. 26: 7-13). Simon the Leper lived in this house with Mary of Bethany and Martha, and presumably Lazarus. Some of those present at the anointing criticized her for the waste, but Jesus praised the act, and it was then that Judas decided to betray him. Luke, placing the story in an earlier context, says that this “bad woman” washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, kissed them and anointed them with perfume; but it is probably the same story, for though it is said to have happened long before Judas’ betrayal and in a slightly different manner, it did happen in the home of a publican named Simon.
How did this event get to be associated with Magdalene? John may provide the answer. He says twice that Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus of Bethany poured perfume on Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair. This happened in her own home, not in the house of a man named Simon, but it was in Bethany, it was during a meal, and Judas did complain about the waste of perfume that could have been sold and the money given to the poor. But there is
not the slightest shred of hard evidence that she was Magdalene or that Magdalene was any of the Gospels’ other Marys or unnamed “bad” women. There is certainly no biblical basis for saying that she was a reformed prostitute or that she had long red hair, though the length of the hair probably derives from her confusion with Mary of Bethany. She did have the audacity to be no man’s wife or mother.
Magdalene disappeared from the official record Easter afternoon. Perhaps she returned to
Galilee to live quietly, uneventfully, under the protection of one of those Christian communities not recorded in the New Testament. Perhaps she was martyred. Perhaps she was left out of the canon because she never again did anything memorable, perhaps because her “special” relationship with Jesus would have made her a target for attack by those who wished to discredit his work. No one really knows, just as no one knows how much credit she should get for the idea that Jesus rose from the dead. Pesky questions have persisted from the first century to the modern age, as in the theological criticism of writers like Ernest Renan. Did Magdalene find the empty tomb and bring back to the other women and then to the men a story of visions so vivid they made them their bereaved delirium? Was she the real founder of the Christian faith?
For a thousand years she all but disappeared. She lived on in oral tradition; it was then that
her image expanded and deepened; but in almost no surviving art and few theological commentaries does she even appear. Her name, her face, her place in the tradition were officially ignored.
This could at first have been because the early fathers, like Luke before them, saw her as a
potential rival to the Virgin. The Virgin is not, even in Luke, a particularly prominent figure in the ministry or passion of Jesus. His first recorded words mildly rebuke her for not understanding that even as a 12-year-old he had to tend to his father’s business. Later, at the marriage at Cana, he is none too happy with her for bothering him about the wine. In the middle of his work she tries to get him to come home and forget his adoring crowds, and he refuses to recognize her as his mother. But Magdalene is always there -- in Galilee, in Jerusalem, at Golgotha, at the tomb on Easter morning: and had her part in the pageant been duly acknowledged, she might well have surpassed the Virgin in prestige and reverence.
But while fear of rivalry may help explain the early silence and neglect, it does not explain
its long continuation. By the day of the theologian Origen (182-251) the Virgin could without fear of contradiction be called Mother of God, the New Eve, the New Adam’s Mother. By the fourth century festivals to her outnumbered those to all other saints combined. She had no rival: Magdalene and all other women were eclipsed". (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1149).
But let us look more closely. Modestus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in 630, wrote that he believed
that the Magdalene had died both a virgin and a Martyr. He asserted that she had been a leader of the ‘women disciples’. Haskins also identified another phenomenon, first appearing in
Syria, where the figure of the Virgin Mary was conflated with Mary Magdalene, in the scenes of the Resurrection. It seemed to Haskins that this was ‘a deliberate and systematic superimposition’ of the two Marys’. Why would this be necessary? Was it perhaps to subdue the
importance of the Magdalene, who superseded even the mother of Christ and as the Gnostic literature asserted - ‘the Magdalene….{was} seen as spiritually pure, and was praised above ‘all the women on earth’?
Or were people getting mixed up with the two Mary's? A codex dated to 586 (Rabbula Codex) shows the Virgin Mother and Mary Magdalene at the Tomb of Jesus and also the resurrected Christ meeting his mother. None of these depictions have their basis in the New Testament, but can be said to typify the confusion surrounding Mary Magdalene and what became of her after the Crucifixion. In fact it would support the ideas in the Coptic document described above. Gregory of Tours in around 538 said that the first port of call for Mary Magdalene after the Crucifixion was Ephesus, the city of Artemis/Diana. If Haskins is right, and there was a 'a deliberate and systematic ‘superimposition’ of the two Marys’, then why should we accept that the tradition of Mary Magdalene going to Ephesus is correct? And doesn't Gregory's 'first port of call' suggest she then moved on to somewhere else?
In an alleged Priory document ... this question itself is posed. The work is entitled 'Lazare, Veni Foras!' and it is attributed to abbe Henri Boudet. "Lazare Véni Foras" is first mentioned by Gérard de Sède, when he tackles the enigma of Rennes-le-Château. He states that he received from a priest, Courtauly, the information that the original manuscript of this text was destroyed by the regional religious authorities, in the presence of its author Boudet in 1914. De Sède adds that it is impossible that this destruction occurred, as the dates do not correspond with a chronology that places the publication in 1915. Obviously, we are here seeing vestiges of another work by Cherisey. In its history Pierre Jarnac seems to be the first person to offer severe criticism of this book, which appear to him to be of a dubious origin. His study is published in « Les Archives du Trésor de Rennes-le-Château ». In the re-edition of the work, in 1998, there are some comments on the book (pages 294-295). He maintains his position that all of these works are fabrications and not the work of Boudet.
The first 20 or so pages of this document are on line. There are some striking differences from the original. The original, by R. P. Charles PARRA, was published in 1924. The book is called 'Bethanie' and is described as nine meditations on the Gospel of Lazarus (?) S. Jean, Verse XI. This chapter is about Jesus teaching: I Am The Resurrection and the Life: The Raising of Lazarus.
However, in the Priory document, it is not Lazarus they are interested in at all. It is about the legend of the Magdalene coming to France. It is a discussion on the very subjects we referred to above. The deliberate blurring of the role of Mary Magdalene with the Virgin Mary. Is it somehow possible that the story of Mary Magdalene’s life after the Crucifixion has been 'lost' because it has been blurred with that of the Virgin and St John the Beloved, taught by the Catholic church that he was the author of the Gospel of John, aka the Beloved Disciple, who followed the command of Jesus from the Cross to take his mother into his care? Why should Mary Magdalene have ever been confused with the later lives of the Virgin Mary or St John the Beloved or even the Beloved Disciple? For example medieval legends associate the wedding at Cana as originally that of hers and St John the Evangelist.
Gregory of Tours also tells us that Magdalene went to Ephesus. He tells us that it was here that Paul had laboured hard against the Gnostics. It seems plausible. The Gnostics lauded Mary Magdalene as a spiritually pure woman, and if the tradition he is referring to takes her to Ephesus, it may be that this was a logical place for the Magdalene to go if there was a sizeable Gnostic community there. Out of Egypt also came the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, early
Christian writings which show Mary Magdalene as the most important follower of Jesus Christ.
Why is Mary Magdalene lauded as the most important follower of Jesus? Is it because she was
given the commission to continue the work of Jesus after his death? Schaberg suggests that Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of John is portrayed as ‘the only guarantor of the vindication of Jesus and his final message … ‘ and that it is she who we know the identity of, and it is she
that has the message of Jesus and it is she who will tell the disciples ‘he is risen’. But by telling the disciples, it is not the disciples who are empowered, but Mary. Schaberg again reiterates, the ‘commission of Mary Magdalene does not contain a promise that the disciples will see the risen Jesus. She is just to inform them that he is going’.
Mary’s Tradition has somehow survived, against all the odds.
Schaberg herself mentions the ‘oddity of giving to a woman the role traditionally associated with Peter’ (i.e. being the first to see the risen Lord) as did Brown himself. Brown felt this may have been a deliberate emphasis on John’s part. He suggests that this was ‘because Martha’s confession of Jesus’ Messiahship substitutes for Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah in the
Synoptic’.
Perhaps we can start to build a picture here? Mary Magdalane was highly respected among early groups of Jewish Christians. She was opposed by some early disciples (Peter and
Andrew) because they suggested she was teaching 'other ideas' (What?). She may have been ostracised by this early Jewish Christian community group. However, the other Jewish Christian group, which consisted of the brethren of the family of Jesus may have allowed Mary to stay and preach or be part of their group. By the destruction of Jerusalem these groups had all but scattered. It is here that traditions speak of Mary Magdalene going to Ephesus with the Virgin Mary and St John the Evangelist. We have seen that there was a systematic attempt to blur the roles of the Magdalene with the Virgin Mary. We may also suggest that as scholars thinks the Magdalene tradition was best kept by those communities which eventually produced the Gospel of John, and the Gnostic biblical traditions... perhaps she is to be found among the Gnostic communities at Ephesus that Paul was labouring against? Gregory of Tours said it was her 'first port of call'. Did she travel elsewhere after Ephesus? Did she go to Rome? Or did she decide to travel to France? Why indeed would she consider going to these places?
In Luke 8:2-3 Mary Magdalene is mentioned as one of the women who "ministered to Him [Jesus] of their substance."
Luke says: ‘And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance’. This early reference to Mary refers to the casting out of seven demons from her.
The Jews of Jesus' day generally viewed demons as powerful personal spirit creatures that were enemies who afflicted men with various illnesses. Some historians contend that Jesus and his apostles spoke only in ways that people could understand, which accommodated the popular ignorance and superstition of their time.
It is argued that those possessed suffered only from natural diseases. Gould stated that
‘the reality of demoniacal possession is a matter of doubt. The serious argument against it is, that the phenomena are mostly natural, not supernatural. It was the unscientific habit of the ancient mind to account for abnormal and uncanny things, such as lunacy and epilepsy, supernaturally. And in such cases, outside of the Bible, we accept the facts, but ascribe them to
natural causes. Another serious difficulty is that lunacy and epilepsy are common in the East, as elsewhere, and yet, unless these are cases, we do not find Jesus healing these disorders as such, but only cases of demonical possession in which these were symptoms. The dilemma is very curious. Outside the N.T., no demoniacal possession, but only lunacy and epilepsy, in the N. T., no cases of lunacy and epilepsy proper, but only demoniacal possession’.
In fact, Mathew actually describes being ‘demon possessed’ in the context of having an illness. Matthew 4:24: says "...they brought unto him [Jesus] all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy..." In Matthew 10:1: "And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.’
Be that as it may, from the Gospels, the earliest reference to Mary is that she ‘ministered unto him of her substance’ and that he had perhaps healed her of an illness. This was very early on in his ministry, because Luke 1—8 deals with Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, Capernaum and his activity by the Lake Gennesaret. Here, Jesus recruits his Apostles (Peter, James, Andrew, Philip etc). Mention is also given to John the Baptist. Early followers of the Baptist are said to have left John to follow Jesus. For example, in John, 1, ch 35 it says: ‘The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, and as he watched Jesus walk by, he exclaimed, ‘Look, here is the Lamb of God!’ The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. When
Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, ‘What are you looking for?’ They said to him, ‘Rabbi’ (which translated means Teacher), ‘where are you staying?’ He said to them, ‘Come and see.’ They came and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon. One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon and said to him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (which is translated Anointed). He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter)’.
Mary must have been witness to these events as she was already ministering to him. She is also said to have lived at the little village of Magdala, on the Sea of Galilee. But if she had enough money to help support him on his mission, where did she get her wealth from? Did she know Susanna, and Joanna? If she did, how did she? Was she wealthy and moved in influential circles? We know Magdala was a very prosperous fishing town. Did she come from a wealthy family who owned a lucrative fishing business and trade? We simple do not know, but the Bible says she was wealthy. In this respect, there may be one other scenario. Mary Magdalene is often conflated with another biblical character, that of Mary of Bethany. Are these the same person? We have discussed this at length above. Mary of Bethany belonged to the family of Lazarus, and they had a house in Bethany, a village not far from Jerusalem. Jesus spent a lot of time with this family, and important events in his ministry occurred at this house, or started from this house (i.e. his ride into Jerusalem on a donkey). To own property near Jerusalem shows that this family was wealthy.
The early Christian Fathers such as Irenaeus, Origen, Hilarius, Jerome and others appear to be unaware of the identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany or Luke’s Sinner. The Greek Church also indicated that these were three distinct women. However, Ephraem, a monk of the Syrian Church, along with Ambrosius and Augustine are cited as supporters of the ’one identity’ argument - that is, that Mary Magdalene was one and the same as Mary of Bethany and Luke’s sinner. Ambrose, when discussing Luke 10, allowed the possibility of a link between Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany. However, it was Pope Gregory I (d. 604) who had the final say in the West. He instructed that Mary Magdalene was Mary of Bethany, who was Luke’s sinner.
