quote:

---

Originally posted by Gextvedde:
...St Paul was a strict Jew and yet remained unmarried. Also, many Jewish fringe groups at the time advocated celibacy so to say that Jesus had to be married according to ancient Jewish custom is, well, wrong....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by madteawoman:
Interesting that even with all this conspiracy theory in TDVC about the naughty Catholic church being so mean to Mary, the only alternative she gets offered by Dan Brown is being a wife and mother! Where is Mary the apostle to the apostles? Supporter of the whole Jesus movement? And not a secret apostle either, that is right there in the NT. Nor was she a harlot, that was a much later development (and that was the RC Church, I believe) and far more to do with not having Mary as an apostle rather than not having Mary as a wife (I suspect).

---

YES. Hear hear.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
And 'hear, hear" from here too.

Why do people only look at the fiction and shaming of Mary Magdalene instead of the lack of information about her? It's fantasy being doubled.

And she could be "promoted" to being like Lydia, who has no mention of a husband. Right through history, there are many women who have been real human beings.

And Jesus was only called a "rabbi" by those who were listening to his teachings - I bet the authorities were not so respectful.

And rabbis didn't have to be married before they were 40 IIRC.
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
The support offered for Mary being Christ’s wife is pretty absurd, in my view, and again, demeaning to women as a whole. Plus this whole “secret society” thing is just silly. Sure ain’t the way my God works. But now some knutt over here in the US claims he thinks it might be true, and the Vatican knows all about it, blah, blah, blah. I should pull a stunt like this myself, maybe I could make my million.

I think Mary was more a contemporary of His mother, or at least a little older than Jesus. (that’s really just supposition, the rest is a little more considered). Much can be gained just by mulling over the Scripture references, and considering the historical background. I try to think it through by thinking about ordinary people living this out. You can gather from the little that is written about her that she was very likely the leader of the women’s contingent. She is mentioned first in any listing of the women accompanying Jesus. And on Easter morn, she apparently left the rest of the group of women at the tomb immediately to inform Peter and John of what she’d seen.

She is also the only woman in the group referred to by her city, not her familial ties (unless you take the view that “magdala” referred to an adulteress, a pretty flimsy connection in my view). Apparently, then, she was more well known by her connection to the place for a number of possible reasons:

1. Her demon possession, causing her to be known as perhaps the “madwoman of Magdala,” or some such thing.

2. Her family was one of the chief families there. (Hence her wealth, if she had any - the reference in Luke doesn’t have to mean they were all well-to-do.)

3. She had no family, hence had to be denoted by her place of birth or residence. This could be due to her being disowned or orphaned - there are reports that the second Augustinian enumeration was particularly vicious in Magdala.

And although there is scant mention of her in Scripture, there is one possible post-Gospels reference - Paul says in Romans 16:6 to “greet Mary, who bestowed much labor on us.” While obviously not definitive, it fits her character - devoted, capable, and working well in a Roman setting, which growing up in Magdala would have helped with. “Mary,” of course being a Hebrew name in the original, so likely whoever it was had a Jewish background, and being an urbane type from a Greco-Roman-Jewish town, could have worked well with Paul, who had a similar mixed cultural background.

All this fits with Mary having a leading role in both Christ’s entourage and in the early church. And if you think about it, so does resurrection morning, as I’ve already alluded to. Has anyone ever been the one who held everyone up through a trying time such as a funeral, only to collapse after everyone else has gotten through the initial grief? I think that’s what happened here. Mary kept track of everything- where He was laid, etc. The male disciples (except John) were busy hiding. It makes perfect sense to assume she was assuring His mother that she’d see to the preparation of the body, helping to assuage her grief, and so on. I think that when she went to the tomb that morning with the other women, she bolted back immediately, not having seen the angel, to tell Peter and John (not everyone, hence she was being discreet and attempting to get this thing resolved before it caused more confusion or, worse yet, His mother Mary found out and was traumatized again). Hence the three “head honchos” returned to the tomb, with Peter & John outrunning Mary - she’d already done this once - and leaving her there (clods! OK, maybe she wanted to stay behind). Anyway, at that point, I think it just overwhelmed her. With no one to support, and no one around, she just “lost it” - it finally hit home that He was gone, and she wept out of the deepest part of her being.

The tender scene in John makes more sense if you accept the translation that He said “Don’t keep clinging to me,” not “Don’t touch me.” Again, the former makes more sense as He didn’t prevent the other women from touching Him. It also makes if you think about it in “real people” terms again. What He said was essentially “Don’t keep hanging on me, go tell everyone the good news!”, in a joyous, not impervious, sendoff.

I for one can’t imagine what it would have been like to have been her that incredible morning. Some expositors try to explain her not recognizing Jesus by saying her eyes were supernaturally held like the two on the road to Emmaus. But I think the only possible need for supernatural intervention on that first meeting would have been for the Lord to miraculously keep her from fainting dead away at the sight of a man she’d seen brutally murdered and buried, standing before her alive.

What a marvelous woman she must have been. Neither whore nor wife, but a capable, devoted supporter of the early church, the “apostle to the apostles,” and the first to see the risen Lord.

