Mary Magdalene, prostitute, or victim of character assassination?

[Bob Hubbard]

In researching the roots of Christianity, one hits many many dead ends. Information is not available, is missing, evidence is forged, etc.

While watching several recent specials on the so called Davinci Code, the theory has been put forth that in Davinci's "Last Supper", the figure often thought to be an effeminate Peter is in fact Mary Magdalene, and that the painting hints at a close and personal relationship between the 2.

Recently discovered documents point to numerous other books in the bible that were removed, and ordered purged in the early days of the Church, including the Gospel of Mary.

This document, hints at a much different view.

=====

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene

​

Chapter 4

​

(Pages 1 to 6 of the manuscript, containing chapters 1 - 3, are lost. The extant text starts on page 7...)
. . . Will matter then be destroyed or not?
22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.
23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone.
24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?
26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.
27) That is why the Good came into your midst, to the essence of every nature in order to restore it to its root.
28) Then He continued and said, That is why you become sick and die, for you are deprived of the one who can heal you.
29) He who has a mind to understand, let him understand.
30) Matter gave birth to a passion that has no equal, which proceeded from something contrary to nature. Then there arises a disturbance in its whole body.
​

31) That is why I said to you, Be of good courage, and if you are discouraged be encouraged in the presence of the different forms of nature.
32) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
33) When the Blessed One had said this, He greeted them all,saying, Peace be with you. Receive my peace unto yourselves.
34) Beware that no one lead you astray saying Lo here or lo there! For the Son of Man is within you.
35) Follow after Him!
36) Those who seek Him will find Him.
37) Go then and preach the gospel of the Kingdom.
38) Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.
39) When He said this He departed.
​

Chapter 5

​

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?
2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.
3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.
4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.
5) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman.
6) Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.
7) Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.
8) And she began to speak to them these words: I, she said, I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to Him, Lord I saw you today in a vision. He answered and said to me,
9) Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of Me. For where the mind is there is the treasure.
10) I said to Him, Lord, how does he who sees the vision see it, through the soul or through the spirit?
11) The Savior answered and said, He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind that is between the two that is what sees the vision and it is [...]
(pages 11 - 14 are missing from the manuscript)
​

Chapter 8:

​

. . . it.
10) And desire said, I did not see you descending, but now I see you ascending. Why do you lie since you belong to me?
11) The soul answered and said, I saw you. You did not see me nor recognize me. I served you as a garment and you did not know me.
12) When it said this, it (the soul) went away rejoicing greatly.
13) Again it came to the third power, which is called ignorance.
14) The power questioned the soul, saying, Where are you going? In wickedness are you bound. But you are bound; do not judge!
15) And the soul said, Why do you judge me, although I have not judged?
16) I was bound, though I have not bound.
17) I was not recognized. But I have recognized that the All is being dissolved, both the earthly things and the heavenly.
18) When the soul had overcome the third power, it went upwards and saw the fourth power, which took seven forms.
19) The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is the excitement of death, the fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven powers of wrath.
20) They asked the soul, Whence do you come slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
21) The soul answered and said, What binds me has been slain, and what turns me about has been overcome,
22) and my desire has been ended, and ignorance has died.
23) In a aeon I was released from a world, and in a Type from a type, and from the fetter of oblivion which is transient.
24) From this time on will I attain to the rest of the time, of the season, of the aeon, in silence.
​

Chapter 9

​

1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.
2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.
3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.
4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?
5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?
6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.
7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.
8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.
9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.
10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.
​

The Gospel According to Mary
​

http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
​

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Scholars taking a new look at Mary Magdalene

And, I found this very interesting site that explores the facts, myths, and theories surrounding her:
http://www.magdalene.org/
It touches on the "Gospel of Mary", recent books, supposed "relics", as well as other items that may be of interest to biblical scholars.

 

[heretic888]

Personally, I think anyone claiming to possess incontrovertible "facts" about Biblical characters like Mary Magdalene should be taken with a very hefty grain of salt.

Secondly, I always do appreciate the irony that orthodox Biblical scholars apply to apocryphal and non-canonical texts like the "Gospel of Mary". Y'know, about how such texts weren't written by the people claiming their authorship, are based on oral legend and local traditions, were not written down until centuries after the supposed events in question, reflect the biases and propaganda of certain philosophical schools or sects of Christianity, and so on.

I mean, because none of that actually applies to the four canonical gospels or anything.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The alleged Gospel according to Mary seems pretty far removed. Much of it, talking about original nature being good, and it becoming evil, actually doesn't fit with the original gospel. It would appear to me to have been written more recently. That philosophical mindset developed far seperately from Judeo-Christian belief. It appears to have more in common with Pagan beliefs of nature and natural states. I'd say someone was trying to incorperate Pagan nature beliefs in to the Judeo-Christian mythos.

The idea of original sin favors heavily in Judeo-Christian ethos, that idea being that man is born of the flesh and spirit, and flesh is evil, hence man's physical nature is evil, not good. So the philosophy really contradicts all of that. Most likely in the pursuit of a feminist version of Judeo-Christian philosophy, by hybridizing it with Paganism.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The arguments I've seen against the accepted 4 gospels is that there are discrepencies as well as other errors with them. So far, in skimming these other documents, much that is "missing" seems to be there. That's the part that I find interesting.