Mary of Magdala is legendarily said to have been a Benjamite. This may be indirectly attested to the Mary of Bethany title. If Mary of Bethany is Mary Magdalene then the following is interesting. Ananiah was settled by the Benjamites mentioned in the Old Testament. The Benjamites returned to this area after the Babylonian Exile during the Persian period. One of the places was Ananiah. (Hebrew Ananyah) Albright pointed out this was Bethania – as in Beth Ananiah. Bethany was the home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany. So if Mary of Bethany as some think, was synonymous with Mary Magdalene (a Benjamite) it might explain why she rightly lived at Bethany and who was said to actually own that town.
In the Hebew Magdal means ‘pillar’ or tower. Some scholars posit that this simply means Mary was the ‘pillar of her tribe’. That she was the chief of her tribe, the Benjamites. The family at Bethany were very wealthy, they owned property in and around Jerusalem, they owned their own family vault, and they seemed to be well connected and respected in Jerusalem. This is evidenced by the amount of interest, and the amount of people, including high ranking Jewry of Jerusalem who came to see what was happening during the death of Lazarus.
Up until 604 this seems to have been the entire debate about Mary Magdalene within the West. Was she one and the same as Mary of Bethany, and the sinner of Luke?
The Gospel of John seems to have settled this same debate early on by suggesting at least, that Mary Magdalene was the same woman as Mary of Bethany. Following Luke 8, the gospel in the ninth and tenth chapters relates such stories as the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves, the Transfiguration, the exorcism of a possessed boy and teachings about discipleship. Jesus then travelled to "a village" (i.e. Bethany, although not specified by Luke) to the home of Martha, who "had a sister named Mary". There Martha prepared a meal for Jesus. While the Gospel of St. Luke does not specifically identify Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany, the
Gospel of St. John helps resolve the issue. In John 12:1-11, Jesus arrived at Bethany, "the village of Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead." Martha served a meal. Mary anointed the feet of Jesus with perfume and dried his feet with her hair. Keep in mind this is a different scene
than the anointing by the penitent woman in the home of Simon the Pharisee in Luke 7. In John 11, an earlier scene where Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the Gospel reads, "There was a certain man named Lazarus who was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. This Mary whose brother Lazarus was sick was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and dried His feet with her hair" (Jn 11:1-2). Here Mary is identified as "the one who anointed the Lord." While some speculate that this identification in John 11 refers to the subsequent anointing in John 12, why would John need to make such a reference to
a past act when the story of John 11 flows right into the story of John 12? Is it more likely that the past act refers to the identification to the story at the home of Simon the Pharisee?
Anointing?
Arguably it is the 'anointing' and what this entails which is significant for Chérisey. Again in Stone & Paper Chérisey said (in relation to one of the alleged documents that Saunière was supposed to have found in his church balluster) as follows: "Document II recalls a text from the Gospel of John (XII, 1-12). This is the famous story of the sinner Mary Magdalene emptying a vase of very expensive perfume over Jesus one week before the Passion. This generous gesture infuriated the apostles, who estimated that the perfume, which was worth 300 pieces of silver, could have been sold and the produce of the sale distributed among the poor. In his capacity as treasurer, Judas seemed particularly frustrated but recovered his losses by selling Christ for 30 pieces of silver, collecting a 10% return. By this nice little parable, John the Evangelist threw out a warning that the historians of the Church do not seem to have understood very well: the value of Christ's flesh in relation to his perfume is in the ratio of 10%; his history to his legend being 30 to 300. As regards the affair of the treasure, these texts have two other meanings. Firstly, the potential discoverer should be warned that, finding oneself in Judas's situation, he would not have the right to take any more than the tenth part. Abbé Saunière learned to his cost how expensive it was to exceed the fees of the wicked apostle, having died on 22nd January 1917, a few days after going once too often to the well. Secondly, the discoverer will have to get used to the prospect of looting a necropolis where the dead dwelt for centuries in a natural state of mummification and in quite a good state of preservation. From this angle, one might consider Mary Magdalene the sinner in her capacity as patroness of embalmers, which would be very fitting, bearing in mind that Christ declared that she had poured out the perfume for his burial".
In Gnostic works, Mary Magdalene is portrayed in an outstanding, outspoken and leading role. Most of these Gnostic writings date back to at least the third century. In orthodox writings women are denied any responsible positions within the Jesus ‘Movement’. The opposite is found in the Gnostic Traditions and literature. Goddesses (i.e. female ‘godly’ sources) played a large role, such as the ‘Sophia’ which equaled ‘female godly wisdom’. The Holy Spirit was also ‘female’ and was identified with the ‘Sophia’. In the Gnostic literature the Magdalene is seen as spiritually pure, and was praised above ‘all the women on earth’.
It is pertinent here to mention that in the Gospel According to Philip, ‘Sophia’ is designated as
‘Mother of the Angels and Companion of Christ’ in the image of Mary Magdalene. Irenaeus reports that the Sethians (an early Gnostic sect) designated Sophia as the ‘sister of Christ’ and the ‘Bride of Christ’. The tradition which followed these early identity debates and the role of
women, is the ‘legend’ that Mary Magdalene went to Ephesus. This Tradition seems to rest on even more shaky ground than the Southern French Tradition.
The Gospel of John shows the clearest similarity to later Gnostic writing style in general,
and parts of the gospel have a similar dream-like quality to the writing (compare the Gospel of Truth, and more especially the Trimorphic Protennoia). The opening verses of John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" allude to Heraclitus and possibly the Gnostic concept of the Logos (which translates as Word), a divine presence. The themes of light and knowledge contrast with the themes of physical being and worldliness throughout the Gospel of John.
Raymond E Brown in his studies has suggested the similarities between the Gnostics and
John. The Gospel of John and its Magdalenian/Gnostic traditions argue that Mary Magdalene may have gone to this community in Ephesus. The Gospel of John is thought to have been written by Saint John the Apostle who was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. Christian tradition identifies him as the author of several New Testament works including that of
the Gospel of the same name and the Johannine letters and Epistles. Roman Catholic tradition states that St. John and the Virgin Mary moved to Ephesus where they eventually died. Modestus, the patriarch of Jerusalem I mentioned earlier said ‘After the death of Our Lord, the mother of God and Mary Magdalene joined John at Ephesus’. Here, Modestus says that Mary Magdalene was martyred. This has no basis in history and there is not even any traditions that the Magdalene was martyred. What was she martyred for? He also says she was a ‘virgin’. I
consider this a strange suggestion for Modestus to make, as the first 400 years of the Magdalene’s post resurrection life appears to be one of deciding that she was a prostitute and a sinner.
To my mind it seems intriguing that St John the Apostle is said to have gone to Ephesus, that
Mary Magdalene also went there, and so did the Virgin Mary. Why is it intriguing? Haskins suggests a ‘deliberate and systematic’ attempt to blur the memory of the Magdalene with the Virgin Mary. Some researchers have asserted that the inspiration and writer of the Fourth Gospel (the Gospel that most clearly embodies the Magdalene Tradition and her role and her importance) was indeed Mary Magdalene. Does it seem strange that the three characters said to have arrived in Ephesus are ‘merged’ and related to Mary Magdalene?
Once the Magdalene had been passed over in the ‘official’ biblical story, and once the
Gnostic literature was stamped out … there is no further information about what happened to her.
Clearly the major events of Mary Magdalene's life - in relation to her links with the historical Jesus - is her support of him financially, her anointing of him prior to his burial and the events that actually happened at the burial.
It is these events that preoccupy Chérisey throughout his Priory propaganda. In Part Two we will try to illucidate just what Chérisey was trying to intimate and how this related to Rennes-le- Château and the life of Saunière. How does it all fit in with the rest of the Priory of Sion mythology. Why was it all so clearly important to Chérisey?
Perhaps the key in another of Cherisey's text's [the text is Stone & Paper] are the 'bodies in a well-preserved state of mummification' statement - and it is the preservation and survivance as it were that is the essential point. And in Stone & Paper Chérisey associates this all with Saunière when he says: "As regards the affair of the treasure, these texts have two other meanings [the texts are the famous Saunière 'parchments']. Firstly, the potential discoverer should be warned that, finding oneself in Judas's situation, he would not have the right to take any more than the tenth part. Abbé Saunière learned to his cost how expensive it was to exceed the fees of the wicked apostle, having died on 22nd January 1917, a few days after going once too often to the well. Secondly, the discoverer will have to get used to the prospect of looting a necropolis where the dead dwelt for centuries in a natural state of mummification and in quite a good state of preservation. From this angle, one might consider Mary Magdalene the sinner in her capacity as patroness of embalmers, which would be very fitting, bearing in mind that Christ declared that she had poured out the perfume for his burial".
Judas? Expensive perfume used for anointing and burial? A perfume that the Apostles estimated was worth 300 pieces of silver, which could have been sold and the produce of the sale distributed among the poor? That Judas, in his capacity as treasurer, recovered his
losses by selling Christ for 30 pieces of silver, collecting a 10% return? Is Chérisey intimating that Saunière was doing the same and it cost him his life? Saunière looting a necropolis? The nearest we come to having evidence of that is the well known reports of Saunière digging up the graves in his church cemetery for no apparent reason (other than his response that he was making more room for the dead!) and the complaints of the families of those dead! How on earth do all these shenanigans relate to the body of Christ, Mary Magdalene, embalming, financial gain, Saunière, crypts, gold, Bethany, a Tour Magdala and the sudden suggestion that the gold of Rennes is in fact the gold of Solomon!
In another line of the poem Serpent Rouge its written that 'Once they had called her Isis, queen of the healing springs, COME TO ME ALL YOU WHO SUFFER AND WHO ARE OVERWHELMED AND I WILL COMFORT YOU, otherwise: MADELEINE, with the famous vase full of healing balm. The initiates know the true name: NOTRE DAME DES CROSS.' Is Isis associated with healing? Yes she is. But does the Magdalene carry healing balm? No she doesn't. She carries, depending on your point of view, anointing oils or plants for embalming. For a burial. She hadn't supposedly come to heal Jesus. And anyway, this vase has some correlation with an anointing that had taken place around the week before Jesus' Crucifixion.
So the figure of Mary Magdalene was important to the author of the poem (probably Chérisey) for some reason. Is this importance he attaches really linked to the affair at Rennes-le-Château and Saunière or has Chérisey just grafted an idea on to the end of the story of Saunière? For some other purpose?
The particular version of the ‘enigma’ of Rennes-le-Château is wound around the myths of Mary Magdalene, whether from Saunière's activities or the handiwork of Chérisey et al. In this article (over three parts) I will look at the Magdalene ‘legend’ and how it survived. By looking at this simple question perhaps we can illumine certain aspects of this historical character and ask why Saunière held her in such high esteem. Was it because she was the first to see the Risen Christ and to proclaim the ‘Good News’? Or did he have some other interest in this religious Saint and icon? Or is this perceived 'other interest' only in the eyes of Chérisey which later became polluted with the idea of Lincoln et al - a hidden 'bloodline'?
*******************
How did the Magdalene legends ‘survive’ & what was the motive for ensuring that survival? Are the legends purely in the imaginations of the people who wanted to invent life histories for biblical characters because information was so scant in the Gospels themselves? Or is it possible that persons close to the Magdalene knew her ‘story’ and preserved it and handed it down for future generations? Why did the Magdalene legends of the Medieval Age appear when they did? Did certain groups find new information about her?
Apart from the biblical narratives and the Gnostic literature not much is known historically about Mary Magdalene. In the Gospels she is identified as the most important messenger of Jesus Christ because she was present moments after the Resurrection. She proclaims this ‘Good News’ to the male disciples and then she is entirely lost to history. Later, legends sprung up which posit that she went to Ephesus, or perhaps Southern France. Are these legends based on historical accuracy? Is it possible? Or is it more likely that she stayed in Jerusalem after the Crucifixion living a quiet contemplative life after the death of Jesus?
Mary Magdalene may have left the Holy Land immediately after the Crucifixion. Historians have suggested that the disciples and other members of the entourage of Jesus fled Jerusalem after his death as their lives were in danger. This was because the Roman administration, who had convicted Jesus to die as a ’rebel’ and insurrectionist, wanted to root out any remaining
troublemakers’ of the ’Jesus’ party to quell any perceived unrest. We have seen elsewhere that
a political fight which seem to have been going on at the time of the birth of Jesus was with the struggle of the supremacy of the Herodian dynasty over a more legitimate Jewish dynasty, of which Jesus may have been a representative. The Jews themselves may have wanted Jesus killed for blasphemy although the Jewish priests were allowed to carry out their own trials for these offences. So it seems Jesus died from an essentially Roman punishment, that of Crucifixion.