Blessings,

Tom
 

---

Posted by sakura (# 1449) on :
 
Not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but after I read the Da Vinci Code I happened to look closely at the mosaic of the Last Supper that we have behind the high altar in my church. It is Italian, 19th century, I think.

And it turns out the disciple next to Christ is a young woman. And none of the people I pointed this out to had noticed. We've had a Last Supper with a woman in it for a hundred years.

(I am sure the clergy and servers had picked it up. But all we bog standard pew-dwellers had not.)

The young woman is clearly one of the twelve. So in my church Mary Magdalene is an apostle!
 

---

Posted by Amethyst (# 11068) on :
 
Beautiful post, Tom
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Tom of Tarsus:

quote:

---

there are reports that the second Augustinian enumeration was particularly vicious in Magdala.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sakura:
I happened to look closely at the mosaic of the Last Supper that we have behind the high altar in my church. It is Italian, 19th century, I think.

And it turns out the disciple next to Christ is a young woman. And none of the people I pointed this out to had noticed. We've had a Last Supper with a woman in it for a hundred years.

(I am sure the clergy and servers had picked it up. But all we bog standard pew-dwellers had not.)

The young woman is clearly one of the twelve. So in my church Mary Magdalene is an apostle!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sakura:
Not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but after I read the Da Vinci Code I happened to look closely at the mosaic of the Last Supper that we have behind the high altar in my church. It is Italian, 19th century, I think.

And it turns out the disciple next to Christ is a young woman. And none of the people I pointed this out to had noticed. We've had a Last Supper with a woman in it for a hundred years.

---

I've found a number of "last suppers" in my home city as well in which John is distinctly effeminate.

However, the conspirisy theory ignores all the facts supporting a more mundane explanation:

1. Many of our gender cues are cultural. I was looking at roman nude sculptures or emporers and their concubines in the Uffizi gallery in Florence last year, and was struck by how often I mis-identified the sex of the statue when I could only see the head.

2. There have long been artistic conventions in the portrayal of biblical figures. Have a look at these:
John on Patmos
Mary and John
The young John is protrayed as effeminate, the old John (even from the same artist) has a beard.

And the Catholic church preserved a lot of these paintings!
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
Callan, Barnabas,

The significance of the brutality of the enumeration was that perhaps she had been orphaned by the murder of her family by the Romans. It wasn't just a census, and if i recall the story correctly, the Romans would kill people to get property for more cooperative people - there was a lot of corruption.

I had, at one time, considered that such brutalization may have lead to the demon posession as well, but that really doesn't hang together with what (very little) we know about demon posession. Unless "demon posession" is really just a psychological disorder caused by abuse or trauma, which I really doubt.

Amethyst:

Thank you. I've always thought her story was far more beautiful and compelling than I'd ever seen portrayed in the literature. Just wish I had time to really research it and get it written!

Blessings, all,

Tom
 

---

Posted by Amethyst (# 11068) on :
 
Tom, yes, a beautiful story indeed. In far-off Evo days when I was younger (and thinner) than I am now, I used to do a bit of dance/drama and the like, and I was nearly always cast as Mary . I have had a soft spot for her ever since.
 

---

Posted by sakura (# 1449) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:


"She" may be clearly one of the Twelve, but is she clearly a woman, and Mary Magdalene at that? What unambiguous features lead you to that conclusion, sakura? If it took so long for punters to notice, don't you think this might be because it isn't a woman depicted?

It just seems unlikely in the extreme that an Italian devotional piece of 19th C. intended as the centrepiece for public worship would depict a woman at the Supper. I mean, against all the cultural and religious norms of the times, why?

---

quote:

---

You're right, I don't know for sure that it is the Magdalene, but my understanding is that she is often presented with red hair and the picture looks,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sakura:
It is very clearly a young woman with long red hair.

---

quote:

---

In short who was she really: repentant harlot, hidden bride, disciple or secret apostle?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by musician:

Some edge of credulity stuff has da Vinci as part of a passed down, long held tradition of the figure being a woman, and because Mary Magdalen is in the Gospels, she's it. Jesus's mother would have been too old to look as the figure does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by musician:
Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper here clearly shows the figure to the left as you look as it as female.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by musician:

I'm not clear how it's OK to have "St John" look "effeminate because of his youth" rather than a female in the picture.
I know a lot of lads who'd be mortified and furious to be so depicted.Nor does it make sense. Was Leonardo such a rubbish painter that that was the best he could do??... "sorry Pope, I'm not too good drawing youngish men, so I made him a woman"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by musician:
I think that's where the stories of a marriage may have gained some hearing. The RC being so anti-female - less so now, but still not too pro-female - that it was preferable to have a somewhat pansy St John to a woman at the table.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by musician:

"Witches" for one. Probably herbal lorists, women who were not amenable to the male Christianity of their times, so were demonised.

