Did da Vinci paint Mary Magdalene in The Last Supper?
In The Da Vinci Code Brown treats the figure in the painting as being undoubtedly Mary Magdalene, but what evidence does he have to back that up? Take another look at The Last Supper in the Art of The Da Vinci Code gallery.
In the book Dan Brown writes:
Sophie examined the figure to Jesus’ immediate right … a wave of astonishment rose within her. The individual had flowing red hair, delicate folded hands, and the hint of a bosom. It was, without a doubt… female.
“That’s a woman!” Sophie exclaimed.
Teabing was laughing. “Surprise, surprise. Believe me, it’s no mistake. Leonardo was skilled at painting the difference between the sexes.” (Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code)
The person sitting on Jesus’ right (the figure to the left of him in the painting) does have some feminine-looking features and may appear feminine but there is more evidence that it is a man, not a woman.
Evidence that the figure is not a woman:
- Da Vinci often drew androgynous looking men (men with feminine qualities); for example, see his painting of John the Baptist.
- It was common convention at that time to paint John the disciple with feminine qualities
- It makes sense to have John (called ?the beloved disciple? or ?the one that Jesus loved?) sitting to Jesus’ right.
- The person to Jesus’ right seems to be wearing men’s style clothing
- Surely when the picture was first painted, someone would have noticed it was a woman if indeed it was intended to be a woman. After all it is ?among the most famous paintings in the world?; it seems unlikely that this would just be coming to light now.
- The painting is meant to capture the moment when Jesus tells His disciples He will be betrayed, so all the disciples should be there. But if that is a woman in the painting, then one of the disciples is missing. Remember that at the time of the last supper, Judas has not yet betrayed Jesus so all twelve disciples would have been present.
- Even if da Vinci painted a woman sitting next to Jesus, that’s no reason to believe that da Vinci was accurate; he was painting over 1,400 years after the incident occurred
Sophie was pretty quick to identify the person in the painting as a woman, but what do you think? Looking at the painting is that a man or a woman? Do first impressions sometimes need correction? Is the evidence as obvious as Brown would have us believe?
395 Responses to “Did da Vinci paint Mary Magdalene in The Last Supper?”
Leave a Reply
Start a Conversation
Media
What Do You Fear?
What do you fear, and why? Is it holding you back from realizing your full potential?
>Watch
Do you crave destiny? (Part 2)
Destiny? Is this really me? Was I really born for great things?
>Watch
Chris (England) I certainly could not state that I could remember but then again I can’t remember what I had for lunch..hahah FYI: Earlier you asked about Jesus having ever written anything down…I have a copy of a book entilted “The Jesus Papers” authored by Michael Baigent…now before anyone takes the time to comment about this book let me say I have not had a chance to read it and therefore am in no place to critique it. As certain as I am typing this I know full well there will be those of you shaking your heads as to the accuracy of this book. Suffice it to say I read almost everything that interests me and some that lets me form opinions that may run contrary to my belief system. Some may view that as fool hardy. But if I had to choose to read or never turn a page I would pick the former.
so once again I say how can someone remember something exactly that was said at least 30 years before?
Chris, why is it so likely that Jesus wrote anything? They didn’t have paper back then. Papyrus was hard to come by and bulky. Jesus was itinerant. Where would He have done this writing? Where would He have kept it? He never commanded others to write anything. Most teaching, at the time, was passed on orally. There is no reason for Jesus to have written anything.
Why was there never a gospel according to Jesus? Surely he wrote things down?
Hi Patricia,
I have never said, nor do I believe, that the Catholic Church is the sole receptor of God’s grace. You are reading something into my posts that simply isn’t there. God is sovereign and free to distribute His grace as He sees fit.
This does not change the fact, however, that the universal church is divided and that is a wrong that must be corrected. It is also a matter of historical fact that, with very few exceptions, that the church meant the Catholic Church for the first 1,500 years of our 2,000 year history. Furthermore, it is the only Church that can claim that it was founded by Jesus Christ.
Nobody has ever made the claim that the Catholic Church was perfect but to say that there is much in its history that is wrong is a gross overstatement. Infallibility and impeccability do not go hand in hand but, in 2,000 years, there have only been six popes who could reasonably be described as evil. Regardless, the Church is not free to change the truths that it has been given by Jesus just because they don’t happen to fit in with the “wisdom” of the world is at the moment. It is the truths which Jesus gave us that set us free. They change us; we don’t change them.
The Church must follow what Jesus revealed to the apostles and they passed on to us. Those truths are as unchangeable as the multiplication tables. You have been given free will and can choose to reject those truths but you are not free to reject them and call yourself a disciple of Jesus (1 John 2:1-6).
If you don’t like the fact that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, then your argument is with Jesus, not the Catholic Church. The Church is just trying to be obedient servants of Jesus Christ. It is not free to try to change those truths even if they offend our 21st century sensibilities.