There are those, however, who consider that there were no ‘persecutions’ of Christians at this time, precisely because there were no Christians. Therefore there was no reason for the early followers of Jesus to have left Jerusalem. These followers of Jesus were Jews. The Jews however did have a long history of uprisings against their Roman oppressors. Its possible that if Mary didn't leave Jerusalem in the immediate aftermath of the Crucifixion she had most probably left before the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. Unrest in Jerusalem which culminated in the fall of the Temple began in around AD66. Prior to this, as Goodman reports, Roman comments
about Jews ‘were rarely hostile before the outbreak of war in 66’. The Bible tells us that initially the early disciples did flee at the time of the arrest of Jesus. But they are said to have regrouped together, a few days later, either in Jerusalem or in Galilee.
The relatives of Jesus had lived in Nazareth since the first century. Some of them were prominent early Christians. Among those named in the New Testament are his mother and four of his brothers: James, Simeon, Joseph and Jude. According to the Gospels, some of the family were opposed to the mission and ‘religion’ of Jesus. The relatives of Jesus, despite this, were accorded a special position within the early church, as displayed by the leadership of James in
Jerusalem. Pagan observers of early Christian groups (for example Celsus) also mention a group named after a certain woman called Mariamme (the ancient way of writing Mary), but the particular Mary of the ‘religion’ is not identified. Was it the Virgin Mary aka Mary of Nazareth or another Mary prominent in the early religion, such as Mary Magdalene? Perhaps this group had some relationship to the Nassenes, mentioned by Hippolytus1, in his Refutatio, whose teachings were supposed to have been passed down from James, the Brother of the Lord, through a woman named Mariamme. This Mariamme has been equated with Mary Magdalene by some observers via a 'heretical' group which split off from the early Johanine Community as recorded in the Gospel of John (where the role of Mary Magdalene is most prominent) and where the traditions of this 'heretical' group later amalgamated with the ancient Mandeans (where the Mandeans revere John the Baptist and where the Gospel of John records that disciples of John the Baptist were originally among the disciples of Jesus but may have split off from the Jesus Party at a later date).2
We know that Mary Magdalene was with the early disciples after the Resurrection. For example, in the Gospel of Mary, she is shown as being in conversation with the other
disciples. As Karen King reports, when the Apostles are downhearted and depressed, she says: ‘Do not mourn or grieve or be irresolute, for his grace will be with you all and will defend you. Let us rather praise his greatness, for he prepared us and made us into men."
The text goes on to describe the dispirited disciples then having a change of heart - for the better, and they began to discuss the words of Jesus. Peter asks Mary: ‘Sister, we know that the Saviour loved you more than other women [cf. John 11:5, Luke 10:38-42]. Tell us the words of the Saviour which you have in mind since you know them; and we do not, nor have we heard of them."
Mary then describe's what Jesus had said to her. When Mary had finished and had become silent, the text in the Gospel of Mary continues; “But the apostle Andrew said to the gathered brethren, 'Say what you think concerning what she said. For I do not believe that the Saviour said this. For certainly these teachings are of other ideas." Peter also opposed her in
regard to these matters and asked them about the Saviour. "Did he then speak secretly with a woman [cf. John 4:27], in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?" Then Mary grieved and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart or that I am lying concerning the Saviour?"
Levi answered and said to Peter, "Peter, you are always irate. Now I see that you are contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Saviour made her worthy, who are you to reject her? Surely the Saviour knew her very well [cf. Luke 10:38- 42]. For this reason he loved her more than us [cf. John 11:5]. And we should rather be ashamed and put on the Perfect Man, to form us [?] as he commanded us, and proclaim the gospel, without publishing a further commandment or a further law than the one which the Saviour spoke." When Levi had said this, they began to go out in order to proclaim him and preach him’.
One can see from these exchanges, that although Mary was with the other disciples from the
beginning, she was already being disputed by them, and her authority questioned at this very early stage. Andrew says she is teaching ‘other ideas’. Then Levi speaks up accusing Peter of
behaving like their own enemies of Jesus and his ‘movement’. Peter was treating the Magdalene as their enemies treated them. Levi also confirms that Mary knew Jesus very well. This idea is reiterated in the Gospel of Philip where the Magdalene is described as thus: 'And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her [.....]. The rest of the disciples [...]. They aid to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."
Karen King said in her introduction in The Nag Hammadi Library said: 'the confrontation of Mary with Peter, a scenario also found in The Gospel of Thomas, Pistis Sophia, and The Gospel of the Egyptians, reflects some of the tensions in second-century Christianity. Peter and Andrew represent orthodox positions that deny the validity of esoteric revelation and reject the authority of women to teach. The Gospel of Mary attacks both of these positions head-on through its portrayal of Mary Magdalene. She is the Saviour's beloved, possessed of knowledge and teaching superior to that of the public apostolic tradition. Her superiority is based on vision and private revelation and is demonstrated in her capacity to strengthen the wavering disciples and turn them toward the Good’.
If these discussions and scenarios are correct, I think we can safely say that Mary Magdalene was not considered important enough by some of the male disciples and that they even considered her a little ’mad’. This may have been the cultural norm then, but it is clear from the above texts that some of the male followers of Jesus accepted her testimony. However, it is possible that Mary would have been ostracised on the grounds of teaching 'other ideas', even though some disciples were championing her views. She probably parted company with the other disciples very early on. This can be evidenced by Paul, one of the earliest followers of Jesus, who omits any mention of the Magdalene whatsoever. It seems a strange anomaly for him not to mention her. But perhaps this is because, like Andrew and Peter, Paul represented Orthodox positions regarding Jesus. Maybe she was not seen as significant in any way for them. It does seem strange that we have some texts where Peter and Andrew discuss the relevance of the Magdalene but Paul never mentions the issue at all. And Paul knew Peter.
Apart from this it seems that those closest to the life of Jesus then completely disappear from the historical record. The family at Bethany which was such an intimate part of Jesus’ life vanish and are never heard of again. Lazarus and Mary of Bethany so important in his ministry disappear. The brothers and cousins of Jesus vanish from the record too. And instead of their first hand testimonies, we rely on the New Testament Gospels - that are second hand and not
direct witnesses to the life of Jesus.
Mary Magdalene in Early Tradition
Concerning Mary Magdalene the facts actually speak for themselves. Richard Atwood said: ‘Mary Magdalene and the other women, to whom Jesus turned towards immediately prior to his Crucifixion, and it was Mary Magdalene to whom Jesus first appeared as the Risen Christ’ . The ‘central message of the Christian faith, had its beginnings and its source in the heart and soul of women, and specifically in Mary Magdalene’ .
It was the male disciples who were the first ‘unbelievers’. For when the women reported
what they had seen at the Empty Tomb the disciples decided that it ‘appeared to them as nonsense and they would not believe’ (Luke 24:11). The Magdalene Tradition is said to have been best preserved by the writer of the Gospel of John. For John she was the most important person relating to the mysteries of Jesus. It was Mary Magdalene, he said, who saw the entombment of Christ, and it was she who also saw the ‘empty tomb’ and all that that signified. The women, and in particular Mary Magdalene, are the primary witnesses of the entire story of the death, resurrection and later appearances of Jesus. There is virtually an unbroken presence from the scenes at the Cross, up to the appearances of Jesus to the women, and especially Mary Magdalene. They are not only witnesses but also ambassadors & messengers (i.e. the women are the recipients and transmitters of the message from God).
Atwood continued: ‘That the disciples became the key proponents of the Christian message is unquestioned. That the disciples play only an indirect and insignificant role in this account, and that the women were the first initial recipients and transmitters of this Good News is equally unquestionable and no legitimate attempts can be made to limit the significance of Mary Magdalene …’.
'In spite of Mary Magdalene’s remarkable and important and significant role, and in spite of the position given to her by Jesus himself, one must wonder that the New Testament writers have dealt with her in such a reserved and limited manner. Was the reason to suppress the role of the Magdalene in order to advance the role of the male disciples? This thought cannot easily be ruled out. And as we saw in the other apocryphal Gospels, this scenario is almost certain'.
And so Mary may have left the scene very early on. But where would she go?
Recent archaeology has shown the remains of the oldest Christian church, which was used
by Christ's followers who fled Jerusalem after the crucifixion. The underground chapel, hidden beneath the Saint Georgeous Church in Rihab, near the Syrian border, is thought to date from between AD33 and AD70, and would have served as both a place of worship and a home. Abdul Qader Husan, head of the Rihab Centre for Archaeological Studies, said: "We have evidence to believe this church sheltered the early Christians – the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ." A mosaic inscription on the Saint Georgeous floor pays homage to the "70 beloved by God and Divine" who escaped to northern Jordan from the persecution of the Christians in Jerusalem. Would
Mary have gone with these? Or would she have been ostracised from this Community also?
Another place identified as a place of refuge once the situation in Jerusalem became unstable
(ca. AD66) is Pella. As part of the kingdom of Agrippa it offered in A.D. 66 a safe refuge to the little Christian community of Mt. Sion who, under the leadership of St. Simon, took refuge there during the revolt of the Jews and the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans (Eusebius, "H.E.", III, v; Epiphanius, "Haer.", xxix, 7).
Little is know about the family of Simon, yet there are reasons to believe that he was a
"brother of the Lord." Both Matthew and Mark mentioned a Simon as the brother of Jesus.
When Christ returned to Nazareth and began teaching in the synagogues, the astonished people queried, "'Is not this the carpenter..., the brother of James, Joseph, Jude and Simon?'" In the lists of the apostles, all three Synoptics mentioned a Simon together with James and Jude. When St Mark enumerated the names of James, Jude and Simon as brethren of the Lord, he used the same sequence that he used in his list of the apostles. This is further evidence that Simon was an apostle like James and Jude, also brethren of the Lord. This assumption is supported by Hegesippus' statement that a Simon, the second bishop of Jerusalem, was a son of Clopas, the brother of the foster father St Joseph.
We know James, the brother of Jesus, was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, as directed by Jesus
himself. We also know that James disagreed with the ‘teachings’ of the Apostles Peter and Paul and this group of ‘coalescing’ Christians . Later, Paul also disagreed with the Jewish view of Jesus’ movement. Would Mary have stayed close to this Jerusalem group and family members of Jesus? We have seen above that Pagan observers of early Christian groups (for example Celsus) mentioned a group named after a certain woman called Mariamme but as we saw the particular Mary of the ‘religion’ is not identified. Was it the Virgin Mary aka Mary of Nazareth or another Mary prominent in the early religion, such as Mary Magdalene? Was this group related to the Nassenes, mentioned by Hippolytus, in his Refutatio, whose teachings were supposed to have been passed down from James, the Brother of the Lord, through a woman named Mariamme. Perhaps it is possible that this was Mary Magdalene?
After all, the sect promoted by Peter and Paul were the same who were ostracising Mary and James, the brother of Jesus. When Simon, brother of Jesus, second bishop of Jerusalem left for Pella did Mary travel with them?
Other apocryphal literature say that Mary Magdalene went to Rome. They appear to be
legendary suggesting that she went to see Tiberius. ‘One tradition concerning Mary Magdalene says that following the death and resurrection of Jesus, she used her position to gain an invitation to a banquet given by Emperor Tiberius. When she met him, she held a plain egg in her hand and exclaimed "Christ is risen!" Caesar laughed, and said that Christ rising from the dead was as likely as the egg in her hand turning red while she held it. Before he finished speaking, the egg in her hand turned a bright red, and she continued proclaiming the Gospel to the entire imperial house.’
It is interesting that this writer says Mary ‘used her position to gain an invitation to a banquet given by Emperor Tiberius’. What was her social standing and position to be able to do this? Tiberius himself was dead by AD37 and in AD26 he exiled himself from Rome. How could Mary see Tiberius in Rome when he was exiled by AD26? Perhaps he was visiting Rome? When Tiberius died, his adopted grandson Caligula became Roman Emperor, and upon his death Claudius became Emperor, ruling from AD41 to AD54.
The East also have other traditions. According to these, Mary Magdalene retired to Ephesus with the Theotokos (Mary, the Mother of God) and there she died. Her relics were transferred to Constantinople in 886 and are there preserved. Gregory of Tours, writing in the sixth century, supports the tradition that she retired to Ephesus, with no mention of any connection to
Gaul. But by the Middle Ages, a whole cult had spread around Mary. The medieval book called the "Golden Legend" finally reporting among other things, that "Mary Magdalene was wedded to John the Evangelist." This is the same Evangelist that went with the Virgin Mary to
Ephesus. And he was attested biblically as the Beloved Disciple, with whom Jesus had entrusted the care of his mother. We will have more to say on this later.