---

quote:

---

Musician, it's the artistic convention of the time! It really doesn't matter what wee Jayson frae Cumnock would or wouldn't like - he's unlikely to be commemorated in a Leonardo freso.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by musician:
Hi Chesterbelloc,
the small linked picture isn't terribly clear, but there is the line of a bust on the right side of the fig as you look at it. I hadn't ever noticed it, but when you look, it's quite apparent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by musician:
Da Vinci was far too good to have done it accidentally and then not noticed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by musician:
It's quite easy to look at the painting, observe a number(13) figures and note that one is not male looking, so "convention of the time" is hardly applicable.

---

Er, there are 13 present in the fresco because there were 13 at the Supper. How does this negate the conventions of the time? What would be odd is if Leonardo, having your agenda in mind, had substituted St MM for one of the apostles rather than add her to the figures present. That would just take away from the force of what you allege he was trying to, making the whole point harder to see. If there were 12 identifiable apostles and Christ plus a feminine figure in the fresco then you might have the beginnings of a case.

Frankly, I can't see how the artistic, iconographic and religious conventions of the time could fail to be relevant in this case. Any hypothesis which just ignores them is shooting itself in the foot with the starting-pistol, IMO.

[ 08. April 2006, 17:00: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
musician

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. People are trying to engage you in discussion and have made some very good points. For example, do you think Louise's (to me) excellent points are so dismissable that it is not worth you putting forward a counter-argument?
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Or, to be fair, she may just have better things to do on a Saturday night! Unlike me...
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
St John details

Not a bust in sight to me.

Chesterbelloc makes excellent points - and the scholarly literature associated with the 'Last Supper' (not to mention eyewitness accounts down through the ages) agrees with him. The reading of this figure as St John is perfectly consistent with the way Da Vinci depicts pretty young men and with the iconography and historical context. This is one of the most-studied paintings in the world.

On what basis of expertise, Musician, do you dismiss the findings of people have spent their lives studying Da Vinci and Renaissance art? A not-very-sharp reproduction of a controversially-restored painting on the internet?

Heavily restored and damaged Renaissance paintings do not interpret themselves. You might as well ask me with my history PhD to interpret a cervical smear, as take a wild guess about how to interpret Renaissance paintings without absorbing even the basics of art history and historical context. It's not something self-evident.

L.

[ 08. April 2006, 18:02: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by Keren-Happuch (# 9818) on :
 
I'm currently reading Who Was Jesus by NT Wright and the second chapter is a discussion of a book called Jesus the Man: A New Interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls by Barbara Thiering. She apparently not only says that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, but that they had 3 children (a boy and 2 girls) before he divorced her and married Lydia... The marriage idea is based on the same bit in the Gospel of Philip, while the 2 sons are based on 2 statements that "The Word of God increased". Where the daughter comes in to it is less clear.

Thiering also identifies Mary M as Jairus' daughter and Rhoda, the maid in Acts 12. The description of Rhoda as "mad" explains the divorce.

Now, all this is NT Wright's account of the book, but it makes DVC sound almost plausible!
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

 

---

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
sorry All, RL got in the way!
Now, Barnabas, could you chill out?

This thread, I thought, was a look at a preposterous idea in a fictitious book.
The idea that MM and JC were an item, had kids and trotted off by way of Marseille is not mainstream anything. It's a hotch potch of circumstantial, wacky, what-ifs.

That said, the Western Church has never had a lot of time for women. Louise,I'd be amazed if at least some of the women condemned as witches didn't fit in there. Certainly when Roman christianity came to supplant the Celtic variety, many of the women of those times were sidelined and either painted up as saints or written off as sorceresses and witches.
My point is simply that an independent woman didn't fit into society terribly well and if she wasn't too fussed about christianity, she'd had it. Either from the neighbours or not.
But that's a side issue, pulled in by me in my first post as an example - it wasn't a derailer.
Chesterbelloc, the idea of the female figure isn't mine. It was in a TV look at the work of Da Vinci. The fellow speaking had suggested that the line on the right of the St John fig suggests a female. I'm sorry that the linked pic is blurred, but it's only blurred in that link. Except for another link I found where the wall is folded right across the exact part of St John.Aarggg! It's true, the whole wall was bent to hide the truth!!
Seriously, I did not imply, nor did I mean to, that MIlan was soem back water. Maybe he painted it in such a way to make a point. Maybe to show solidarity with the nuns. Maybe he was being mischievous - like the organ scholar in one of the English cathedrals who won a bet by playing a theme on "Way hey up she rises" on 15th August.
Who knows?
I'm a little surprised that a post from me has been seen as a scholarly work/an attack on scholarly work.
It's a fiction People.
It's not doctrine, creed or dogma.
 

---

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
Sorry to double post, but I may not be back - RL again.

Also, I seem to be posting in a way that doesn't say what I mean exactly and causes huge anger to shipmates, so I've asked to be thrown overboard, so if I don't get back at all, I'm not ignoring any of you, I'll have been flung overboard.

It's been fun. Thanks to all.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
I'm sorry to hear that you've got RL concerns that are taking you away, Musician and I hope it's nothing bad.

You're certainly not making me angry. Please don't think so. I'm taking issue with certain historical positions, not you as a person.

