Tonight (Sunday 19th Aug) there was a special on Lost Worlds on SBS called There’s Something about Mary Magdalene. The most controversial part (to my mind) was the bit that alleged that ‘the disciple that Jesus loved’ was actually Mary Magdalene, and therefore she was the real author of the 4th Gospel. This theory seemed to be based on the fact that John never refers to himself other than by the phrase ‘the disciple that Jesus loved’, and that similar language is used to refer to Mary Magdelene, as discussed by Ramon K. Jusino in his 1998 essay. There’s also a fair dose of gnostism in all this.

It all seems too convenient for the gnostics to me. A bit of a long bow, based on unlikely assumptions. I haven’t read the essay myself - I’ve just repeated what the program said. It looks like it’s rather involved. I was hoping that the greek buffs who frequent this forum might have the time to review Jusino’s hypothesis, and give us a ‘second opinion’ as to whether or not there is any credence in the language argument.

Even if the language supports his hypothesis - is that really evidence for Mary being the author? And even if Mary was the author, is there any real problem? Aren’t the Words of God more important than whose hand He chose to use to write them?

A thought occurs - what was the literacy rate among 1st century palestinian women?

I don’t know if I’m going anywhere with this. I just figure that we might get a few questions from enquiring minds in the next week, so it’s interesting to explore the possibilities.

I think I have seen that program on tv before.  It is interesting, I really don’t believe that Mary Magdalene wrote John’s gospel, but I do think Mary Magdalene was hard done by in history. 

And even if Mary was the author, is there any real problem? Aren’t the Words of God more important than whose hand He chose to use to write them?

Or preach them?

That’s a very interesting question.  What sort of problem do you see arising if Mary was somehow proven to be the author of the gospel?

Would anyone care about Mary Magdalene if she hadn’t once been demon possessed?

James Cameron told me the disciple Jesus loved was Jesus and Mary’s son.

I do think Mary Magdalene was hard done by in history.

Really?  she is regarded as a Saint by the Roman Catholics, has numerous churches named after her and colleges at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities.  I would have thought history has highly honoured her.

Strange to say, it is only our secular generation which has no understanding of God’s grace, that regards any suggestion that her former life may have been other than spotless, as somehow shameful.

Quoting Alan Dungey

Really?  she is regarded as a Saint by the Roman Catholics, has numerous churches named after her and colleges at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities.  I would have thought history has highly honoured her.

Perhaps, but the notion, for which there is no textual support that she was a prostitute persists to this day. 

I, find the legacy of this being hard-done by illustrated by Dannii Willis’s dismissive sentence

Would anyone care about Mary Magdalene if she hadn’t once been demon possessed?

I hope people would “care” about a NT figure who witnessed Jesus physical ressurection, this dismissal of her plays into our secular generation’s notions of the church being misogynistic. This notion, amongst others was skillfully exploited by Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code.

I meant more about the sensationalism. Do Dan Brown and the others pick Mary Magdalene to be the bride of Christ rather than some of the other women mentioned in the NT (or one that isn’t mentioned) because she was demon possessed?

Melinda Seed - 21 August 2007 12:50 PM

Perhaps, but the notion, for which there is no textual support that she was a prostitute persists to this day. 

Hi Melinda,

Yes, there is no New Testament support for that idea.

According to Wikipedia and others the idea was popularised by Pope Gregory 1 in 591 AD

I expect the idea took on a life of its own thereafter.

Grace & peace,

Terry

But even if it were true that Mary Magadene was a prostitute , (for which it is true there is no textual support and perhaps nothing in early tradition either) does that mean that God’s grace is any the less? Does it mean she is now worthy of any less honour then say St Augustine of Hippo who had an illegitimate child and who on his conversion rather shockingly (in my view) abandoned both his mistress and his child or say John Newton who was a slaver?

On the contrary God’s grace is seen at its fullest in such wonderful examples of new birth. Truly ‘grace abounds to the chiefest of sinners’