My limited understanding, is that during the 3rd century, the bible as we know it was "standardized" and the monks were ordered to destroy all other "books". At least 2 groups hid them instead.

In the various Gospels, you'll find Paul or whomever writing to "The Romans". It seems to be 1/2 of an exchange...where is the other half? In a discussion on this, I was told that the other half is contained in these missing texts, that other evidence exists to both reinforce as well as "disagree with the thoughts contained within" the accepted 4.

This is a summary, I'm hoping to do a more indepth dig into this to get my facts straight.

I've said previously, that evidence must be there, we just haven't found it yet. Considering the debunking of the Ark story as writen, yet based on an earlier Babylonian Myth, which was based on an earlier Sumarian story, and evidence of a flood 5,000 years ago, I am led to believe that there may in fact be some truth to the stories within the New Testament, yet they are different than we know them today. I'm curious.

 

[heretic888]

The alleged Gospel according to Mary seems pretty far removed. Much of it, talking about original nature being good, and it becoming evil, actually doesn't fit with the original gospel.

Be careful when you say things like "the original gospel".

The Christian gospel we inherited was largely a product of the Council of Nicaea, circa 330 CE. Texts like the Gospel of Mary predate any such orthodoxy.

That philosophical mindset developed far seperately from Judeo-Christian belief. It appears to have more in common with Pagan beliefs of nature and natural states. I'd say someone was trying to incorperate Pagan nature beliefs in to the Judeo-Christian mythos.

No offense, but it's fairly absurd to create any kind of dichotomy between "Pagan" beliefs and "Judeo-Christian" mythos. It's not exactly like Virgin Births or Dying and Resurrection Godmen were novelties of the Christian Bible.

The idea of original sin favors heavily in Judeo-Christian ethos, that idea being that man is born of the flesh and spirit, and flesh is evil, hence man's physical nature is evil, not good. So the philosophy really contradicts all of that.

I suggest re-reading the aforementioned text. What you're suggesting is there is, in fact, not.

Much of the philosopy cited is essentially Platonic in nature, with the idea that matter or the physical nature is intrinsically "evil" in the idea that it distracts one from the spiritual. This is very evident in the quotes passages from Chapter 4, in which it is stated that:

"For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone."

In other words, from this viewpoint, matter precludes one from the spiritual.

Most likely in the pursuit of a feminist version of Judeo-Christian philosophy, by hybridizing it with Paganism.

Once agan, what we call "Christianity" is very little more than Pagan philosophy dressed up in Jewish terminology. This is a moot point.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

My limited understanding, is that during the 3rd century, the bible as we know it was "standardized" and the monks were ordered to destroy all other "books". At least 2 groups hid them instead.

Actually, it was the early 4th century.

I am led to believe that there may in fact be some truth to the stories within the New Testament, yet they are different than we know them today. I'm curious.

You may want to research into some of the "mystery schools" that peppered the Mediterranean world during the Hellenistic period. Christianity is hardly a novelty here, and treating its mythology as potential "truths" (in a historical sense) merely reflects the bias of our culture.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Be careful when you say things like "the original gospel".

The Christian gospel we inherited was largely a product of the Council of Nicaea, circa 330 CE. Texts like the Gospel of Mary predate any such orthodoxy.

Of that you have no disagreement, at least as to what made it in to the bible. However, i'm not so certain the Gospel of Mary is nearly so old.

No offense, but it's fairly absurd to create any kind of dichotomy between "Pagan" beliefs and "Judeo-Christian" mythos. It's not exactly like Virgin Births or Dying and Resurrection Godmen were novelties of the Christian Bible.

Again, when I refer to Pagan, I don't mean any religion not christian. There are certainly influences present in Christian belief that were inspired by other religions. I note the Buddhist influence, where in desire equates to evil, and hence, suffering.

I suggest re-reading the aforementioned text. What you're suggesting is there is, in fact, not.

Much of the philosopy cited is essentially Platonic in nature, with the idea that matter or the physical nature is intrinsically "evil" in the idea that it distracts one from the spiritual. This is very evident in the quotes passages from Chapter 4, in which it is stated that:

"For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone."

Ironically, 'the nature of matter' being resolved 'in it's own nature alone' sounds more like gibberish to me. I could be wrong, but it almost reminds of Monty Python's "Life of Brian".

In other words, from this viewpoint, matter precludes one from the spiritual.

If that's what you take from it, but it seems pretty subjective.

Once agan, what we call "Christianity" is very little more than Pagan philosophy dressed up in Jewish terminology. This is a moot point.

Laterz.

Paganism, specifically, is generally meant to describe animistic and polytheistic religions, that as opposed to the Abrahamic religions, though Platonism would certainly be considered Pagan.

Perhaps you are right that this gospel was written by an early Neo-Platonist. The 'philosophy' present in the "Gospel According to Mary" seems a little convenient....as if it were invented, not discovered, however. Or, more likely, pieced together.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The document refered to as the "Gospel of Mary" is believed to be genuine, as fragments of it have been found in seperate locations.