You also seem to hold to a lot of misconceptions about the trial of Galileo. Keep in mind that Copernicus has already stated that the Earth orbited around the sun and the Church had no problem with it. They even helped fund him. Galileo however was a major jerk. Aside from laying out his theories, he went on to say that the Bible contained errors and that his book was inspired by God. Keep in mind that Galileo was also wrong. He said that the sun was the center of the universe which was just as wrong as saying the Earth was.
If you’re going to attack the Catholic Church, you should at least get your facts right.
The arguments, jagged and irregular seem to move around in a kaleidoscope as they create pictures of the Vatican as the sole receptor of God?s grace. I remember my brother-in-law Phil explaining that once I knew the facts, the Catholic Church was the only reasonable choice. I wasn?t ?propelled? from one church door to another. I chose the same path of the one I loved, not because of, but despite the ridicule and never ending pressure. It is the arrogance and the constancy of the pressure that I remember.
I could no longer ignore the evidence that half of the children of creation were ?assigned? responsibility while the other half were awarded authority. There is much in the history of Catholicism that bears no resemblance to the preaching of Jesus. When more recently the Vatican jumped head long into diatribes about women who attempted to usurp their authority while their own robes were soiled, I knew it was time to move on.
The basic premise of this blog is to discover and share ideas about the possibility that Da Vinci painted Mary Magdalene in his painting of the Last Supper. I renew my position. I don?t know, and there is little evidence to make a case one way or the other. There is much that is not known about the physical life of Jesus or how many angels dance on the head of a pin, but I am content to let both questions pass and enjoy the debate.
I found The Da Vinci Code appealing, and find insight into the panic of the Catholic church since there are many novels written at odds with Catholic doctrine. Some have patiently explained that the church is concerned that there are those who believe the story and lose their faith. That may be true, but I believe much of that is because many are disillusioned by the hypocrisy of the church. Some may have lost their faith because of Dan Brown?s novel, but faith so easily swayed is built on a shaky foundation. Further, I would ask how many lost their faith and their lives because of the lack of response to priestly hands on children?s bodies. As for Dan Brown?s book, the cover describes the book as a novel.
I hear again Phil?s voice in the claim that the Vatican solely interprets Scriptures: I recall:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”
There was to be one, true interpretation of these scriptures, and that was that the sun rotated around the earth. The Catholic church forbid any other interpretation and Galileo was forbidden to discuss alternatives. Finally in 1616 Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade church authorities not to ban his research. However, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting in accordance with the Inquisition ordered him not to ?hold or defend? the theory that the earth moves.
Galileo had died centuries earlier when in 1992 the interpretation was . . . well, it was amended. So much for immutable authority. I suspect that the defense for this example is an explanation of the level of infallibility of the proclamation. For Galileo, the threats of torture were real enough. And for me, I chose not to hang round for error to be set straight.
re: whose interpretation is correct?
Chris, you’re not splitting hairs at all. You’re asking a question that needs to be asked. 1 Tim 3:15 tells us that it is the Church that is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, not the Bible. I know that we have many denominations now but, when St. Paul wrote these words, there was only one and it had St. Peter as its earthly head (see Matt 16:18). For over 300 years after St. Paul wrote these words, the Bible, as we know it, did not exist. Some of the books which make up today’s Bible were not even written yet. The belief that every believer is capable of interpreting the Bible appeals nicely to the modern-day spirit of anti-authoritarianism but it was unheard of until the Reformation. It has led to division upon division in the body of Christ and that is contrary to the will of Jesus (John 17:20-21). Protestants, who claim that their interpretations come from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have to explain why there is so much variation in doctrine within their ranks.
re: fundamentals of the Christian faith are clear and not free to be interpreted however people want
Sorry, emmzee, but that is not the case. Let’s just take a look at one example of something very fundamental: eternal security. Some people believe in it, others don’t. Whether you believe in this or not, and I don’t know what your position is, both camps will make the claim that their belief is the one clearly taught in Scripture. Personal interpretation of the Bible leads to confusion and God is not the author of confusion. You can say that you sought the mind of the Holy Spirit in coming to whichever conclusion you believe but those who believe the opposite will say the same thing. This leads to one of two possible conclusions: either (1) the Holy Spirit is telling different people different things or (2) that is not the method which God has set in place for us to understand His truths. I believe that God has a sense of humor – He created me – but I don’t see Him playing pranks on us with respect to the truths of the faith. This leaves me with the second option. Obviously you are not going to agree with me but then I have two questions for you:
1) How can you guarantee me that your position on the issue of eternal security – or a multitude of other doctrines – is scriptural while the position of those who take the opposite is not? It seems to me that, unless you are claiming the gift of infallibility, you cannot make this guarantee.
2) What happens to all those believers who lived prior to the 390s when the canon of the Bible was set? Some of these lived and died before any or all of the books of the NT were written. Where did they go for truth? Hint: The answer is in 1 Tim 3:15.
Just to clarify something, I am not saying that the Holy Spirit does not act in our lives when we study Scripture. He certainly does use the Bible to enlighten us and to help us deal with the struggles that face us. I’m speaking only here of interpreting the Bible.
re: clear passages explaining the obtuse passages
The problem with saying that the easy to understand passages shed light on the passages which are harder to understand is that, in practice, the easy passages are easy because they seem to support the position we hold and the hard ones seem to oppose them. In other words, the person who says that this passage is easy and that one is hard has already decided what they want to believe and are looking to the Bible for support rather than instruction. It’s called proof-texting.