I think when it comes to important subjects like the witch-hunt and misogyny in the church, that we need to do a bit better than relying on comments in fiction and TV programmes and repeating the same old myths about it all being a conspiracy by a nasty church to keep women down. I think this, because these things are important to me, as they are no doubt important to you. I don't want to minimise the very real misogyny and injustice that went on, I want to understand it thoroughly and accurately, all the better to stop it rearing its ugly head again.

cheers,

L

[ 08. April 2006, 22:52: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
musician

Sorry about your RL issues. I wasn't angry with you at all, simply asking a question. (The head-butt post after K H's post was meant as a joke). I know about misogyny in the church - in my own community I was a pioneer (successfully as it turned out) for much greater enlightenment about the role of women in the church and initially took a lot of flack from automatic thinkers (some of whom were female). My local church leadership team has the same number of men as women, and two of the women are in their twenties.

I just dont think it helps to mix up the issues. BTW the above personal info is the sort of thing I mean about the value of discussion. You can get as cheesed off as I do about Dan Brown crapola (and other ignorant misrepresentations) without being in the least supportive of hostile and/or unthinking attitudes towards women and gays. Why do I get cheesed off? Basically, because anything which encourages prejudice, unfairness or misrepresentation of real people is the real seedcorn of witch-hunts - or putting people down. In short, the very same passions for fairness which got me, as a young man, engaged enough to take on misogyny both in my church and work communities are the ones which engage me on issues like Dan Brown crapola. Cynical or ignorant misrepresentation is not a little thing, whether in fact, or fiction, or RL.

I wish you all the best in your RL challenges.
 

---

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
cheers guys.

again, I've mis-written what I meant. I didn't hear you as annoyed with "Me" - how egocentric would that be - but I don't always type what I'm thinking, although I think that I do.
that's why I'm jumping, nothing to do with...

whinge...whinge..they're all getting at me..

I've posted on a fair number of threads and what's been taken from them was unintended.
The SHip's a great place. This thread's proof of it - a Christian website discussing the book and the strange, wacky and weird that contribute to its story.
Keep it up!
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by musician:
That said, the Western Church has never had a lot of time for women.

---

quote:

---

Louise,I'd be amazed if at least some of the women condemned as witches didn't fit in there.

---

quote:

---

Certainly when Roman christianity came to supplant the Celtic variety, many of the women of those times were sidelined and either painted up as saints or written off as sorceresses and witches.

---

quote:

---

Similarly, witch-burning was practised by both Catholics and Protestants but sizeable parts of the Catholic church (Italy and Spain) did not get involved in it.

---

quote:

---

Gender roles have much to do with this and there is a lot of extreme misogyny in elite demonological publications, but it needs to be borne in mind that we're talking about a pre-modern society with very fixed ideas about gender. Christina Larner, the great historian of the Scottish witch-hunt observed that when it came to violence 'men used knives and women used words'. Women's violent words in a quarrel were often seen as being potent - capable of carrying curses into effect. Such fears could easily lead to a witchcraft accusation. Much of this stuff is coming from popular folk belief, rather than being imposed by some nasty church.

---

I think it also cut both ways. Carlo Ginzburg (IIRC) gives an account of a fertility cult - The Benidanti - which in its initial confessions explained something like the Benidanti's actual beliefs. As the interrogations went on they confessed to something much more like the classical model of diabolism set out in the Malleus. Certainly when I was at university the prevailing model seemed to be one of a clerical 'orthodoxy' about witch beliefs which was superimposed on more fluid local witch beliefs. (The Malleus came out with a Papal Imprimatur "Unputdownable. Frs. Kramer and Sprenger have created a theology which is wholly original and wholly orthodox - Pope Innocent VIII" which, oddly, didn't preclude its enthusiastic use by protestants.) But it's years since I studied it in any depth and if the consensus has changed, I'd be fascinated to know more.

In any event the witch craze can't really be taken as evidence for Patristic attitudes towards women. None of the ECF's were exactly feminists but you have to work hard to find anything resembling the deranged rhetoric of the Malleus, which was a truly nasty work and not your common or garden pre-modern gender roles. You can't very well say that the Church suppressed Mary Magdalene in the fourth century and then point to fifteenth century misogyny as evidence.
 

---

Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
Musican. Nothing scholarly about this (pace Louise), but a mixture of memory and speculation. I'm sure I was brought up to believe that this depiction of the supper was meant to capture a particular moment. Of course Leonardo could have captured several at the same time - but that would be looking at Leonardo with Picasso in mind!

The particular moment is when Judas grabs the attention of the Beloved Disciple and asks him to as Jesus who the betrayer is. Seems reasonable to me but is this a thesis that has already been debunked?

If not, the old, gruff bearded character is Judas and the "effeminate" one is the Beloved Disciple. I don't think that means Leonardo is making any sort of point about Jesus's sexuality - neither that the Beloved was MM nor that Jesus was "not the marrying kind" as one bishop tactfully put it yars ago.