What is the latest scholarship on the identity question of Mary Magdalene?
Mary’s identity
‘In a sermon whose text is given in Patrologia Latina, Pope Gregory stated that he believed "that the woman Luke called a sinner and John called Mary was the Mary out of whom Mark declared that seven demons were cast" (Hanc vero quam Lucas peccatricem mulierem, Joannes Mariam nominat, illam esse Mariam credimus de qua Marcus septem damonia ejecta
fuisse testatur), thus identifying the sinner of Luke 7:37, the Mary of John 11:2 and 12:3 (the sister of Lazarus and Martha of Bethany), with Mary Magdalene, from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons, related in Mark 16:9'.
While most Western writers shared this view, it was not seen as a Church teaching, but as an opinion, the pros and cons of which were discussed. With the liturgical changes made in 1969, there is no longer mention of Mary Magdalene as a sinner in Roman Catholic liturgical materials. The Eastern Orthodox Church has never accepted Gregory's identification of Mary Magdalene with the sinful woman.’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_I).
No doubt the Church had its own reasons for back pedalling on this issue, perhaps to try and stop associations of all three women in the biblical texts with Mary Magdalene because of recent ideas being disseminated that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus. It seems opportune, especially as the Church made no move to challenge the idea of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute for 2000 years, and now changing their viewpoint without saying a word about it!
The Eastern Orthodox church has always held that Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and
Luke’s sinner, were different people. However, in the biblical texts themselves, in particular the Gospel of John, the author (known as the ‘Beloved Disciple’) allows an identification of Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene. We will discuss this below, but what did early church father’s teach?
Irenaeus (ca. 130—ca. 200) in his treaty against heresy (Adv.H) speaks of the anointing sinful
woman it seems, without thinking of Mary Magdalene or Mary of Bethany. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150—ca. 200) identified the anointing of Bethany in Mt.16:6-13 and Mk. 14:3-9 with John.12:1-8. If an assumption is made that only one anointing took place, one must assume it was done by the same woman. Tertullian assumes the same. That there was only one anointing, and therefore one woman must be involved. Some scholars however believe that this is an inaccurate interpretation. In very early Church tradition, the Fathers spilled much ink on the identity of Mary Magdalene, and whether she was synonymous with the sinful woman
of Luke 7, or whether she was one and the same as Mary of Bethany (sister of Lazarus). Related to this identity question rests the Southern French Magdalene legend (variously found at Vezeley and Saint Baume). For if these biblical characters are not identified as the same person, then the legends of her arrival in France cannot be ‘accurate‘ either. The historical question regarding these Western legends are based on hagiographical writings which support the tradition that the Magdalene came to France and these exist only as early as the eleventh
century (or perhaps the 10th century).
Other early church fathers seem to have followed the church fathers before them.
This Mary was perhaps the single most important person in the new faith’s most crucial three days. Yet after these, she is not mentioned again -- not in Acts, not in the various epistles, not in earliest martyrology -- and that is doubtless why in succeeding generations readers, hungry for a more detailed picture of this woman rumoured from the first to have been something “special”
to Jesus, have given her the characteristics and experiences of other Marys and unnamed biblical women.
This contamination of several Mary's gets positively rediculous after a while. It may be pertinent to mention here the bizarre case of mistaken identity regarding Mary Magdalene in the early centuries of the forming Christian faith. This concerns the identity of the Virgin Mary, Christ’s ‘mother’ - labelled by historians as Mary of Nazareth and that of Mary Magdalene, where these two identities are frequently mixed up. For example, in the Gospel of Peter and the Pistis Sophia Mary of Nazareth is just as important a figure as Mary Magdalene. Some even see these figures as one and the same. And the particular spelling of the name Mary throughout early textual traditions are no reliable indicator of which Mary is being referred to either.
How can Christ’s mother ever have been mistaken with Mary Magdalene?
It is recorded in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas that James was an important leader of the early Church stating "The disciples said to Jesus: We know that you will depart from us;
who is it who will lead us?" Jesus said to them, "Wherever you have come from, go to James the Just, for whom heaven and earth came to be." The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew also mention a James as Jesus' brother: "– Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
There is a Mary later mentioned as the mother of a James, both in the Gospel of Mark and in the Gospel of Matthew. Catholic interpretation generally holds that this James is to be identified with James the son of Alphaeus, and James, the brother of Jesus. Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.
This has some bearing on our earlier assertion that if the disciples of Jesus were related to
him then why not some of the female ‘followers’ such as Mary Magdalene and Mary Salome (especially as Mary Salome had two sons who were disciples)? In the Gospel of John Mary Magdalene herself is portrayed as part of a small group of Jesus’ near relatives. This is interpreted from the lines at the scene of the Crucifixion: Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
A common interpretation is to identify Salome as the sister of Jesus' mother, thus making her Jesus' aunt. In some places Salome is also identified with Mary of Cleophas and venerated as
"Saint Mary Salome". However, other traditional Catholic interpretations associate Mary of Cleophas with Mary the mother of James and Joses. In the Gospel of Mark, Salome is among the women who went to Jesus' tomb to anoint his body with spices. They discovered that
the stone had been rolled away, and a figure in white then told them that Jesus had risen, and asked them to tell Jesus' disciples that he would meet them in Galilee. In Matthew, just two women are mentioned in the same story: Mary Magdalene and the somewhat ambiguous "other Mary". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just).
As you will see below, a Coptic manuscript confuses this episode and also suggests that Mary Magdalene is the sister of Christ’s mother!
Biblical scholars, when referring to John 19:25 opt for the common interpretation of four
women standing at the Cross. That is Jesus’ mother, her sister, Mary of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. There is another interpretation and this involves the suggestion that Mary Magdalene is herself a relative of Jesus. When John 19:25 is viewed as a parallelism Mary Magdalene is introduced as the sister of Jesus’s mother. The idea of sisters is not considered accurate because of the oddity of two sisters bearing the same name of Mary. However the
original word in the Greek language could have been used in a wider sense, that of kinswoman, such as sister-in-law or niece. So according to John, Mary Magdalene would have belonged to the group of relatives of Jesus.
Salome, another Mary at the foot of the Cross, according to Mathew was the mother of
Zebedee's children - who were both disciples of Jesus. But Salome has also been presented as a sister of Jesus’s mother. Or a relative in some way. In the Secret Gospel of Mark it is written: ‘And the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there with his mother and Salome’. An interesting analysis by Fowler has led to the identity of this ‘young man whom Jesus loved’ and his connection to the Bethany group (a group very important to Jesus in his ministry) and essentially to the figures at the foot of the Cross where Jesus died. For Fowler the biblical Bethany youth and Lazarus are the same person especially as, in his view, there are the echoes of Secret Mark within canonical Mark [which] help to tell a coherent tale, and, what is more, tell one that is not merely parallel to but continuous with the story of Lazarus in John.
It revolves around Secret Gospel of Mark (SGM ) verse 1:1-13 and the canonical Gospel of Mark. Secret Mark is to be inserted in the text of canonical Mark at designated points. Clement indicates that this first chapter of Secret Mark fits into the popular version of Mark between 10:34 and 10:35. Of this scheme Smith says: [Professor Pierson] "Parker had observed that the Lazarus story in John and the resurrection story in the secret Gospel occur at the same period in Jesus' career: Jesus has gone up from Galilee to Judea and thence to Trans-Jordan. I now saw that the framework of Mk. 10:1-34 plus the resurrection story of the secret Gospel was parallel to the framework of Jn. 10:40-11:54 plus the Lazarus story. This means that the secret Gospel fits the Markan framework at that place at which Clement said it stood in Mark!
The parallels between the Gospel of John's story of Lazarus and Secret Mark's story about the youth are striking, although Secret Mark's story is shorter and sparer in its details. Secret Mark's designated location in the public or canonical version of Mark also supports the comparison: Mark 10:32, two verses before the place where Clement says that Secret Mark 1:1-13 is to be inserted, tells us that the disciples are apprehensive just as they are at John 11:8, early in the story about Lazarus. In both texts, fear of Jesus' arrest is the cause of their apprehension, although they are going to Jerusalem in Mark and Bethany's proximity is incidental, while they are on their way to Bethany in John and Jerusalem's proximity is perhaps incidental to Jesus if certainly not to his disciples.
In each story the incident occurs at Bethany, the sister of the deceased approaches Jesus on the road (but one sister in Secret Mark, and two in John), the dead man's sister shows Jesus the tomb and Jesus raises the man from the dead (entering the tomb and touching the deceased in Secret Mark, but keeping his distance in John). In Secret Mark, the young man immediately takes Jesus into his home which Lazarus eventually does (John 12:1-2). The Bethany youth/Lazarus could have been a disciple because disciples and apostles are overlapping but distinguishable categories and Jesus had many more disciples than apostles. Jesus is only said to have loved (using agapa or other forms of agapaô) the rich man (Mk 10:21), Lazarus, Mary and Martha (Jn 11:5), the beloved disciple (Jn 13:23, 19:26, 21:20), his disciples (Jn 13:1, 34; 15:9, 12), and his Father (Jn 14:31). SGM 2:1 also tells us that Jesus loved (êgapa) the Bethany youth. At John 11:3, Mary and Martha inform Jesus that their brother, "the one you love (phileis = "are fond of")," is seriously ill. (Jn 20:2 similarly uses phileis in referring to the beloved disciple.) John 11:5 then tells us that Jesus loved (êgapa) Lazarus, Mary and Martha. How does Jesus know the Bethany family? John does not say, but the implication is that the Bethany family has been devoted to Jesus for some time.
Later in the scene at the foot of the Cross in John ‘Jesus commands the beloved disciple to take Jesus' mother, Mary, as his own mother (Jn 19:25-27). Recall that SGM 2.1 says, "And the
sister of the young man Jesus loved was there with his mother and Salome." If the Bethany youth and beloved disciple are one and the same, we have the sister of a youth who is loved by Jesus turning up in the company of Jesus' mother and Salome so soon after the Bethany incident that the Bethany family could have been well-acquainted with Jesus and his mother before the Bethany incident in the tradition behind Secret Mark and John. …..If he is both the
Bethany youth and Gethsemane youth, the beloved disciple endangers himself when he enters the high priest's court with Jesus (Jn 18:15). Why he is not prosecuted may have to do with his wealth and position and even his acquaintance with the high priest (supported by Jn 18:15) and/or the realization on the part of Jesus' enemies that they only need to eliminate Jesus without whom the youth poses no threat (unsupported). In any case, nothing actually guarantees his safety, so that the bravery of the beloved disciple is quite remarkable. Ironically (there is that word again), John does not remark upon the unnamed disciple's courage at all but, instead, focuses on the contrasting cowardice of Peter (Jn 18:17)!
Another possible connection between figures in Secret Mark and Mark was suggested to Smith by professor R. Schippers of the University at Amsterdam, and involves the women Jesus meets at Jericho (SGM 2:1). The first woman on the list in Secret Mark appears to be the sister of the Bethany youth, the same woman introduced at SGM 1:1-2. Cross-referencing Secret Mark with John 11:1-44, this sister is identified with Mary/Martha (since John has given the youth/Lazarus two sisters instead of one). Schippers suggests that, in an early tradition, Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala were the same person or at least that stories about them were interchangeable. The other two women are identified as "his mother and Salome." Salome also appears among those present for the crucifixion at Mark 15:40 where the list is replete with names. Could the two lists, SGM 2:1 and Mk 15:40 be of the same three women? Though we have never heard of them before the crucifixion in Mark, we are told that they "had regularly followed and assisted him when he was in Galilee, along with many other women who had come up to Jerusalem in his company" (15:41).
The Greek text of Mk 15:40 literally lists these figures as follows: Mary Magdalene; Mary, James' (the Less) and Joses' mother; and Salome (Maria hê Magdalênê kai Maria hê Iakôbou tou mikrou kai Iôsêtos mêtêr kai Salômê [ Iôsê for Iôsêtos and other variations are found in some MSS]). The feminine article "ê" and the word for "mother" (mêtêr) that it modifies form a sort of womb enclosing the names of Mary's sons but excluding Salome. Salome is a companion of the two Marys, not one's absent daughter, pace Robert Eisenman. I do, however, find persuasive Eisenman's argument that Mary, the mother of James and Joses, is actually Jesus' mother, indeed, that "Joses" is most likely a variant of "Jesus."