Let’s look at an example. Protestants believe that we are saved by faith alone; Catholics do not. James 2:24 says that we are not saved by faith alone. It is the only passage in the entire Bible where the phrase “faith alone” occurs. How much plainer could the Bible get? Yet, when I was an Evangelical, I was told that this was one of the difficult passages. In fact, it was only difficult because it contradicted a major Evangelical belief.
I was always bothered by the idea that there was such a thing as a “difficult passage.” Why would God do something like that? Could it be that it was us missing something instead of God being obtuse? When I started my examination of what Catholics believed and why, the most exhilarating part of it was to see those difficult passages vanish before my eyes.
I have to note here that there are certain passages of the Bible that are difficult to understand. But most are not. When I started reading the Bible (before I became Christian, I mean) I didn’t have too many problems. I had questions, sure, but most things were still understandable. The fundamentals of the Christian faith are clear and not free to be interpreted however people want. Some more minor issues might even apply to different people in different situations differently, based on their individual circumstances.
When it comes to “which interpretation is right” on more difficult passages, I’d say that the process is much the same as interpreting anything else. I think we should recognize that while some passages can be interpreted differently by different people, the original author intended each to have a specific meaning. The most important rule here is “Don’t read just a verse.” Always read verses in context. For example, if I rip a sentence out of the prime minister’s speech, I can incorrectly interpret it in whatever way I want. But if I examine it in its original context, I will have a much better idea of what he really meant. Verses should be understood in their immediate context (the paragraph, the chapter) as well as the global context (the Bible and gospel story as a whole).
Difficult passages can also be explained by referring to clearer passages. This is also one reason why the church exists: by discussing and collectively thinking about what we read we can come to better understanding. We may disagree on certain peripheral issues, but the foundations remain the same. :)
Yes but once again (and maybe I am just splitting hairs) with commentary or study aids is that not just taking the commentators word for it or the spin they have put on it. Everyone can take a passage to mean a different thing. How do we know which is right?
Chris, this is a question I’m sure everyone has asked at one time or another. Couldn’t God have made things easier? Sometimes when I’m trying to find a passage (that I *know* is in there somewhere but I just don’t know where) I wish things were … I don’t know, neater? Tidier?
I was reminded of a chapter in Brian McLaren’s book “Finding Faith” where he asks, regarding the Bible, “God, couldn’t you have done better than this? What could God possibly think we gain by having a collection of holy Scriptures in this seemingly disorganized, patchwork form?” It’s a good question. McLaren continues to ponder:
As Sheldon says above, life is complicated … how much moreso is God! I would think that any book about God would be on one level simple and understandable, and on the other so deep and complex that we can read it for a lifetime and still find new depths of insight.
That said, there’s plenty of resources available to aid understanding. Many Bibles come with indexes, commentary and other study aids, so there’s no lack of help available. :)
Hi Chris,
I’m afraid you’ve stumbled into one of those areas where Catholics and Protestants differ. While the Catholic Church encourages the study of the Bible, and always has despite what some Protestants have said, it rejects the belief that each individual believer is capable of interpreting it. By this I mean that no individual Catholic has the authority to say “This verse means such and such.” That authority is given to the magisterium, the leadership of the Church. The reason for this belief is found in 2 Pet 2:20-21. Logic also demands that, if God is going to give us an infallible Bible, then He will also give us an infallible way of knowing what He is saying through it.
Protestants, on the other hand, believe that each individual believer can interpret the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. However, since there are now somewhere around 30,000 different Protestant denominations each teaching something different and each claiming that they were guided into the truth by the Holy Spirit, we can see where this doctrine has led.
The Bible can be read at many levels and all people can get something out of it. However, it also contains some very complex ideas which may need some explaining. It was also written prior to 1,900 years ago and things have changed a lot since then. Scholars try to understand the Bible in the light of what it meant to the to its human authors and their original audience. History, geography, anthropology, archaeology and linguistics can shed light on the Scriptures.
HTH.
Hey Chris,
Glad to have you back :)
Have you ever read the details of the manual that came with your computer, or your car?
Life itself is complicated.
Hello again all Chris the philosopher back again lol. If this bible thing is the good book and to be believed and is the way of life, why do we have to research it and study it? Surely it should be easier to take in. ( don’t know if I worded that right) What I’m saying is, it is a very complicated piece of literature.
Hi Nicky,
I must say that I am a bit confused by your comments. First you say that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered a daughter named Sarah. Then you say that Jesus is a myth. You really can’t have it both ways. Is Jesus a myth or did He marry Mary Magdalene?
The fact is that the existence of Jesus is as well documented as anyone else who lived two millennia ago so, while you are free to deny He existed, you do so in spite of the evidence, not because of it. You state that you came to your conclusion regarding Jesus after much research. Could you be a bit more specific? What did you come up with?