But given that Leonardo was homosexual, he might well have thought that the most beautiful (and therefore he most appropriate) model he could use for the Beloved Disciple was someone he loved himself. In other words, it could be the artisitic equivalent of a Freudian slip. Is that reasonable? As I said, it'd pure speculation on my part. And someone has already pointed out the androgynous appearance of John the Baptist in another painting. Perhaps the reason the figure'e "effemincy" hadn't been widely commented on (in the original OP) had more to do with latent homophobia than anything else.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chemincreux:
But given that Leonardo was homosexual, he might well have thought that the most beautiful (and therefore he most appropriate) model he could use for the Beloved Disciple was someone he loved himself. In other words, it could be the artisitic equivalent of a Freudian slip. Is that reasonable? As I said, it'd pure speculation on my part. And someone has already pointed out the androgynous appearance of John the Baptist in another painting. Perhaps the reason the figure'e "effemincy" hadn't been widely commented on (in the original OP) had more to do with latent homophobia than anything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

Similarly, witch-burning was practised by both Catholics and Protestants but sizeable parts of the Catholic church (Italy and Spain) did not get involved in it.

---

I think it is the case that the prevalence of witch burning bore more relation to the prevailing legal system. In Italy and Spain it was the Inquisition that kept a lid on things because they had clear rules as to how to proceed in such matters. In places like Germany where it tended to be more of a matter of local jurisdiction witch burning was rather more prevalent.

quote:

---

Gender roles have much to do with this and there is a lot of extreme misogyny in elite demonological publications, but it needs to be borne in mind that we're talking about a pre-modern society with very fixed ideas about gender. Christina Larner, the great historian of the Scottish witch-hunt observed that when it came to violence 'men used knives and women used words'. Women's violent words in a quarrel were often seen as being potent - capable of carrying curses into effect. Such fears could easily lead to a witchcraft accusation. Much of this stuff is coming from popular folk belief, rather than being imposed by some nasty church.

---

I think it also cut both ways. Carlo Ginzburg (IIRC) gives an account of a fertility cult - The Benidanti - which in its initial confessions explained something like the Benidanti's actual beliefs. As the interrogations went on they confessed to something much more like the classical model of diabolism set out in the Malleus. Certainly when I was at university the prevailing model seemed to be one of a clerical 'orthodoxy' about witch beliefs which was superimposed on more fluid local witch beliefs. (The Malleus came out with a Papal Imprimatur "Unputdownable. Frs. Kramer and Sprenger have created a theology which is wholly original and wholly orthodox - Pope Innocent VIII" which, oddly, didn't preclude its enthusiastic use by protestants.) But it's years since I studied it in any depth and if the consensus has changed, I'd be fascinated to know more.

In any event the witch craze can't really be taken as evidence for Patristic attitudes towards women. None of the ECF's were exactly feminists but you have to work hard to find anything resembling the deranged rhetoric of the Malleus, which was a truly nasty work and not your common or garden pre-modern gender roles. You can't very well say that the Church suppressed Mary Magdalene in the fourth century and then point to fifteenth century misogyny as evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chemincreux:
But given that Leonardo was homosexual, he might well have thought that the most beautiful (and therefore he most appropriate) model he could use for the Beloved Disciple was someone he loved himself. In other words, it could be the artisitic equivalent of a Freudian slip. Is that reasonable? As I said, it'd pure speculation on my part. And someone has already pointed out the androgynous appearance of John the Baptist in another painting. Perhaps the reason the figure'e "effemincy" hadn't been widely commented on (in the original OP) had more to do with latent homophobia than anything else.

---

Wasn't there even a sort of "beautiful youth" trend in paining back then? A lot of the portaits of youthful male saints have a kind of effeminate quality to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
All the Young Dudes

L.

---

Heh. Nice title.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Interesting parenthetical about how paedophilia was okay back then, because they thought about it differently than we do, so don't be so judgmental.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Mousethief

I think it was about assessing the interpretation of the images rather than any particular view of behaviour.
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
Speaking of sexual-type matters, does it bother anybody that until recently, the two most popular views of MM are both defined by her sexuality: either a repentant whore, or a childbearing, secret wife? Like, she didn't or couldn't contribute to the church in any other fashion?

I'm still of the opinion that she was a full fledged disciple, an older woman (thanks, Moo & someone else I can't find right now), de facto leader of the women's contingient, and possibly the Mary mentioned in Romans 16.

But I may be impressing my 20th century viewpoint onto the Scriptures. Still, if you look at the overall way that women were treated by Jesus, it doesn't seem very patriachal to me.

What think y'sll? What role did she play in the early church?

Blessings,

Tom

(probably still didn't get all the typos...)

[ 10. April 2006, 20:33: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Or even:

quote:

---

Originally posted by madteawoman:
Interesting that even with all this conspiracy theory in TDVC about the naughty Catholic church being so mean to Mary, the only alternative she gets offered by Dan Brown is being a wife and mother! Where is Mary the apostle to the apostles? Supporter of the whole Jesus movement? And not a secret apostle either, that is right there in the NT. Nor was she a harlot, that was a much later development (and that was the RC Church, I believe) and far more to do with not having Mary as an apostle rather than not having Mary as a wife (I suspect).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Speaking of sexual-type matters, does it bother anybody that until recently, the two most popular views of MM are both defined by her sexuality: either a repentant whore, or a childbearing, secret wife? Like, she didn't or couldn't contribute to the church in any other fashion?