Given the equivalence of the maternal Marys, we now have identified the women on the lists (SGM 2:1 and Mk 15:40) as the same persons. The same three women appear at 16:1, although Salome is not named along with the two Marys at 15:47. Neither does she appear with them at all in the other gospels. If Mary Magdalene is the sister of the youth she finds in Jesus' tomb, why does she not recognize him? I suspect that that this is because characters merged, separated and became obscure to the redactors depending upon the story's given stage of development, but it is also possible that some of the identities suggested here were never intended. (In that case, one could invoke the legal concept of severability.) Nevertheless, I think that, in addition to an extended tale about the Bethany youth, we have found a companion story about his sister as a perennial member of Jesus' entourage, often seen as part of a group of three women. Probably, the whole family of the Bethany youth was seen as having a relationship with Jesus beginning before the Bethany incident.” (http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/fowler.html)
Does this analysis support a very close connection between Mary Magdalene, Lazarus and the rich Bethany group and indeed how important they were to Jesus and how their money enabled him to carry out his mission? Does it also support a familial connection in some way? And does it also support a connection to the events surrounding the death and Resurrection of Jesus? And in fact that the disciples and Apostles were less important than this Bethany group, of which Mary Magdalene was attached?
Returning back to a Mariamme being the source of teaching for a very early Christian
group we find that the name also appears in the Gospel of Philip, where it is the name of Phillip's sister. And in fact this Mary is connected to the Mary of Mary and Martha fame, i.e. Mary of Bethany! By close analysis Mary of Bethany could be Mary Magdalene and if correct this scenario would suggest that this Mary is the sister of Philip! Philip was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. Later Christian traditions describe Philip as the apostle who preached in Greece, Syria, and Phrygia. The Gospel of Philip makes no claim to be from the apostle Philip, though, similarly, the four New Testament gospels make no explicit claim to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. The Gospel of Philip was written between 150 AD and 300 AD, while Philip himself died 80 AD, making it extremely unlikely to be his writing. Most
scholars hold a 3rd century date of composition. This Gospel does refer to Philip the apostle and he is the only apostle so mentioned in the text. It is intriguing then, that if we suppose that Mary Magdalene was the sister of Philip, then it is in this Gospel that information about Mary Magdalene is quite revealing. Much of the Gospel of Philip is dedicated to a discussion of
marriage as a sacred mystery, and two passages directly refer to Mary Magdalene and her close relationship with Jesus: There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.
That passage is also interesting for its mention of Jesus's sister (Jesus's unnamed sisters are mentioned in the New Testament at Mark 6:3), although the text is confusing on that point: she appears to be described first as the sister of Jesus's mother Mary, then as the sister of Jesus, although this may be a translation problem. Mary Magdalene is called Jesus's companion, partner or consort, using the word koinônos, of Greek origin, and the word hôtre, of Egyptian origin. The other passage referring to Mary Magdalene is incomplete because of damage to the original manuscript. Several words are missing. The best guesses as to what they were are
shown below in brackets. Most notably there is a hole in the manuscript after the phrase "and used to kiss her often on her...." But the passage appears to describe Jesus kissing Magdalene and using a parable to explain to the disciples why he loved her more than he loved them:
'And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [often] on her [ ]. 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?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.’
In Coptic tradition there are the same strange attributes given to various Mary’s which
are very confusing. For example, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem in his ‘Homily on the Dormition (late 5th or early 6th century) says:“the Virgin Mary’s name is Maria, which is interpreted as Mariam….. And because her native village was Magdalia she was also called Mary Magdalene”.
We can see here that in the minds of some the Virgin Mary was thought to be the same person
as Mary Magdalene. How could the early Church authorities make such errors or assumptions? In Late Antiquity the identities of the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene were merged. Why? Near the end of Cyril's narrative the Virgin entrusts all those ‘virgins’ living with her to the care of Mary Magdalene, who is now a very separate person. And in Syriac Christianity, it is the Virgin Mary and not Mary Magdalene who is the first witness to the Resurrection. Another
Coptic manuscript has the Resurrection seen as follows:
‘The Magdalene spread on her body the oil which remained with the sister of Lazarus, that which Christ had prescribed her to keep for the day of his burial; they buried (and) placed him in the new tomb of Joseph, in a garden. They rolled a large stone, placed it at the opening of the tomb (and) went in; but the Holy Magdalene went with her sister, Marie, Jesus’s mother. After the Sabbath, the morning of Sunday, Magdalene came to the tomb with the women; when they reached the tomb, they found an angel sitting on the stone rolled in front of the mouth of the tomb; the angel informed them: " The Lord is alive; go and tell his disciples". They left apprehensive, and did not say a word to anybody; then, Holy Magdalene turned to the tomb; she looked inside of the tomb; she saw two angels sitting, one [at its head] the other [and its foot] of the place where [was the body] of Jesus; they said to her: " [Woman]; O Marie ........... he is alive" ….The virgin said: " I would not believe, if i had not seen. ..." Peter rose with John; they came to the tomb; they saw the burial clothing's deposited; they saw Théotokos (the mother of God). They say:" Really, the Lord is alive?". But they are not persuaded seeing his/her sister. After that, Magdalene came. The virgin said to her sister: " My son, Is he alive? I did not see". When the mother of Jesus had heard these things, she left, with disorder, towards the tomb, saying words of suffering; her sister placed herself behind the tomb because of people of the guard; Magdalene came, in a meadow (garden?) then Jesus, appeared with his mother, behind the tomb; he spoke to her, then she thought that he was the gardener; the moment had come when he goes to his Father. Magdalene still being in front of the empty tomb - he called: "Mariham"; she heard his voice; she came, while running; and his mother known as: "Rabbouni, you are alive , really, you are alive". His mother placed herself on him to embrace; " Noli me tangere! " She started to cry: " Why, my Lord, and my son, have you made foreign to you today? "
It can be argued then, that Mary Magdalene was strong and independent in her own right.
She may have been well connected and could have had money at her disposal, enough to
support Jesus on his mission. She could well have been important in the Bethany family and perhaps also related to the mother of Jesus in some way if ancient witnesses are to be believed. This may help to explain Doumergue's assertion about the reliquary that is preserved in the cave of Sainte Baume (South of France). As we recall Doumergue said “The reliquary represents Magdalene and her close relations in the boat which drove them the from East to the South of France. At the front of the boat, a mummified body is stretched out. A woman sits over this body. She has the mother of Jesus'
She has the mother of Jesus' attributes? Now, no tradition says that the Virgin Mary came to the South of France. She is thus there only to identify the mummified body! …. Officially (for the Catholics), the reliquary represents the displacement of the body of Saint Anna (the grandmother of Christ) by Mary Magdalene. Indeed, some legends affirm that the body of Saint Anna was brought back to Gaul by Mary Magdalene. It would rest in the crypt of a church of the city of Apt (in the French's departement named Vaucluse, in the South of France...) But, in my opinion, these legends concerning Saint Anna’s body were manufactured to hide the memory of the repatriation of the body of Jesus in Gaul….. And, mysteriously, no text relative to Mary Magdalene speaks about the repatriation of the body of Saint Anna. These legends are present only at Apt. As if one had erased in the texts anything relating to Mary Magdalene’s repatriation of a body of a member of Jesus's family from the East to the West “ (http://www.rhedesium.com/interview-with-christian-doumergue.html).
It is strange that a reliquary showing the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene together (especially as they are confused in ancient texts regarding the body of Jesus) should have a mummified body in a boat with them.
Dr. Baker is professor of history at Western Kentucky University. He had this to say about Mary Magdalene - "she has variously been identified as the woman “caught in the very act” of adultery (John 8:3-11). Drawing on ancient traditions, William Blake (The Everlasting Gospel) and Nikos Kazantzakis (The Last Temptation of Christ) have made much of this match. But of course this woman was caught at her business (as was her male partner, though he apparently wasn’t accused) after Jesus had come to Jerusalem, and Magdalene was supposed to have been reformed by then, so other myths say. She has also been identified, perhaps more by modern novelists and screenwriters than by the ancients, as the woman at the well (John 4:4.29). But this woman was a Samaritan, not a Galilean like Magdalene; and nowhere is there any hint that Magdalene had had even one husband, let alone a whole series.
She has been identified as the woman who anointed Jesus’ head with a precious ointment. This happened in Bethany, at the table of Simon the leper (Mark 14:3-9; Matt. 26: 7-13). Simon the Leper lived in this house with Mary of Bethany and Martha, and presumably Lazarus. Some of those present at the anointing criticized her for the waste, but Jesus praised the act, and it was then that Judas decided to betray him. Luke, placing the story in an earlier context, says that this “bad woman” washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, kissed them and anointed them with perfume; but it is probably the same story, for though it is said to have happened long before Judas’ betrayal and in a slightly different manner, it did happen in the home of a publican named Simon.
How did this event get to be associated with Magdalene? John may provide the answer. He says twice that Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus of Bethany poured perfume on Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair. This happened in her own home, not in the house of a man named Simon, but it was in Bethany, it was during a meal, and Judas did complain about the waste of perfume that could have been sold and the money given to the poor. But there is
not the slightest shred of hard evidence that she was Magdalene or that Magdalene was any of the Gospels’ other Marys or unnamed “bad” women. There is certainly no biblical basis for saying that she was a reformed prostitute or that she had long red hair, though the length of the hair probably derives from her confusion with Mary of Bethany. She did have the audacity to be no man’s wife or mother.
Magdalene disappeared from the official record Easter afternoon. Perhaps she returned to
Galilee to live quietly, uneventfully, under the protection of one of those Christian communities not recorded in the New Testament. Perhaps she was martyred. Perhaps she was left out of the canon because she never again did anything memorable, perhaps because her “special” relationship with Jesus would have made her a target for attack by those who wished to discredit his work. No one really knows, just as no one knows how much credit she should get for the idea that Jesus rose from the dead. Pesky questions have persisted from the first century to the modern age, as in the theological criticism of writers like Ernest Renan. Did Magdalene find the empty tomb and bring back to the other women and then to the men a story of visions so vivid they made them their bereaved delirium? Was she the real founder of the Christian faith?
For a thousand years she all but disappeared. She lived on in oral tradition; it was then that
her image expanded and deepened; but in almost no surviving art and few theological commentaries does she even appear. Her name, her face, her place in the tradition were officially ignored.
This could at first have been because the early fathers, like Luke before them, saw her as a
potential rival to the Virgin. The Virgin is not, even in Luke, a particularly prominent figure in the ministry or passion of Jesus. His first recorded words mildly rebuke her for not understanding that even as a 12-year-old he had to tend to his father’s business. Later, at the marriage at Cana, he is none too happy with her for bothering him about the wine. In the middle of his work she tries to get him to come home and forget his adoring crowds, and he refuses to recognize her as his mother. But Magdalene is always there -- in Galilee, in Jerusalem, at Golgotha, at the tomb on Easter morning: and had her part in the pageant been duly acknowledged, she might well have surpassed the Virgin in prestige and reverence.
But while fear of rivalry may help explain the early silence and neglect, it does not explain
its long continuation. By the day of the theologian Origen (182-251) the Virgin could without fear of contradiction be called Mother of God, the New Eve, the New Adam’s Mother. By the fourth century festivals to her outnumbered those to all other saints combined. She had no rival: Magdalene and all other women were eclipsed". (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1149).
But let us look more closely. Modestus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in 630, wrote that he believed
that the Magdalene had died both a virgin and a Martyr. He asserted that she had been a leader of the ‘women disciples’. Haskins also identified another phenomenon, first appearing in
Syria, where the figure of the Virgin Mary was conflated with Mary Magdalene, in the scenes of the Resurrection. It seemed to Haskins that this was ‘a deliberate and systematic superimposition’ of the two Marys’. Why would this be necessary? Was it perhaps to subdue the
importance of the Magdalene, who superseded even the mother of Christ and as the Gnostic literature asserted - ‘the Magdalene….{was} seen as spiritually pure, and was praised above ‘all the women on earth’?
Or were people getting mixed up with the two Mary's? A codex dated to 586 (Rabbula Codex) shows the Virgin Mother and Mary Magdalene at the Tomb of Jesus and also the resurrected Christ meeting his mother. None of these depictions have their basis in the New Testament, but can be said to typify the confusion surrounding Mary Magdalene and what became of her after the Crucifixion. In fact it would support the ideas in the Coptic document described above. Gregory of Tours in around 538 said that the first port of call for Mary Magdalene after the Crucifixion was Ephesus, the city of Artemis/Diana. If Haskins is right, and there was a 'a deliberate and systematic ‘superimposition’ of the two Marys’, then why should we accept that the tradition of Mary Magdalene going to Ephesus is correct? And doesn't Gregory's 'first port of call' suggest she then moved on to somewhere else?