What is the basis for your belief that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child? Again, you are free to believe anything you wish but this belief is completely without any valid historical support that I know of. I’m curious about why you are so certain.
You mention that you believe that the Bible was written as a guide to help you through life but you don’t say who you believe wrote it. Do you believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit or is it completely human in nature, meaning that God had no hand in its authorship? If the latter is true, how do you know that it is a good guide? Bookstores are stocked with self-help books. What makes the Bible different than any of these?
Your comment about the “god” and “satan” within you sounds a lot like the eastern concept of yin and yang. Is that a fair assessment of what you believe? If the Bible is your guide, where in the Bible do you find this idea?
As far as changing your mind goes, it is true that no one can force you to change your mind. They may be able to force you to say something you don’t truly believe but they can’t make you change your mind. I don’t think anyone here would ever try to make you change your mind. However, this is not the same thing as presenting evidence that might cause you to change your own mind. This has happened to me several times during my life. Although I was raised Catholic I lost my faith during my teenage years. In my early 20s I was shown evidence that validated the claims of Christianity and committed my life to Jesus. Most of my friends, however, were Protestant and they were able to convince me that Catholicism was in error from a scriptural point of view so I left Catholicism for Evangelical Protestantism. However, eleven years later I began to research what the Catholic Church believed and why they believed it and discovered, much to my surprise, that Catholic beliefs were much more in keeping with the Bible than Evangelical Protestantism. (Not everyone here will agree with me on that. ) So now I’m back where I started from. No one made me change my mind; I changed my own according to the facts that I had available to me at the time.
Nicky — you hardly need to ask for comments on this blog, I must say. I never get my knickers in a knot, which is the masculine equivalent of getting your panties in a bunch I guess, but your arguments don’t hold much water for me. The Bible is much more than just a ‘guide’ though our lives are indeed ‘guided’ by the Book. Of course you are entitled to your personal beliefs by reason of your free will, but error is error after all, even if it is predicated upon the exercise of free will. If you have been reading all the entries in this blog, you will know that there is no real acceptance of any marriage of Christ (except to his church) in the accepted books of the Bible. Dan Brown can write whatever he wants to, but he should note somewhere that his words are of his own invention. not ‘truth,’ a very tricky word indeed. Your ‘truth’ works for you apparently, and you take the credit for its invention, good on you for that.
You will note that Chris and Kriss also do not accept the Bible as is, but want more accreditation for it from within it or from outside it. Perhaps they will never accept any confirmation of the validity of the Bible from any source, blind to the light it gives to humankind. That would be their loss, but one to which they are entitled by reason of their free will. guaranteed by the Bible itself.
Tova — You’re Welcome (English – I wish I spoke well another language, but, alas, I don’t!).
Well… dispite all the on going debates about whether or not it is actually a woman sitting next to jesus, i always have and always will believe that jesus got married and that mary magdelene had his daughter named sarah, i used to be a strong believer in christ but after much reasearch i found that all i was believing in was a myth… i am an open minded person and i never put anybody down for believing in christ for i believed in him once before. I feel that the bible is a guide, a book written to help you through life and so that you can feel like all you have to do is pray if you have commited a sin and so a person can feel like they are not alone, that they always have somebody watching over them as they go about each and everyday, doing good deeds for this made-up powerfull man in the sky…
I dont mean to get everyone’s panties in a bunch, i am just stateing my opinion, i have reasearched this time & time again for i did not want to go around discusing my opinion if i was wrong, think about it… would i be saying all this if i was wrong? would i really want to embarrass myself in front of millions of people who log onto this blog thing?
i believe that there is a “god” & “satan” inside one’s self, a good & bad, if you do something good, thats your “god”, and if you commit a sin, thats your “satan”
but… what ever you believe, believe in it, nobody can change your mind if you believe in it with all your heart… what ever you believe in something that makes YOU happy, then never let go of it because you should never pretend to be happy for someone else for you were born alone and you will die alone, you dont live alone but you should look out for your own and always put yourself and your religous belifs first…
i think im getting a little too carried away here arent i? hahaha
think about what i said and let me know what you think…
nicky
Hello Des Emery…toda raba (thank you in hebrew) for the answer to my question…it was so very kind of you to take the time to respond….take care
Well, here I am again, so soon. I forgot two very important ‘to do’s’ when I sent Tova the message about Anathema. Those were 1) to thank Tova for kind remembrances directed to the Canadians for our National holiday (today), as well as the American Fourth of July this weekend. And 2) to Gary on the unfortunate passing of his mother — “It is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead,” and we concur.
Hey, Tova — glad you haven’t left us entirely alone. I know of two ‘Anathemas’ – please note the different spelling. Probably the one you are interested in is a short story and play from 1923 called simply ‘Anathema’ and is the third story made into a play under the collective title of The Symbolist, all written by Leonid Andreyev (another Russian!!). The other work by the name “Anathema” is a novel by E A Vines.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, because I recognize those who blog here are highly intelligent I need your help. A friend asked me who penned the short story “Anathama”. We know for sure it was not Tolstoy….does anyone here know who the author was? We are at a loss for the answer. The library has been of no halp whatsoever. Have a great and safe holiday to all those in the USA. And for you Canadians have a great weekend. Thank you for your help.