I'm still of the opinion that she was a full fledged disciple, an older woman (thanks, Moo & someone else I can't find right now), de facto leader of the women's contingient, and possibly the Mary mentioned in Romans 16.

But I may be impressing my 20th century viewpoint onto the Scriptures. Still, if you look at the overall way that women were treated by Jesus, it doesn't seem very patriachal to me.

What think y'sll? What role did she play in the early church?

---

quote:

---

Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper here clearly shows the figure to the left as you look as it as female.

---

Musician, - look at the person on the second left (as we look at the painting) - also a red haired, soft faced person. ....couldn't (s)he also fit your criteria for 'womanhood' !!?? ... IMO its amazing how many people claim that one woman is in the painting but don't look at any other person there ... like it'd mess up the theory if there was more than one woman involved.

Which was part of what motivated a pope (Gregory, but i can't recall which gregory!!!) to declare that there were too many women in the gospels, and that in future we should just speak of two Marys ... Mary, mother of God, and Mary Magdelene, harlot. ... your basic 'all women are either virgins or whore".

So, can i suggest that the same principle might inadvertently be at action in Dan Brown and in Pope Gregory ... the idea that women fit into categories, and are minor characters in the lives of important men !!!

Mary of Magdelene - apostle, prophet, teacher, woman. Each of those aspects of her was threatening or challenging to some.

But by naming the aspect of her which most absorbs/threatens a person or institution; we reveal more about the person/institution than we do about Mary.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Noneen:

quote:

---

Which was part of what motivated a pope (Gregory, but i can't recall which gregory!!!) to declare that there were too many women in the gospels, and that in future we should just speak of two Marys ... Mary, mother of God, and Mary Magdelene, harlot. ... your basic 'all women are either virgins or whore".

---

I believe that it was Pope Gregory the Great - the one who sent St. Augustine to convert the English. I don't think that he declared there were too many women in the Gospel and that hitherto there should only be two. I think he *did* conflate St Mary Mags with another character and the conflation caught on. People talk as if it was a Papal smear campaign against MM but by the Sixth Century the Gnostics were largely forgotten and MM was regarded as Apostle to the Apostles. Lots of characters in the NT had dodgy pasts or feet of clay - Paul the persecutor, Matthew the tax collector, Simon the Zealot, Peter denying his Lord, James and John lobbying for seats in the cabinet. Our Lord spent a lot of time with repentant sinners so it wasn't an unreasonable surmise that MM may have been one of them.
 

---

Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :
 
I think its probably a pre-requisite for discipleship actually, ... feet of clay !!!

its the cracks that let the light in (to misquote Cohen!)
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
Kelly, thanks for posting madteawoman's segment - it was the one I was thinking about.

But Callan, you seem to indicate that she was more highly regarded by the sixth century. Do you have any more info on what them regarding her as "Apostle to the Apostles" entailed? Did her role cease after telling them about the risen Christ? Is there any reasonable tradition with respect to her work in the church? I know the east & west have two separate traditions & each claim to have her remains...

And to Amethyst: The theory about Romans 16 isn't of my own origin - I've done some digging into this and I think it was out of Ester DuBoer's book (I think I got that right). but yes, His attitude toward women was markedly out of step with the times, it seems - as it was toward "sinners." But interesting about MM - She really isn't protrayed as a "sinner," though we all certainly fall under the designation. I don't know what demonic possesion entails, but as I noted, the demoniac is never referred to as "repenting," but instead is always healed and the response is one of gratitude. In figuring her out, I think it's important to look at what the Spirit was emphasizing, even if there ain't much there!

Blessings, all,

Tom

PS - Apoligies for bolding names, I just wanted it to catch your eyes on the quick scan...
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
Cross posted with noneen & agree with him - er - her -er.... Anyway, nice thought!

Tom
 

---

Posted by peterdstraw (# 11260) on :
 
What I don't get is why people give so much credance to a picture by Leonardo Da Vinci. Even if he did paint a woman, which it seems fairly certain to me he didn't how would that in any way add credibility to the assertion that Jesus married MM?
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
I know what you mean, pete - anything to hype up a good, juicy conspiracy theory.

Tom
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
AFAIK, in the Orthodox Church, Mary Magdalene was not conflated with either Mary of Bethany or the sinful woman who washed Jesus's feet. She was, rather, a person of great personal power and wealth, and as the first to see the risen Lord and as the first to proclaim his Resurrection, she has always been known to us as Equal to the Apostles and as the Apostle to the Apostles.

When the Apostles left Jerusalem and scattered around the known to proclaim the Resurrection, Mary Magdalene went to Italy to preach the Gospel. The Mary that Paul mentions in his letter to the Romans is, by our tradition, Mary Magdalene.