In an alleged Priory document ... this question itself is posed. The work is entitled 'Lazare, Veni Foras!' and it is attributed to abbe Henri Boudet. "Lazare Véni Foras" is first mentioned by Gérard de Sède, when he tackles the enigma of Rennes-le-Château. He states that he received from a priest, Courtauly, the information that the original manuscript of this text was destroyed by the regional religious authorities, in the presence of its author Boudet in 1914. De Sède adds that it is impossible that this destruction occurred, as the dates do not correspond with a chronology that places the publication in 1915. Obviously, we are here seeing vestiges of another work by Cherisey. In its history Pierre Jarnac seems to be the first person to offer severe criticism of this book, which appear to him to be of a dubious origin. His study is published in « Les Archives du Trésor de Rennes-le-Château ». In the re-edition of the work, in 1998, there are some comments on the book (pages 294-295). He maintains his position that all of these works are fabrications and not the work of Boudet.
The first 20 or so pages of this document are on line. There are some striking differences from the original. The original, by R. P. Charles PARRA, was published in 1924. The book is called 'Bethanie' and is described as nine meditations on the Gospel of Lazarus (?) S. Jean, Verse XI. This chapter is about Jesus teaching: I Am The Resurrection and the Life: The Raising of Lazarus.
However, in the Priory document, it is not Lazarus they are interested in at all. It is about the legend of the Magdalene coming to France. It is a discussion on the very subjects we referred to above. The deliberate blurring of the role of Mary Magdalene with the Virgin Mary. Is it somehow possible that the story of Mary Magdalene’s life after the Crucifixion has been 'lost' because it has been blurred with that of the Virgin and St John the Beloved, taught by the Catholic church that he was the author of the Gospel of John, aka the Beloved Disciple, who followed the command of Jesus from the Cross to take his mother into his care? Why should Mary Magdalene have ever been confused with the later lives of the Virgin Mary or St John the Beloved or even the Beloved Disciple? For example medieval legends associate the wedding at Cana as originally that of hers and St John the Evangelist.
Gregory of Tours also tells us that Magdalene went to Ephesus. He tells us that it was here that Paul had laboured hard against the Gnostics. It seems plausible. The Gnostics lauded Mary Magdalene as a spiritually pure woman, and if the tradition he is referring to takes her to Ephesus, it may be that this was a logical place for the Magdalene to go if there was a sizeable Gnostic community there. Out of Egypt also came the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, early
Christian writings which show Mary Magdalene as the most important follower of Jesus Christ.
Why is Mary Magdalene lauded as the most important follower of Jesus? Is it because she was
given the commission to continue the work of Jesus after his death? Schaberg suggests that Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of John is portrayed as ‘the only guarantor of the vindication of Jesus and his final message … ‘ and that it is she who we know the identity of, and it is she
that has the message of Jesus and it is she who will tell the disciples ‘he is risen’. But by telling the disciples, it is not the disciples who are empowered, but Mary. Schaberg again reiterates, the ‘commission of Mary Magdalene does not contain a promise that the disciples will see the risen Jesus. She is just to inform them that he is going’.
Mary’s Tradition has somehow survived, against all the odds.
Schaberg herself mentions the ‘oddity of giving to a woman the role traditionally associated with Peter’ (i.e. being the first to see the risen Lord) as did Brown himself. Brown felt this may have been a deliberate emphasis on John’s part. He suggests that this was ‘because Martha’s confession of Jesus’ Messiahship substitutes for Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah in the
Synoptic’.
Perhaps we can start to build a picture here? Mary Magdalane was highly respected among early groups of Jewish Christians. She was opposed by some early disciples (Peter and
Andrew) because they suggested she was teaching 'other ideas' (What?). She may have been ostracised by this early Jewish Christian community group. However, the other Jewish Christian group, which consisted of the brethren of the family of Jesus may have allowed Mary to stay and preach or be part of their group. By the destruction of Jerusalem these groups had all but scattered. It is here that traditions speak of Mary Magdalene going to Ephesus with the Virgin Mary and St John the Evangelist. We have seen that there was a systematic attempt to blur the roles of the Magdalene with the Virgin Mary. We may also suggest that as scholars thinks the Magdalene tradition was best kept by those communities which eventually produced the Gospel of John, and the Gnostic biblical traditions... perhaps she is to be found among the Gnostic communities at Ephesus that Paul was labouring against? Gregory of Tours said it was her 'first port of call'. Did she travel elsewhere after Ephesus? Did she go to Rome? Or did she decide to travel to France? Why indeed would she consider going to these places?
In Luke 8:2-3 Mary Magdalene is mentioned as one of the women who "ministered to Him [Jesus] of their substance."
Luke says: ‘And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance’. This early reference to Mary refers to the casting out of seven demons from her.
The Jews of Jesus' day generally viewed demons as powerful personal spirit creatures that were enemies who afflicted men with various illnesses. Some historians contend that Jesus and his apostles spoke only in ways that people could understand, which accommodated the popular ignorance and superstition of their time.
It is argued that those possessed suffered only from natural diseases. Gould stated that
‘the reality of demoniacal possession is a matter of doubt. The serious argument against it is, that the phenomena are mostly natural, not supernatural. It was the unscientific habit of the ancient mind to account for abnormal and uncanny things, such as lunacy and epilepsy, supernaturally. And in such cases, outside of the Bible, we accept the facts, but ascribe them to
natural causes. Another serious difficulty is that lunacy and epilepsy are common in the East, as elsewhere, and yet, unless these are cases, we do not find Jesus healing these disorders as such, but only cases of demonical possession in which these were symptoms. The dilemma is very curious. Outside the N.T., no demoniacal possession, but only lunacy and epilepsy, in the N. T., no cases of lunacy and epilepsy proper, but only demoniacal possession’.
In fact, Mathew actually describes being ‘demon possessed’ in the context of having an illness. Matthew 4:24: says "...they brought unto him [Jesus] all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy..." In Matthew 10:1: "And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.’
Be that as it may, from the Gospels, the earliest reference to Mary is that she ‘ministered unto him of her substance’ and that he had perhaps healed her of an illness. This was very early on in his ministry, because Luke 1—8 deals with Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, Capernaum and his activity by the Lake Gennesaret. Here, Jesus recruits his Apostles (Peter, James, Andrew, Philip etc). Mention is also given to John the Baptist. Early followers of the Baptist are said to have left John to follow Jesus. For example, in John, 1, ch 35 it says: ‘The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, and as he watched Jesus walk by, he exclaimed, ‘Look, here is the Lamb of God!’ The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. When
Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, ‘What are you looking for?’ They said to him, ‘Rabbi’ (which translated means Teacher), ‘where are you staying?’ He said to them, ‘Come and see.’ They came and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon. One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon and said to him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (which is translated Anointed). He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter)’.
Mary must have been witness to these events as she was already ministering to him. She is also said to have lived at the little village of Magdala, on the Sea of Galilee. But if she had enough money to help support him on his mission, where did she get her wealth from? Did she know Susanna, and Joanna? If she did, how did she? Was she wealthy and moved in influential circles? We know Magdala was a very prosperous fishing town. Did she come from a wealthy family who owned a lucrative fishing business and trade? We simple do not know, but the Bible says she was wealthy. In this respect, there may be one other scenario. Mary Magdalene is often conflated with another biblical character, that of Mary of Bethany. Are these the same person? We have discussed this at length above. Mary of Bethany belonged to the family of Lazarus, and they had a house in Bethany, a village not far from Jerusalem. Jesus spent a lot of time with this family, and important events in his ministry occurred at this house, or started from this house (i.e. his ride into Jerusalem on a donkey). To own property near Jerusalem shows that this family was wealthy.
The early Christian Fathers such as Irenaeus, Origen, Hilarius, Jerome and others appear to be unaware of the identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany or Luke’s Sinner. The Greek Church also indicated that these were three distinct women. However, Ephraem, a monk of the Syrian Church, along with Ambrosius and Augustine are cited as supporters of the ’one identity’ argument - that is, that Mary Magdalene was one and the same as Mary of Bethany and Luke’s sinner. Ambrose, when discussing Luke 10, allowed the possibility of a link between Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany. However, it was Pope Gregory I (d. 604) who had the final say in the West. He instructed that Mary Magdalene was Mary of Bethany, who was Luke’s sinner.
Mary of Magdala is legendarily said to have been a Benjamite. This may be indirectly attested to the Mary of Bethany title. If Mary of Bethany is Mary Magdalene then the following is interesting. Ananiah was settled by the Benjamites mentioned in the Old Testament. The Benjamites returned to this area after the Babylonian Exile during the Persian period. One of the places was Ananiah. (Hebrew Ananyah) Albright pointed out this was Bethania – as in Beth Ananiah. Bethany was the home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany. So if Mary of Bethany as some think, was synonymous with Mary Magdalene (a Benjamite) it might explain why she rightly lived at Bethany and who was said to actually own that town.
In the Hebew Magdal means ‘pillar’ or tower. Some scholars posit that this simply means Mary was the ‘pillar of her tribe’. That she was the chief of her tribe, the Benjamites. The family at Bethany were very wealthy, they owned property in and around Jerusalem, they owned their own family vault, and they seemed to be well connected and respected in Jerusalem. This is evidenced by the amount of interest, and the amount of people, including high ranking Jewry of Jerusalem who came to see what was happening during the death of Lazarus.
Up until 604 this seems to have been the entire debate about Mary Magdalene within the West. Was she one and the same as Mary of Bethany, and the sinner of Luke?
The Gospel of John seems to have settled this same debate early on by suggesting at least, that Mary Magdalene was the same woman as Mary of Bethany. Following Luke 8, the gospel in the ninth and tenth chapters relates such stories as the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves, the Transfiguration, the exorcism of a possessed boy and teachings about discipleship. Jesus then travelled to "a village" (i.e. Bethany, although not specified by Luke) to the home of Martha, who "had a sister named Mary". There Martha prepared a meal for Jesus. While the Gospel of St. Luke does not specifically identify Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany, the
Gospel of St. John helps resolve the issue. In John 12:1-11, Jesus arrived at Bethany, "the village of Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead." Martha served a meal. Mary anointed the feet of Jesus with perfume and dried his feet with her hair. Keep in mind this is a different scene
than the anointing by the penitent woman in the home of Simon the Pharisee in Luke 7. In John 11, an earlier scene where Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the Gospel reads, "There was a certain man named Lazarus who was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. This Mary whose brother Lazarus was sick was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and dried His feet with her hair" (Jn 11:1-2). Here Mary is identified as "the one who anointed the Lord." While some speculate that this identification in John 11 refers to the subsequent anointing in John 12, why would John need to make such a reference to
a past act when the story of John 11 flows right into the story of John 12? Is it more likely that the past act refers to the identification to the story at the home of Simon the Pharisee?
Anointing?
Arguably it is the 'anointing' and what this entails which is significant for Chérisey. Again in Stone & Paper Chérisey said (in relation to one of the alleged documents that Saunière was supposed to have found in his church balluster) as follows: "Document II recalls a text from the Gospel of John (XII, 1-12). This is the famous story of the sinner Mary Magdalene emptying a vase of very expensive perfume over Jesus one week before the Passion. This generous gesture infuriated the apostles, who estimated that the perfume, which was worth 300 pieces of silver, could have been sold and the produce of the sale distributed among the poor. In his capacity as treasurer, Judas seemed particularly frustrated but recovered his losses by selling Christ for 30 pieces of silver, collecting a 10% return. By this nice little parable, John the Evangelist threw out a warning that the historians of the Church do not seem to have understood very well: the value of Christ's flesh in relation to his perfume is in the ratio of 10%; his history to his legend being 30 to 300. As regards the affair of the treasure, these texts have two other meanings. Firstly, the potential discoverer should be warned that, finding oneself in Judas's situation, he would not have the right to take any more than the tenth part. Abbé Saunière learned to his cost how expensive it was to exceed the fees of the wicked apostle, having died on 22nd January 1917, a few days after going once too often to the well. Secondly, the discoverer will have to get used to the prospect of looting a necropolis where the dead dwelt for centuries in a natural state of mummification and in quite a good state of preservation. From this angle, one might consider Mary Magdalene the sinner in her capacity as patroness of embalmers, which would be very fitting, bearing in mind that Christ declared that she had poured out the perfume for his burial".
In Gnostic works, Mary Magdalene is portrayed in an outstanding, outspoken and leading role. Most of these Gnostic writings date back to at least the third century. In orthodox writings women are denied any responsible positions within the Jesus ‘Movement’. The opposite is found in the Gnostic Traditions and literature. Goddesses (i.e. female ‘godly’ sources) played a large role, such as the ‘Sophia’ which equaled ‘female godly wisdom’. The Holy Spirit was also ‘female’ and was identified with the ‘Sophia’. In the Gnostic literature the Magdalene is seen as spiritually pure, and was praised above ‘all the women on earth’.