The interesting thing is that even with the 30 year gap, there are no inconsistencies between the different Gospels when it comes to critical doctrine.
Chris, glad to see you’re still following this thread / blog. :)
Thirty years seems like a long time. But there’s some other considerations to keep in mind.
First, the transmission wasn’t like the telephone game, where a message gets whispered around a circle, and by the time it gets back to the original person, the original message (“Pick up milk at the store”) gets totally mangeld (“Trick up silk anthill more”). All of the NT books were written by eyewitnesses (or those who directly consulted eyewitnesses). The message also wasn’t whispered, it was proclaimed loudly in the streets, marketplaces etc. Remember that the 1st century society was primarily oral, and since most people could not read or write, extreme emphasis was put on memorizing and retelling stories accurately. Also, 30 years (it’s actually much less, see below) means that many other eyewitnesses were still alive when it was written, so they would have authority to acknowledge or deny the writings themselves. (This is a verification method that’s lacking of the later gnostic texts.)
Next, the gap is much less than all other ancient historical works we possess from that time. For example, the earliest biography of Alexander the Great was written nearly 400 years after his death, yet most historians consider it trustworthy. Getting into detail on this topic would take a bit too much space than is appropriate for a blog comment, but this article explains it better than I can.
Maybe most importantly, the time-period between the earliest book of the NT is likely to be 15 years or less. The earliest gospel was written abour 30 years after, but the earliest NT book (Galatians) was written only 15-18 years after. But that is still not the earliest text we posess. All of Paul’s letters are early, and one of them (1 Corinthians) contains a creed that Paul learned only 5-7years after Jesus’ death. Of course the creed was probably much earlier than that, but that’s when Paul would have learned it; note that the creed contains all of the essential Christian doctrines. So the earliest information in the Bible can be shown to go back to only a few years after Jesus’ death, far too short a timeframe for any legend to develop, especially in the very same place Jesus lived.
Hmm, okay, another long post for me :) But Chris has hit upon some important issues, and some of the same questions I had during my spiritual journey, so I’m happy to share what I’ve discovered so far along the way. :)
emmzee 30 years is still a long time. I have said something to someone and 5 mins later it has become something completely different. Don’t know about you but I know I couldn’t write about something that happened to me 30 years ago and remember it word for word exactly.
Gary, I too am praying for you and your family as you grieve the loss of your Mother. Feel free to send in a prayer request to our prayer team as well by going to the link on the home page of this site…. http://www.thelife.com/interactive/share.html Others will also be praying for you!
I’m sorry to hear of her passing Gary.
Praying for you and your family during this time.
If you need anything please let us know.
Gary, we will continue to pray for you during this difficult time. You’re never alone, and welcome to join TheLife’s chat anytime http://www.thelife.com/interactive/chat.html
kriss, the difference is this: Leonardo painted 1400 years after the events occurred. The first gospel was written within 30 years of Jesus’ death. The fact that it is now 2006 has no relevance. It doesn’t matter how many years have passed since then, since documents do not suddenly become inaccurate just because they are very old. We have excellent evidence to trust the Bible as an accurate historical record.
if you people wondering about the knowledge of leonardo because he was not there when it was actually happend(He painted after 1400 years). how you are beliving bible?. because it is after 2006 years after the happening.
Thanks to all who have been praying for my mother. She passed away this afternoon due to complicatios from her colon cancer surgery. It was a peaceful death.
I guess this blog carries on, though the book and the movie have almost faded from sight. Attention seems to have focused mainly upon Mary Magdalene, who is certainly a saint, and whose precedents are unknown. Although she may have been a ‘loose’ woman. Or a well-born Jewish lady. She knew Christ well, and also the other Apostles, obviously. Her place in history is assured. To ascribe more to her than is reported in the New Testament is presumptuous of us, Dan Brown, and Elizabeth Cunningham too. Of course, anything goes in fiction, but the author should have the decency to tell the reader so in no uncertain terms.
Hey, I must have missed a few chapters of the book and gotten popcorn during part of the film. I don’t recall detailing of the explicit sexual lives of Jesus.
There is nothing dirty or sinful about human intimacy and marriage. I find the Da Vinci Code fiction a balance to the centuries long story of an ethereal Savior who had no human characteristics that could not be illustrated in altar paintings.
The Da Vinci Code is a swing of the pendulum from the teachings of a church that, despite the fact that women were an important part of his ministry considered them periphery, prostitute (reformed prostitute) or virgin.
Mary Magdelene’s claim to fame for many seems to be set in the concrete of the belief that a prostitute can rise to Sainthood. I see Mary Magdalene as a prophet who twice anointed Jesus.
The Mary Magdalene preached to me bears no resemblence to the historical person other than her name. There is more than enough intolerance to go around.