While Mary was in Rome, she was invited to a banquet given by the Emperor Tiberius. When she met the Emperor, she held up a plain egg and exclaimed "Christ is risen!" You can imagine Tiberius's reaction -- rolling his eyes and saying that Christ rising from the dead was about as likely as the egg in her hand turning red -- and as he spoke, the egg in her hand turned a bright red. This story is the reason that most icons of Mary Magdalene show her holding a red egg, and the reason that we use red eggs at Easter.

IIRC, she's also thought to have been personally responsible for having Pontius Pilate condemned by Tiberius.

At any rate, according to our tradition, Mary Magdalene eventually retired to Ephesus, where she worked alongside John the Beloved for the sake of the Gospel, until her death.
 

---

Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :
 
Josephine - could you point me towards sources or reading on this - i'd love to read more.

noneen (thats Miss Noneen, Tom!! )
 

---

Posted by Righteous Rebel (# 7524) on :
 
Well, what an interesting new topic, though it has been debated since the first century or thereabouts.

As a student of gnostic writings, I have read what we have of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and the Gnostic Bible.

I am a bit disappointed that what we have of
it is so fragmentary, and yet it is VERY enlightening. One must come to an understanding of gnostic philosophy and teaching to get a good grasp on the subject at hand.

It is still being widely debated (almost put "wildly" -Yungian slip?) whether Mary was married to Jesus or not. To me, the whole marriage thing is immaterial; that she was of apostolic stature is pretty much a sure thing.

I realize this runs contrary to the thinking of mainline Christianity, but then, A LOT OF THINGS run contrary to the thinking of mainline Christianity. There were a lot of gospels published before Constantine put out the order that only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were inspired Scripture, which meant that the O.T. and the Book of Acts and other apostolic letters were considered "uninspired." Constantine's rationale? That there were four prevailing winds, that the earth had four corners [they still believed the earth was flat back then] and that the universe was supported by four posts, therefore there could only be four gospels. So, he ordered other writings burned and their writers and adherents along with them. Fortunately, certain monks buried or otherwise hid documents in the Egyptian desert, near Nag Hammadi, as well as other places, and the remaining portions of those scrolls were discovered two years before the Dead Sea Scrolls, but were pooh-poohed by orthodox thinkers.

I believe this is because at that time, the world and the church was largely under the jurisdiction of men and the the dangerous thought that women could be spiritual leaders was anathema to the powers that be. It is still that way very much today. Sad.

I believe it is high time we in the Church wake up and begin to think and study for ourselves, and not be led around by men who are far more interested in power and politics than the eternal destiny of the people who sit glibly by and assume that because these men are educated that they are right.


Better stop; don't want to turn this into a rant! (By the way, I suggest for further reading and much better presentation than I have given, the works of Elaine Pagels, Marvin Meyer and other scholars on Gnosticism. I especially recommend Dr. Pagels' classic work, "Beyond Belief: The Gospel of Thomas."

You can pan for gold and find a nugget or two or you can mine - which takes a bit more time, but the time is well spent - and reap incalcuable results.
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
Josephine:

Thanks so much, I didn't know quite that much about the East's view of her - but I like it better than the West's - makes more sense according to the Scriptures.

Not so sure about the "power" aspect, though - as much as I can figure it out, demonic possession is pretty debilitating. And why is she kown by her city, not her family? Is it because she was so prominent there? Anyway, if anything, her power came out of her deep love for Christ, which is also why I believe she was first to see him alive on that Day of days.

Wealth is a possibility, though, as Luke indicates; though as I said in my original post, tha verse doesn't have to be absolutely true of all the women, or even imply that they are all wealthy. It's just hard to say, but I sure appreciate you input. It's good to know y'all put her on equal footing with the others.

Blessings,

Tom
 

---

Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
Has anyone read Margaret George's novel Mary, Called Magdalene? As fictional treatments of Biblical subjects go, it's certainly better done than DVC (and doesn't claim to be anything other than a piece of historical fiction).

It focuses quite a bit on the demon-possession aspect. On thing in it that was in the "Ooh, I never thought of that," category for me was that at one point Mary M meets up with Mary of Bethany and her family and is all like, "Who the heck are these people?" It made me think about the fact that Jesus travelled, and probably had followers in different areas who wouldn't necessarily have known each other ... I always had such a picture of the disciples as a tight little group.
 

---

Posted by Amelia (# 11262) on :
 
I'm struggled with this whole situation from the beginning it ever started to become "popular" since i'm very impressionable. I did some research spent hours thinking about it and came up with these conclusions:

1) I am female, I love my God. I can totally relate to Mary's feelings even if they appear to be "romantic" but I was best friends with a boy when I was younger and everybody thought we were going out. Speaks volumes about humans no? In a world were being alone or celibate is looked down upon.
2) Aren't there other Anti- Jesus sources from around that time, like that letter someone wrote trying to disprove the miracle of the eclipse. So don't you think that someone would have written about him being married, in a serious sense... not just weird "java" gospels?
3) So you're saying that cover-ups really do work very well and last for a long time do they... I dunno maybe they do but it all seems like "The Queen is really a lizard" to me.
 