Or rather, as genuine as the other accepted books, which means they date to the early days of the church.

For example, The Letter of Peter to Philip is dated at the end of the second century or even into the third. This rules out a literal letter from the apostle to Philip.

This is what I'm currently working through:
http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm
http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-2.htm

 

[heretic888]

Of that you have no disagreement, at least as to what made it in to the bible. However, i'm not so certain the Gospel of Mary is nearly so old.

I'm unfamiliar with the research concerning this particular gospel and, as such, can't comment on its probable date.

Again, when I refer to Pagan, I don't mean any religion not christian. There are certainly influences present in Christian belief that were inspired by other religions. I note the Buddhist influence, where in desire equates to evil, and hence, suffering.

Well, this particular belief is hardly unique to Buddhism and Christianity.

Additionally, the historical likelihood of Buddhism per se having any kind of direct influence on Christianity is highly unlikely.

Ironically, 'the nature of matter' being resolved 'in it's own nature alone' sounds more like gibberish to me. I could be wrong, but it almost reminds of Monty Python's "Life of Brian".

The context is key.

If that's what you take from it, but it seems pretty subjective.

All interpretation is subjective, so that's a moot point.

Paganism, specifically, is generally meant to describe animistic and polytheistic religions, that as opposed to the Abrahamic religions....

Again, a false dichotomy. The so-called "Abrahamic" religions all have a tacit acceptance of polytheism.

The 'philosophy' present in the "Gospel According to Mary" seems a little convenient....as if it were invented, not discovered, however. Or, more likely, pieced together.

Again, how does this differ from the four canonical gospels??

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The document refered to as the "Gospel of Mary" is believed to be genuine, as fragments of it have been found in seperate locations.

Or rather, as genuine as the other accepted books, which means they date to the early days of the church.

For example, The Letter of Peter to Philip is dated at the end of the second century or even into the third. This rules out a literal letter from the apostle to Philip.

This is what I'm currently working through:
http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm
http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-2.htm

That certainly makes sense. It is clear that much of the New Testament was written long after the purported death of christ.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

One of the sites I was looking at (lost the link though, power went out) compared the GOM to certain concepts found in Eastern paths such as Taoism.

Now, taking this a couple of steps....

Let us assume that Jesus was a very wise, and progressive individual.
Let us assume that Mary was his closest companion (friend, lover, it doesn't matter).
It would make sense that he would communicate his most "advanced" thoughts to the one closest, to be passed on later once the others "catch up".

This is common I believe in and Teacher-Student relationship.

The document hints at some jealous among some of the other followers...followers who would go on to be seen as the "leaders" while she was somehow made a footnote, or worse.

Other documents found with it seem to validate that idea.


(Hope that made sence...I'm calling it a night. LOL.)

 

[sgtmac_46]

One of the sites I was looking at (lost the link though, power went out) compared the GOM to certain concepts found in Eastern paths such as Taoism.

Now, taking this a couple of steps....

Let us assume that Jesus was a very wise, and progressive individual.
Let us assume that Mary was his closest companion (friend, lover, it doesn't matter).
It would make sense that he would communicate his most "advanced" thoughts to the one closest, to be passed on later once the others "catch up".

This is common I believe in and Teacher-Student relationship.

The document hints at some jealous among some of the other followers...followers who would go on to be seen as the "leaders" while she was somehow made a footnote, or worse.

Other documents found with it seem to validate that idea.


(Hope that made sence...I'm calling it a night. LOL.)

The whole concept, however, is academic. The actual truth of what occurred is far less important than the end result. Christianity evolved in to something far larger than the original 'truths' (Whatever those might be).

Though it does make for an interesting discussion. Have a good night.

 

[arnisador]

Yet another down-to-earth benefit of The Da Vinci Code! A resurgence of interest in Mary Magdalena, falsely labeled a fallen woman by the church long ago and more recently rehabilitated.

I looked into the Gospel of Thomas a bit some years ago but don't know much about this one. I do find the subject interesting, and relevant--Christianity is a powerful force in the world, and knowing about its roots and the validity of its beliefs about its own origins and history seems worthwhile to me.

 

[arnisador]

It is clear that much of the New Testament was written long after the purported death of christ.

My understanding of the mainstream viewpoint on the four synoptic gospels is that Mark was written (possibly by one of Peter's followers?) in the late 60s or early 70s CE; that the writing of Matthew followed not long after (within 5-15 years), and borrowed from Mark; that Luke was written (possibly by a follower of Paul, and also the author of Acts?) anytime from around 80 to 150 CE, probably on the early side of that estimate, and also borrowed from Mark; and that John was written and revised over a period time but was probably finalized by around 100 CE, and in its finalized form was the last of the gospels. (One claim is that Mary Magdalene wrote John; see here.) So, the general consensus is that the order was Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, written from around 65 CE to perhaps 110 CE. Jesus' death is generally placed in the early 30s CE, so these were written starting about 4 decades after the death of Jesus, most likely by followers of Jesus' disciples.

Of course, there are many theories and much debate, and redaction and embellishment of the gospels makes it hard to know much!