It also could just be a cash-in to try to take advantage of the popularity of Brown’s book. Mary is cast here “as a sacred whore serving the goddess Isis”. Sounds like the author intentionally wants to offend people to get her book noticed. Well, as long as we realize that the Mary Magdelene in the book bears no resemblence to the historical person other than her name, then readers should do fine. :)
I have to say that it’s somewhat tiring for Christians to continually have Jesus and other biblical figures misused in whatever odd ways people fancy … if someone wrote a fictional book detailing the (supposed) explicit sexual lives of various leaders of other religions, it would probably be blasted in the press for being religiously intolerant. But not so of any Christian-themed book …
It has been sometime since I have posted to this blog. At first glance it would seem many who spent much time writing herein are either busy or no longer interested. Anywho, I was spending some time googling and found a book entitled….The Passion of Mary Magdalene authored by Elizabeth Cunningham. The subject matter will no doubt enflame many readers but that will not keep me from buying and reading this tome. Has anyone here heard about or read this book? If the same scrutiny is given to Ms Cunninghams’ text as Dan Brown”s he should be off the hook on this blog.
Hey Patricia I did say that. I just found it again. I guess I was refering to the Roman Catholic Establishment. Of course the other churches are also part of established faith. However I don’t think it was clear to me at that time that you had joined another established Church organization. I actually know Christians who have become so turned off by some of the stuff that goes on in churches that they live their faith outside the boundaries of an actual church. They distrust it and choose not to align themselves with any denomination at all. I am not saying I agree that this is the best way as I think God uses our relationships with others to rub off the rough edges and help us become more like him. However, I don’t condemn it and pray that as they seek to worship God on their own that they continue in true faith.
Jan, I may have misunderstood. You said, “I hope that you have found your faith in Jesus renewed despite leaving the church establishment.” I had not left the church establishment since the Catholic Church is not the only church establishment. I just wish that I had stood up to Phil early on when I let him browbeat me. He threatened, cajoled, preached, etc. and I have come to resent that experience. Most of all I am angry with myself for not standing up to the truth as I saw it.
Des Emery, I have read some of M.L.’s quotes that are outrageous and, of course, I don’t agree with him all of the time. The point of associating myself with the church that bears his name, is that women have the opportunity of full ministry. I believe that if more men saw “equalness” in their sisters in faith, as children of creation we could focus on the will of God.
Thank you for your encouragement. I have learned not let the shadows of men hide my footsteps. I think you have seen evidence of that.
This was my first attempt at blogging, and I must thank all who responded so earnestly to the comments about TDVC, Dan Brown, the book and the movie, as well as the other subjects which arose.
to Patricia – first, a sub-note — Although I am as male as it gets I have always considered females as equals and wondered why other males didn’t. Which is one reason why I can consider the ‘woman taken in adultery’ as Mary Magdalene. Or not. I can’t blame the pope who asked that question, nor the people who believed it was, and certainly not the woman herself, whoever she was. The point being that Jesus did not ‘judge’her and nor will I. The fact that other people (read ‘men’) did read into the scripture their own biases makes them only mortals as we all are.
Including that future brother-in-law of yours whose ideological stance seems to have helped propel you out one church door and in through another. I can’t agree with him, as Catholic as I am, nor with MartinLuther either. But you have your free will and may worship as pleases you, as quietly or noisily as you want. I wish you good luck in finding your way and call down all things necessary from G-d to light your path. Do not let the shadows of men hide your footsteps.
Patricia I don’t think I ever thought you had left Christianity. I cannot see where I said that. At one point I was making a case for the need for an accepted canon of scripture. (When I raved on about the gnostics). I am very glad that you have found a fellowship where you are recieved as a child of God and are not made to feel second class due to your sex. I too have fellowshipped with many branches of Christian faith.(all of the protestant variety) and am currently with a pentecostal denomination. However, that said, I feel that I try to follow truth and not church dogma.
I had left the blog (as others have apparently too) but add these postscripts.
Des Emery, thank you for your clarification of the church’s anxiety, however, I do understand their concern. Take this a step further, however. Why is there such willingness — rather an enthusiasm — to accept as true, the claims of the fictional/factual novel? I believe that many, myself included, had come to see the heavy handed approach in placing women in a convenient “them” category and determining the forms of their usefulness and the boundaries of their ministry. There was no “honest mistake” in assigning Mary Magdalene the role as prostitute. It may have been done with the “let’s lump them all together” and make a critical point, but I give the centuries of Catholic scholars more credit than not to have figured out that the prostitute thing was wrong headed. However, Catholic scholars and other wise men have dragged their feet for centuries at a time to correct obvious errors in judgment and belief. I am grateful they have finally agreed that the earth is not the center of the universe! That took some time as well.
And Jan, I did not leave Christianity. I joined a Lutheran church and there I am able to worship God as one of the children of creation, not a somewhat imperfect man whose claim to ministry is bearing children. The threat of damnation came from an over zealous future brother-in-law. I thought that I could fit my faith into the cubicle of Catholic thinking and did so successfully for some time. However, when I saw the church?s official response to abuse and those who were quick to point out that they were not alone in that abuse, I abandoned the pain of the Catholic faith community for one of promise.
to Mary Jane — You’re welcome. I think you’ll agree that as with any poetry, you have to give it more than a try or two to get the buried sense the author left behind within the poem itself — sort of like the Bible, doncha think? But for someone who feels the presence of Christ somewhere behind, close behind indeed, like you, that poem makes a lot of sense. Put it with Christ’s words, ‘Remember, you have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,’ and you have something powerful you can rely upon even when you can’t rely upon your fellow man.