---

Posted by madteawoman (# 11174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous Rebel:
To me, the whole marriage thing is immaterial; that she was of apostolic stature is pretty much a sure thing.

I realize this runs contrary to the thinking of mainline Christianity, but then, A LOT OF THINGS run contrary to the thinking of mainline Christianity. There were a lot of gospels published before Constantine put out the order that only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were inspired Scripture, which meant that the O.T. and the Book of Acts and other apostolic letters were considered "uninspired." Constantine's rationale? That there were four prevailing winds, that the earth had four corners [they still believed the earth was flat back then] and that the universe was supported by four posts, therefore there could only be four gospels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by madteawoman:
I'm sure there is another thread somewhere here about the canon, but let's rememebr that the canon was formed by the church asserting that these books best represented and traditioned the faith the church held dear, rather than the other books and letters which simply didn't do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by madteawoman:
Does it cover the NT canon too, Moo?

---

No, it doesn't, but we would be very glad for you to start one there.

Moo
 

---

Posted by peterdstraw (# 11260) on :
 
I took a sneaky peek at the gospel of MM whilst browsing in a bookshop today. I have to say I wasn't impressed. I can't put my finger on why but it just didn't feel like the word of God. Someone's bound to say that's because I'm used to the format of the synoptics but I don't think that was it. Anyone else get this sort of feeling when reading the gnostics?
 

---

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :
 
I get that feeling when I'm reading both the gnostics and the canon.

There are some bits that make my hair stand on end, the truth just sinks in so fast and so deep it's impossible to shake it.

There are other bits that say to me "Hm. Don't think I'm quite getting that message. Either I am missing information/experience/understanding that would flesh it out, or it's just not coming from the Source."

I don't dismiss it, I just set it aside and wait for more information/experience/understanding.

GMM doesn't stir me, partly because most of what she has to say has been lost in the lacunae.

The Thunder Perfect Intellect, OTOH, gives me gooseflesh every time.

FF
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
I read the GMM (what we have of it) in Esther DuBoer's book, and I'm with you, Pete - stilted and unconvincing,and pandering to the pride of the human heart as I recall.

Blessings,

Tom

BTW, welcome to the ship! I just noticed your post count...
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by madteawoman:
Does it cover the NT canon too, Moo?

---

No, it doesn't, but we would be very glad for you to start one there.

---

I've started the thread here.

There is already one very informative reply.

Moo
 

---

Posted by cygnus (# 3294) on :
 
Re the effeminate portrayal of young men in Renaissance art- there's an interesting article here

http://arthistory.about.com/od/renaissanceart/a/altheyoungdudes.htm

(with links to various paintings, and a link to a
previous article on the subject of Leonardo's last supper).
 

---

Posted by Amethyst (# 11068) on :
 
There was a very good series of programmes on BBC2 over the weekend exploring various ‘Easter masterpieces’, the first being Leonardo’s Last Supper. Very lucidly it considered all aspects of the painting, through the initial commission to its state now, and shattered the Mary M conspiracy of TDVC quite comprehensively. Even taking into account just the numerous restorations over the years should convince Joe Public that Leonardo did not paint a woman instead of St John, I would have thought.
 

---

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
First, apologies for my, even to me as read this week, absolutely insane posts earlier on this thread.
I do often start discussion in mid thought, forgetting that while I may know what I'm thinking(on a good day), unless I explain the thought process which got me to that point, merely to offer the point is useless, so I'm very sorry Louise, I was not trying to diss your expertise.
B62, you got your head in your hands too -

Just for the record, I don't believe the conspiracy theory implicit in the book - never did, but it's good fun. "Angels and Demons" is even better though. Didn't like "Deception Point" at all - seemed he'd got a winning formula in the other books and just changed the names and places and shuffled the plot cards around a bit for it.

Anyone read Ehrman's book "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code"? It's worth a read. IMO
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
musician

That really is very good of you; I appreciate what you say. My head did not really feel it was in my hands and is certainly now securely on my shoulders; the brain inside has good days and bad days. So I understand the awareness of self-inflicted embarrassment, from lots of personal experiences! My wife has some good stories ....

I haven't read the book you recommend but I'll try to get a copy.

God bless
 

---

Posted by Mikethealtarboy (# 11317) on :
 
I regards to depicted males and females. ;-)
I think there's definately some modern cultural stereotyping of what genders look like in seeing John as a woman.

I was at an Italian restaurant about a month ago, and one of the servers was absolutely the most androgynous young man I've ever seen - quite beautiful, quite "feminine", but still male.

Contrarywise, more than once I've seen out of the corner of my eye what I at first took to be an attractive young man, only to have my second look reveal that it was a woman with a "masculine" haircut.

At the Roman Basilica in St. Louis, Missouri, on the baldachin, are 4 statues, that are rather hard to see from the floor. I was priveledged to accompany a photographer friend into the usually inaccessible parts of the church for angles he wanted, and got to see the statues more clearly. Upon returning to the narthex, I asked the guide who they were - I didn't recognize the "woman". "They're the 4 evangelists", he said. Even I can fall prey to our stereotyping!
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0