It is pertinent here to mention that in the Gospel According to Philip, ‘Sophia’ is designated as
‘Mother of the Angels and Companion of Christ’ in the image of Mary Magdalene. Irenaeus reports that the Sethians (an early Gnostic sect) designated Sophia as the ‘sister of Christ’ and the ‘Bride of Christ’. The tradition which followed these early identity debates and the role of
women, is the ‘legend’ that Mary Magdalene went to Ephesus. This Tradition seems to rest on even more shaky ground than the Southern French Tradition.
The Gospel of John shows the clearest similarity to later Gnostic writing style in general,
and parts of the gospel have a similar dream-like quality to the writing (compare the Gospel of Truth, and more especially the Trimorphic Protennoia). The opening verses of John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" allude to Heraclitus and possibly the Gnostic concept of the Logos (which translates as Word), a divine presence. The themes of light and knowledge contrast with the themes of physical being and worldliness throughout the Gospel of John.
Raymond E Brown in his studies has suggested the similarities between the Gnostics and
John. The Gospel of John and its Magdalenian/Gnostic traditions argue that Mary Magdalene may have gone to this community in Ephesus. The Gospel of John is thought to have been written by Saint John the Apostle who was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. Christian tradition identifies him as the author of several New Testament works including that of
the Gospel of the same name and the Johannine letters and Epistles. Roman Catholic tradition states that St. John and the Virgin Mary moved to Ephesus where they eventually died. Modestus, the patriarch of Jerusalem I mentioned earlier said ‘After the death of Our Lord, the mother of God and Mary Magdalene joined John at Ephesus’. Here, Modestus says that Mary Magdalene was martyred. This has no basis in history and there is not even any traditions that the Magdalene was martyred. What was she martyred for? He also says she was a ‘virgin’. I
consider this a strange suggestion for Modestus to make, as the first 400 years of the Magdalene’s post resurrection life appears to be one of deciding that she was a prostitute and a sinner.
To my mind it seems intriguing that St John the Apostle is said to have gone to Ephesus, that
Mary Magdalene also went there, and so did the Virgin Mary. Why is it intriguing? Haskins suggests a ‘deliberate and systematic’ attempt to blur the memory of the Magdalene with the Virgin Mary. Some researchers have asserted that the inspiration and writer of the Fourth Gospel (the Gospel that most clearly embodies the Magdalene Tradition and her role and her importance) was indeed Mary Magdalene. Does it seem strange that the three characters said to have arrived in Ephesus are ‘merged’ and related to Mary Magdalene?
Once the Magdalene had been passed over in the ‘official’ biblical story, and once the
Gnostic literature was stamped out … there is no further information about what happened to her.
Clearly the major events of Mary Magdalene's life - in relation to her links with the historical Jesus - is her support of him financially, her anointing of him prior to his burial and the events that actually happened at the burial.
It is these events that preoccupy Chérisey throughout his Priory propaganda. In Part Two we will try to illucidate just what Chérisey was trying to intimate and how this related to Rennes-le- Château and the life of Saunière. How does it all fit in with the rest of the Priory of Sion mythology. Why was it all so clearly important to Chérisey?
NOTES
1 Hippolytus actually wrote: "But since it so appears expedient, let us begin first from the public worshippers of the serpent. The Naasseni call the first principle of the universe a Man, and that the same also is a Son of Man; and they divide this man into three portions. For they say one part of him is rational, and another psychical, but a third earthly. And they style him Adamas, and suppose that the knowledge appertaining to him is the originating cause of the capacity of knowing God. And the Naassene asserts that all these rational, and psychical, and earthly qualities have retired into Jesus, and that through Him these three substances simultaneously have spoken unto the three genera of the universe. These allege that there are three kinds of existence— angelic, psychical, and earthly; and that there are three churches— angelic, psychical, and earthly; and that the names for these are— chosen, called, and captive. These are the heads of doctrine advanced by them, as far as one may briefly comprehend them. They affirm that James, the brother of the Lord, delivered these tenets to Mariamne, by such a statement belying both". (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050110.htm)
2 "Mandaeans venerate a cross-like object. They call their priests the Nazoreans. In ancient times Christian Jews were called the Nazoreans. They practice baptism by immersion and the laying on of hands and they also venerate Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem, a certain Mary, Elizabeth, James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus, and someone named Benjamin. This Benjamin was probably also of the family of Jesus. According to Eusebius, one of the earliest Jewish bishops of Jerusalem was named Benjamin.....The Mandaens have very interesting traditions concerning a woman called "Miryai" whose story bares a striking resemblance to Mary Magdalene and the Blessed Virgin Mary.....one can trace their origins to the Nassenes - the earliest Gnostic movement to grow out of the Johannine Community. The Church Fathers knew of and referred to the ancestors of the Nassanes and their claim to having been founded by a certain "Mariamne and James the Just", the latter of course being Jesus' brother. Lo and behold a "Miryai" and a "Jacob Just" occupy a central place in Mandaic writings....... According to Hippolytus, the Nassenes believed that James handed down his teaching to “Mariamne” who then passed it along to the Naassenes. "These are the heads of very numerous discourses which (the Naassene) asserts James the brother of the Lord handed down to Mariamne” In the Second Apocalypse of James, we again see the same story but Mariamne has been changed to Mareim, which by the way is the same name as Mary. Except that in this story Mariamne is elevated to the status of priest or of the priests. "This is [the] discourse that James [the] Just spoke in Jerusalem, [which] Mareim, one of the priests, wrote.” Hippolytus also describes Mariam as “the sought for one”. “…which is begotten above, where, he says, is Mariam the sought-for one…” In the Mandaen scriptures, Miryai is a female priest, a Nasurai, who is instructed in knowledge and [has?] the seal of approval by the uthras. She is "sought after" repeatedly by her fellow Jews. The similarities are sufficient to make a claim that the Nassene "Mariamne" of the late first century AD and the later Mandaen "Miryai" are one and the same person, and that the Mandaens have preserved many of the traditions of these early Nassene Gnostics who originally descended from the group of heretics that broke off from the Johannine Community with Cerinthus. The Naassenes were a Christian Gnostic sect from around 100 AD known primarily through the writings of Hippolytus of Rome. They came into existence at the end of the first century AD when the Fourth Gospel Community split up into an Orthodox "wing" and a Gnostic wing which, given their strong similarities to Johannine thought, leads some to regard them as the very Gnostics that broke away from the Fourth Gospel Community. The Naassenes claimed to have been taught their doctrines by Mariamne and James the Just. The retention of the Hebrew form shows that their beliefs may represent the earliest stages of Gnosticism, according to most scholars. Hippolytus' quotes from the Writings of this group show that they used the Gospel of John more than any other Gospel or other Christian text - once again demonstrating that they are the faction that split away from Johannine community, and over time morphed into the Mandaen faith (given that many of the Fourth Gospel Community's followers were originally followers of John the Baptist and retained distinctive elements of this earlier movement). This break-away set of heretics is referred to in the Johannine corpus of letters in the New Testament. The Mandaen texts, which could thus in redacted (corrupted) form go back to traditions current in the Nassene community and later John the Baptist movement, could give us truly ancient information, despite there relatively late date of writing. Given the prominence of Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of John .... I reckon that "Miryai" and "Mariamne" could both contain genuine traditions about her life. I thus think that the Mandaens at an early stage were Johannine Christians, many of whom were previously followers of John the Baptist, who split away from Orthodox Christianity, evolved into the Nassenes and at a later date became mixed up with other Gnostic groups and due to persecution came to oppose the "Byzantine Christ" and Christianity and emphasis John the Baptist more over Jesus. Eventually Jesus' name was changed to "Anush Uthra" - the similarities between him and Jesus are just too uncanny not to be the same in origin. Anush Uthra came down from heaven, to Jerusalem, preached, healed the sick, gathered disciples, was crucified by the "Romans" and had a chief disciple called "Miryai" and a brother called Jacob the Just who succeeded him. Ring any bells? "I took a bodily form and appeared. I spoke with my voice and preached, and became a Healer for Miriai (Mary Magdalene?): a Healer for Miriai I became, and healed her from head to foot. I was called Healer of the Truth, who heals and takes no fee"
-Anush Uthra, Ginza Riba, Holy Book of Mandaeism
The author of the "Church and Gnosis" writes: "The emphasis on the healing of Miriai, the faithful convert and disciple, is enough to show that this Mandaen figure has been developed out of Mary Magdalene, not out of Mary the mother of Jesus (as commonly thought)" Here are some portions from the "Miryai" narratives: "Miryai am I, of the Kings of Judaism, a daughter, a daughter of Jerusalem's mighty rulers. They have given me birth: the priests brought me up. In the fold of their robe they carried me up into the dark house, into the temple. Adonai laid a charge on my hands and on my two arms. I must scour and cleanse the house that is without firmness for there is nothing therein for supporting the poor, nothing to revive the tormented souls. My father went to the synagogue, my mother went to the temple. My father went out and said to me, and my mother went out and charged me: Miryai, close thy inner doors and bolt the bar. See that thou goest not forth into the main streets and that the “Suns of my Lord” fall not upon thee. But I, Miryai, listened not to what my mother did tell me, and hearkened not with my ear to what my father did command me. I opened the inner doors and the outer let I stand open. Out went I into the main streets and the “Suns of my Lord” fell upon me"
- Miryai, in Mandaen Book of John, speaking of her conversion from the Saducee sect of Priestly Jews to the Nazarene Movement
"Her mother came upon Miryai and put question to her: Whence comest thou, my daughter, Miryai, whose face gathers roses?...Look on me, Miryai, my daughter! Look on me who am thy mother! My daughter art thou and the daughter of all of the priests. Rememberest thou not, Miryai, that the Torah-Law lay on thy lap? Thou didst open it, read therein and knewest what stands in it. All the priests and priests' sons came and kissed thy hand. A thousand stand there and two thousand sit there. They submit themselves to thee, as a eunuch-made slave, and they give ear to thy word in Jerusalem. Why didst thou forget thy brothers and thy heart abandon the priests? Lo, the brides weep in Judæa, the women and men in Jerusalem....The Jews are saying: Thy daughter has fallen in love with a man. She has acquired hate against Jewry and love for Nazoreanity (Jewish Christianity?). Hate has she developed against the synagogue and love for the door of the Nazarenes. Hate has she gotten against the leather phylacteries and love for the wearing of wreaths of myrtle. Work does she on Sabbath, on Sunday she keeps her hands still. Miryai has completely cast aside the Mosaic Law that hath been laid upon us!...My daughter, arise, come back to thy dwelling-place the city Yerusalem. Come, light up thy lamps which have been put out from the day when thou withdrewest thyself. Have no longing after this man (Jesus?), who has captured thee and taken thee off. Leave the man, who is not of thy dwelling place, alone by himself in the world. Let him not say: I have gone and carried off Miryai from her place. Come, teach the children, so that they may learn. Lay the Torah in thy lap and let us hear thy voice as it used to be"
- Miryai mother, Mandaean Book of John
"When Miryai heard this from her mother, she laughed and rejoiced in her mind: It surely could not be the Jewish (priests), says she unto her, the infamous, worthless priests! It surely would not be the Jewish (priests) who stand there and bow down to a brick grave! They shall be buried in the darkness. Go, go, says she unto them, ye fools, ye abortions: ye who were not of the world. I am no woman who stripped down for lust, and it is not that I have fallen in love with a man. Stripped am I not for returning to you and for again seeing you, dome of blasphemy. Go, go hence from me, ye who have witnessed falsehood and lying against me. Against me ye witnessed lustfulness and thieving, and held me up as ye are yourselves. Blessed be the Man who freed me from my fetters and planted my feet here. No wantonness have I committed with him (Jesus?) and attempted no theft in the world"
- Miryai, Mandaen Book of John
"ALL the Jews gathered together, the teachers, the great and the little; they came [together] and spake of Miryai: "She ran away from the priests, fell in love with a man, and they took hold of each other's hands. Hold of each other's hands they took, went forth and settled at the mouth of the Frash river. We will slay them and make Miryai scorned in Jerusalem. A cross will we set up for the man who has ruined Miryai and led her away. There shall be no day in the world when a stranger enters Jerusalem. For they (Jesus and his followers?) split open their feelings and catch the doves in Jerusalem". All the Jews gathered together and followed after Miryai"
- Miryai, Mandaen Book of John
The ancient Mandaen biography of Miryai has a tragic ending. The Jewish priests, horrified and shamed by one of their own daughters joining a "dangerous" religious sect conspire against Mary's Lord. They are going to crucify him by using as justification his "freeing of the doves" from the cages of the money-changers in the Temple .There is also this delightful scene that I can just picture from the Mandean Book of John the Baptizer. Miryai/Mary's father was furious when he discovers that she has joined the movement of the "Nazarene". He thinks, or rather assumes, that she is having some kind of affair with the man (he cannot understand any other reason why a woman would follow a man):
"...Then came my father and brought on me trouble such as I never had experienced before. He spake: Where hast thou come from, thou debauched slut, whom locks and bars cannot keep in? Where hast thou come from? Woe unto thee thou ***** in heat, who mindest not door bolts and locks! Where hast thou come from? Woe, woe unto thee thou piece of uncouth cloth that has been patched on my robe!. [I, Mary answered]: If I am a debauched slut, I will burst thy boltings and bars! If I am a ***** in heat, I will draw back the pins and the locks. If I am a bit of coarse stuff that has been patched on thy robe, then out of thy robe cut and rip me. Thereon he cried: Come all of you, look on Mary, who has left Jewry and gone to make love with her lord [Jesus?]. Came, look on Mary, who has left off coloured raiment and gone to make love with her lord [Jesus?]. She forsook gold and silver and went to make love with her lord. She forsook the phylacteries and went to make love with the man with the head-band..."