Des Emery, I had to read The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson several times before I understood. You’re right, it is a hard read. The line that struck me was, “Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest. I am He whom thou seekest.”
That’s me in a nutshell… I’m blind and weak. But I refuse to surrender to the rules of Man. It’s just never going to happen.
Thank you for referring this poem to me. Strangely, I can identify with Francis.
to Mary Jane – I can see a small part of your postings is that you have heard the call, but you have resisted it. An extremely hard poem that you could explore is ‘The Hound Of Heaven’ by Francis Thompson, another person who was ‘stuck’ like you. Some of the words are almost impossible to figure the meaning but persevere and let their meaning go for now. The whole poem is very comforting, and that is what you should concentrate on.
to BJ – verses 4, 5, and 6 in the same chapter of Matthew are Christ’s answer to the Pharisees wnen they try to entrap him by discussing marriage and divorce, his last words being ‘What therefore G-d hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Their comeback, thinking they had won, was “Well, what about Moses – he allows divorce.’ Christ answers, ‘Yeah but only because of hardness of heart like you guys exhibit. I tell you that it was not so in the beginning and it not so now.’ And then to his own people, who figure marriage is so impossible in those conditions, he explains ‘If you can’t stand the heat, don’t go into the kitchen at all.’ Then he tells them about the three kinds of ‘eunuch — the one who doesn’t want to get married, the one who can’t get married, and the one who voluntarily foregoes marriage for his sake.’ I can’t see anything about a ‘law’ or ‘rule’ here making marriage for Christ compulsory.
Oops “heresies”
One interesting note about getting the early Christian writings established is, that it came about partly because another teacher (a gnostic named Marcion) around A.D. 140 was making up his own list. He leaving out some of the writings already accepted by the churches an he totally rejected the OLD Testament because of its asssociation with the “demiurge” or bad God. In Gnosticism Matter was considered evil and only spirit good so therefore Jesus never could have been a real human. All kinds of “secret knowledge and encounters with God were claimed that put an entirely new spin on what the Chruches accepted and believed and flew in the face of the traditional teaching that Jesus was “Emmanuel” meaning “God with Us”, the word become flesh etc. Marcion totally abandoned Matthew and Mark as being too Jewish and introduced a real expurgated version of Luke(taking out all OT references)He did include 10 of Pauls letters. He introduced his own book called Antithesis which compiled a list of OT passages with the new Testament contadictions of them.
So the church had a problem. Marcion was a real Paul worshiper and he felt he was the supreme fiture in the church. He had Paul sitting in heaven at the right hand of Christ called him the Paraclete(holy spirit) promised by christ to his followers. He was a real editor cutting an chopping to suit his private interpretations.
Basically the church had to get busy and get things decided about what was Orthodox and ture to the message of Jesus and what wasn’t. Poor Paul because of the association with the “heries* the fate of his writings was held in a balance for a time. Two things rescued him first his letters were read in all the churches, and were very effective in the spread and defense of the gospel. Second was the Book of Acts which proved Christ had called him and the apostles accepted him. (See William Barclay The Making of the Bible) as I have quoted his work extensively here.
So it seems that the church strived at only approving what was accepted by the existing churches and what was working in bringing Gods new life to believers. From what I have read it wasn’t just one man as it had been with Marcion’s effort.
Thanks I will take a look at it emmzee
Chris, I went back over your previous posts, and I don’t see that particular question. If I missed it, I apologize. I see questions re who wrote the Bible, when it was written, but none regarding the canon (ie how the different writings were collected into one book) which is a different issue. I have not done enough extensive research into the canon to be able to give a lengthy answer, so I’ll provide brief responses to this complex issue based on what I do know.
“There are many books in the bible, WHO decided to put them all together”
There was initially no single authorative collection of writings. Many writings existed and were used and distributed by the early church; in fact the exact same ones that are included in the Bible, since those are the earliest writings. The early church was mostly oral (since most people were illiterate) and the need to have a single collected work was brought on by two main factors. One, the twelve apostles and other eyewitnesses eventually died. Two, new foreign ideas (such as those found in the 2nd century gnostic writings) started to infiltrate the early church, ideas contrary to what the earliest Christians believed.
“WHO chose what goes in and what doesn?t and what authority did this MAN have?”
There was no single man, no “editor”, who stood up and said “Alright you rubes! I know you think the Gospel of Thomas is hot stuff, but I SAY that the Gospel of Mark is the way to go! So too bad for you!” Instead, when the early church realized the two problems listed above, the process of “canonization” began, that is, the early Christian church began to collectively decide which were the best available texts, based on three main criteria:
- Authorship: Who wrote the books?
- Tradition: Do what the books say conform to the teachings of the earliest Christians?
- Acceptance: What were the books most used by the most churches?