- Miryai/Mary, Mandean Book of John
Miryai/Mary defends herself against charges of sexual misconduct". (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=700941).
More can be found on the Naasenes here.
See also here: MIRYAI IS EXPELLED FROM JEWRY
1 Hippolytus actually wrote: "But since it so appears expedient, let us begin first from the public worshippers of the serpent. The Naasseni call the first principle of the universe a Man, and that the same also is a Son of Man; and they divide this man into three portions. For they say one part of him is rational, and another psychical, but a third earthly. And they style him Adamas, and suppose that the knowledge appertaining to him is the originating cause of the capacity of knowing God. And the Naassene asserts that all these rational, and psychical, and earthly qualities have retired into Jesus, and that through Him these three substances simultaneously have spoken unto the three genera of the universe. These allege that there are three kinds of existence— angelic, psychical, and earthly; and that there are three churches— angelic, psychical, and earthly; and that the names for these are— chosen, called, and captive. These are the heads of doctrine advanced by them, as far as one may briefly comprehend them. They affirm that James, the brother of the Lord, delivered these tenets to Mariamne, by such a statement belying both". (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050110.htm)
2 "Mandaeans venerate a cross-like object. They call their priests the Nazoreans. In ancient times Christian Jews were called the Nazoreans. They practice baptism by immersion and the laying on of hands and they also venerate Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem, a certain Mary, Elizabeth, James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus, and someone named Benjamin. This Benjamin was probably also of the family of Jesus. According to Eusebius, one of the earliest Jewish bishops of Jerusalem was named Benjamin.....The Mandaens have very interesting traditions concerning a woman called "Miryai" whose story bares a striking resemblance to Mary Magdalene and the Blessed Virgin Mary.....one can trace their origins to the Nassenes - the earliest Gnostic movement to grow out of the Johannine Community. The Church Fathers knew of and referred to the ancestors of the Nassanes and their claim to having been founded by a certain "Mariamne and James the Just", the latter of course being Jesus' brother. Lo and behold a "Miryai" and a "Jacob Just" occupy a central place in Mandaic writings....... According to Hippolytus, the Nassenes believed that James handed down his teaching to “Mariamne” who then passed it along to the Naassenes. "These are the heads of very numerous discourses which (the Naassene) asserts James the brother of the Lord handed down to Mariamne” In the Second Apocalypse of James, we again see the same story but Mariamne has been changed to Mareim, which by the way is the same name as Mary. Except that in this story Mariamne is elevated to the status of priest or of the priests. "This is [the] discourse that James [the] Just spoke in Jerusalem, [which] Mareim, one of the priests, wrote.” Hippolytus also describes Mariam as “the sought for one”. “…which is begotten above, where, he says, is Mariam the sought-for one…” In the Mandaen scriptures, Miryai is a female priest, a Nasurai, who is instructed in knowledge and [has?] the seal of approval by the uthras. She is "sought after" repeatedly by her fellow Jews. The similarities are sufficient to make a claim that the Nassene "Mariamne" of the late first century AD and the later Mandaen "Miryai" are one and the same person, and that the Mandaens have preserved many of the traditions of these early Nassene Gnostics who originally descended from the group of heretics that broke off from the Johannine Community with Cerinthus. The Naassenes were a Christian Gnostic sect from around 100 AD known primarily through the writings of Hippolytus of Rome. They came into existence at the end of the first century AD when the Fourth Gospel Community split up into an Orthodox "wing" and a Gnostic wing which, given their strong similarities to Johannine thought, leads some to regard them as the very Gnostics that broke away from the Fourth Gospel Community. The Naassenes claimed to have been taught their doctrines by Mariamne and James the Just. The retention of the Hebrew form shows that their beliefs may represent the earliest stages of Gnosticism, according to most scholars. Hippolytus' quotes from the Writings of this group show that they used the Gospel of John more than any other Gospel or other Christian text - once again demonstrating that they are the faction that split away from Johannine community, and over time morphed into the Mandaen faith (given that many of the Fourth Gospel Community's followers were originally followers of John the Baptist and retained distinctive elements of this earlier movement). This break-away set of heretics is referred to in the Johannine corpus of letters in the New Testament. The Mandaen texts, which could thus in redacted (corrupted) form go back to traditions current in the Nassene community and later John the Baptist movement, could give us truly ancient information, despite there relatively late date of writing. Given the prominence of Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of John .... I reckon that "Miryai" and "Mariamne" could both contain genuine traditions about her life. I thus think that the Mandaens at an early stage were Johannine Christians, many of whom were previously followers of John the Baptist, who split away from Orthodox Christianity, evolved into the Nassenes and at a later date became mixed up with other Gnostic groups and due to persecution came to oppose the "Byzantine Christ" and Christianity and emphasis John the Baptist more over Jesus. Eventually Jesus' name was changed to "Anush Uthra" - the similarities between him and Jesus are just too uncanny not to be the same in origin. Anush Uthra came down from heaven, to Jerusalem, preached, healed the sick, gathered disciples, was crucified by the "Romans" and had a chief disciple called "Miryai" and a brother called Jacob the Just who succeeded him. Ring any bells? "I took a bodily form and appeared. I spoke with my voice and preached, and became a Healer for Miriai (Mary Magdalene?): a Healer for Miriai I became, and healed her from head to foot. I was called Healer of the Truth, who heals and takes no fee"
-Anush Uthra, Ginza Riba, Holy Book of Mandaeism
The author of the "Church and Gnosis" writes: "The emphasis on the healing of Miriai, the faithful convert and disciple, is enough to show that this Mandaen figure has been developed out of Mary Magdalene, not out of Mary the mother of Jesus (as commonly thought)" Here are some portions from the "Miryai" narratives: "Miryai am I, of the Kings of Judaism, a daughter, a daughter of Jerusalem's mighty rulers. They have given me birth: the priests brought me up. In the fold of their robe they carried me up into the dark house, into the temple. Adonai laid a charge on my hands and on my two arms. I must scour and cleanse the house that is without firmness for there is nothing therein for supporting the poor, nothing to revive the tormented souls. My father went to the synagogue, my mother went to the temple. My father went out and said to me, and my mother went out and charged me: Miryai, close thy inner doors and bolt the bar. See that thou goest not forth into the main streets and that the “Suns of my Lord” fall not upon thee. But I, Miryai, listened not to what my mother did tell me, and hearkened not with my ear to what my father did command me. I opened the inner doors and the outer let I stand open. Out went I into the main streets and the “Suns of my Lord” fell upon me"
- Miryai, in Mandaen Book of John, speaking of her conversion from the Saducee sect of Priestly Jews to the Nazarene Movement
"Her mother came upon Miryai and put question to her: Whence comest thou, my daughter, Miryai, whose face gathers roses?...Look on me, Miryai, my daughter! Look on me who am thy mother! My daughter art thou and the daughter of all of the priests. Rememberest thou not, Miryai, that the Torah-Law lay on thy lap? Thou didst open it, read therein and knewest what stands in it. All the priests and priests' sons came and kissed thy hand. A thousand stand there and two thousand sit there. They submit themselves to thee, as a eunuch-made slave, and they give ear to thy word in Jerusalem. Why didst thou forget thy brothers and thy heart abandon the priests? Lo, the brides weep in Judæa, the women and men in Jerusalem....The Jews are saying: Thy daughter has fallen in love with a man. She has acquired hate against Jewry and love for Nazoreanity (Jewish Christianity?). Hate has she developed against the synagogue and love for the door of the Nazarenes. Hate has she gotten against the leather phylacteries and love for the wearing of wreaths of myrtle. Work does she on Sabbath, on Sunday she keeps her hands still. Miryai has completely cast aside the Mosaic Law that hath been laid upon us!...My daughter, arise, come back to thy dwelling-place the city Yerusalem. Come, light up thy lamps which have been put out from the day when thou withdrewest thyself. Have no longing after this man (Jesus?), who has captured thee and taken thee off. Leave the man, who is not of thy dwelling place, alone by himself in the world. Let him not say: I have gone and carried off Miryai from her place. Come, teach the children, so that they may learn. Lay the Torah in thy lap and let us hear thy voice as it used to be"
- Miryai mother, Mandaean Book of John
"When Miryai heard this from her mother, she laughed and rejoiced in her mind: It surely could not be the Jewish (priests), says she unto her, the infamous, worthless priests! It surely would not be the Jewish (priests) who stand there and bow down to a brick grave! They shall be buried in the darkness. Go, go, says she unto them, ye fools, ye abortions: ye who were not of the world. I am no woman who stripped down for lust, and it is not that I have fallen in love with a man. Stripped am I not for returning to you and for again seeing you, dome of blasphemy. Go, go hence from me, ye who have witnessed falsehood and lying against me. Against me ye witnessed lustfulness and thieving, and held me up as ye are yourselves. Blessed be the Man who freed me from my fetters and planted my feet here. No wantonness have I committed with him (Jesus?) and attempted no theft in the world"
- Miryai, Mandaen Book of John
"ALL the Jews gathered together, the teachers, the great and the little; they came [together] and spake of Miryai: "She ran away from the priests, fell in love with a man, and they took hold of each other's hands. Hold of each other's hands they took, went forth and settled at the mouth of the Frash river. We will slay them and make Miryai scorned in Jerusalem. A cross will we set up for the man who has ruined Miryai and led her away. There shall be no day in the world when a stranger enters Jerusalem. For they (Jesus and his followers?) split open their feelings and catch the doves in Jerusalem". All the Jews gathered together and followed after Miryai"
- Miryai, Mandaen Book of John
The ancient Mandaen biography of Miryai has a tragic ending. The Jewish priests, horrified and shamed by one of their own daughters joining a "dangerous" religious sect conspire against Mary's Lord. They are going to crucify him by using as justification his "freeing of the doves" from the cages of the money-changers in the Temple .There is also this delightful scene that I can just picture from the Mandean Book of John the Baptizer. Miryai/Mary's father was furious when he discovers that she has joined the movement of the "Nazarene". He thinks, or rather assumes, that she is having some kind of affair with the man (he cannot understand any other reason why a woman would follow a man):
"...Then came my father and brought on me trouble such as I never had experienced before. He spake: Where hast thou come from, thou debauched slut, whom locks and bars cannot keep in? Where hast thou come from? Woe unto thee thou ***** in heat, who mindest not door bolts and locks! Where hast thou come from? Woe, woe unto thee thou piece of uncouth cloth that has been patched on my robe!. [I, Mary answered]: If I am a debauched slut, I will burst thy boltings and bars! If I am a ***** in heat, I will draw back the pins and the locks. If I am a bit of coarse stuff that has been patched on thy robe, then out of thy robe cut and rip me. Thereon he cried: Come all of you, look on Mary, who has left Jewry and gone to make love with her lord [Jesus?]. Came, look on Mary, who has left off coloured raiment and gone to make love with her lord [Jesus?]. She forsook gold and silver and went to make love with her lord. She forsook the phylacteries and went to make love with the man with the head-band..."
- Miryai/Mary, Mandean Book of John
Miryai/Mary defends herself against charges of sexual misconduct". (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=700941).
More can be found on the Naasenes here.
See also here: MIRYAI IS EXPELLED FROM JEWRY