Also could be added whether or not the books were quoted by early church leaders in the first and early 2nd century. Although the early Christians were diverse and decentralized (due to heavy persecution, remember) they still were able to come to a concensus. Thus the early churches did not create the canon; it is more proper to say they endorsed the books already in use by the early churches. Although the four gospels and Paul’s letters were accepted right away, some other books were not immediately accepted until more debate could occur. I’m glad that the early church didn’t just round up every writing they could find and stick them into a book, and having read some of the writings they rejected, I can be confident they made the right choices.
I did a quick Google, and found this paper that goes into more depth if you’re interested in learning more, it seems generally accurate:
http://tinyurl.com/js24c
Hope this helps!
In other words, who was the Editor?
My question still has not been answered!!! There are many books in the bible, WHO decided to put them all together and WHO chose what goes in and what doesn’t and what authority did this MAN have?
re: Mom update
My mother had her surgery last night and all went well. The growths were malignant, however, and they are now checking her lymph nodes to see if it has spread. If it has she will require chemotherapy. I hope to have more info today.
re: God & the Bible
Chris,
If you go back and reread what I’ve written on this topic, you will see that my premise is that there is no absolute proof in the sense of a scientific or mathematical proof that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit. There are, however, some factors such as fulfilled prophecy which, in my opinion, make the Bible more likely to be a divine revelation than the Koran or the Bagavad Gita or any of the others. I have also said that the reson I believe that the Bible is the word of God is identical with that of St. Augustine of Hippo: Because the Catholic Church, which was established by Jesus to be the pillar and support of the truth, says it is. However, I am not saying that you must believe that the Bible is divinely inspired because of that fact. The faith to believe is a grace given by God which we are all free to accept or reject.
re: biblical canon
BJ, I was intrigued by your criteria for determining canonicity. Where did they come from?
Your first criteria is apostolic authorship but Mark’s and Luke’s gospels were not written by apostles. Neither was the Letter of James. We have no idea at all who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews.
Perhaps you need to define what you mean by apostle.
Also, your third criteria does not stand up in the light of history. Several of the books which were included in the New Testament were widely rejected. Some books which enjoyed great popularity, such as the Didache and The First Letter of Clement were not.
Here’s the other problem. As a Catholic I’m used to getting asked: “Where is that in the Bible?” Well here’s a case where the people who always ask me that need to show me where the criteria for canonicity are found in the Bible and how do you know know that the books that contain the criteria are canonical. RC Sproul says something that I would find very disturbing if I were an Evangelical because he is absolutely correct. For Evangelicals, the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. You really don’t have a viable and biblical way of arriving at a biblical canon because you reject an authoritative Church.
Ahh I see
“I wish I could have a one on one conversation with God JJ, just like
you, because then I would know why he created the universe. Maybe you can
enlighten us.
If you are discrediting Thomas comment about the stone, you seem to
have reversed yourself by calling the stone Christ.”
Anyone who is a Christian can talk with Father God personally. (And I already gave you the verse about why God created the universe.)
Also, if Jesus made it clear that He represents the stone the builder’s rejected, then why would one believe that Jesus doubted Himself (as the gospel of thomas leads us to believe)?
And…
Why go further and blaspheme Jesus by denying who He REALLY was (as the gospel of thomas does by just merely mentioning Him to be a mere man or prophet)?
“They were the Pharisees, and Jesus despised them. They were also the
religious leaders of their day. Jesus implored us to read the books of
The Old Testament and find the truth for ourselves. He assured us that we
would be guided by The Holy Spirit in this quest. Who is to say that
the Christian church leaders of today are any different than the
Pharisees?”
The Bible says that God’s secrets are only known to those who follow and obey God. If you are a Christian, then you can know God’s secrets too!
“I do not claim the Gospel of Thomas as truth, and I do not claim the
New Testament is a lie. I do ask questions and search for truth, rather
than blindly following the Pharissees. It is not the writings of Matthew
that I deny, but mortal man’s interpretation of those writings.”
You just stated earlier that the Bible was merely a belief whereas gnosticism=knowledge.
What else am I to conclude?
_______________________________
“Please help me out here I still don’t see why the whole eunuch
interpretations are such a huge issue here.”
It actually shouldn’t be; because becoming a eunuch is between you and God; if God tells you to be a eunuch, be one! If not, DON’T be one!
It shouldn’t cause anyone to boast that they are better then someone else simply because they’re a eunuch.
And also…it seems a moot issue here because as far as I know, the Bible doesn’t really mention whether John had a wife or not.
But what if he did? Does it really matter? Not right now, it doesn’t.
If children want bread, then they should go to the bread factory and ask the baker, their loving father, for some bread.
In the same way, the only way to find out whether John was a eunuch or not, is to ask Father God Himself about it.
Don’t worry about such small things. Be at peace with one another and don’t quibble please!
: )
–JJ
PS (To Jan): Also, it could be the fact that they’re just…guys and guys like to fuss about small things sometimes.
:^D
Please help me out here I still don’t see why the whole eunuch interpretations are such a huge issue here.