Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, King's University
College, University of Western Ontario
Abstract
In his overwhelmingly popular novel, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown
states that he describes all documents “accurately” when he
asserts the theory that Mary Magdalene had a sexual relationship with Jesus,
was married to him and bore his children. In this article I will examine
the sources for Brown’s ideas and compare them to the actual documents–particularly
the Gnostic gospels –that he claims to have carefully described.
I will argue that Brown not only misrepresents the documents that he claimed
to have used but that he actually replicates the errors of the early church
by concentrating on Mary’s sexual status rather than upon her status
as the apostle to the apostles.
I. Introduction
[1] Placed just behind J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter volumes in popularity,
Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code has sold over 40 million copies
worldwide. Ron Howard will direct the movie version of the book, starring
Tom Hanks, to be released in May 2006. Brown has even been compared to
Charles Dickens, who was the most popular writer of his day.[1]
[2] While the book is terrifically entertaining, the rebuttal of some of
Brown’s implicit and explicit claims in the book has developed into
a cottage industry in and of itself. Much of this critique has revolved
around Brown’s depictions of Jesus, Constantine, Mary Magdalene and
Leonardo. For example, well-known biblical scholars such as Bart Ehrman
and Ben Witherington have questioned his descriptions of these figures.[2] Roman
Catholic scholars, whose religious tradition has been most tarnished by
the novel, have also demonstrated their unease with Brown’s claims
as exemplified by the work of Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel in their
book The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code. [3]
[3] Many of these rebuttals begin with Brown’s statements on page
1 of his book that are listed under the title “Fact.”[4] For
many scholars, his last statement on this page that “[a]ll descriptions
of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are
accurate” is problematic.[5] While some insist that this page of “facts” is
part of Brown’s novelistic fiction, Brown himself has indicated that
he believes in the veracity of his work. For example, when Matt Lauer asks
him how much of the book is based on reality in an early Today Show interview,
Brown replies, “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are . . .
Robert Landon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals,
all of that is historical fact.”[6] Furthermore, in an interview with
Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America, Brown states that the theories
about the Priory of Sion, the Holy Grail, alternative Gospels and Mary
Magdalene as found in the Da Vinci Code are true and that if the
book had been non-fiction, the theories that he espouses would not have
been different.[7]
[4] Brown is apparently not the only one who is convinced of the book’s
veracity. Many who have reviewed the book have implied that they believe
the novel is historically accurate. For example, in the Chicago Tribune,
reviewer Dick Adler states that in his novel, Brown transmits “several
doctorates’ worth of fascinating history and learned speculation.”[8] In
his review in USA Today, Bob Minzesheimer includes the statement
by Carol Fitzgerald, president of Bookreporter.com, a web site for book
discussions, as saying that the popularity of the Da Vinci Code shows
that “readers are clamoring for books which combine historic fact
with a contemporary story line. They say, ‘I like being able to learn
something as well as read a story. ’ ” [9]
[5] This acceptance of The Da Vinci Code as historically accurate
is troubling, particularly in regard to the figure of Mary Magdalene. While
biblical scholars such as Ehrman and Witherington have already written
about Brown’s many errors and misrepresentations, none have considered
his depiction of Mary Magdalene in a way that carefully compares the sources
that Brown apparently used with important recent research by scholars of
early Christianity on the portrayal of Mary Magdalene in Gnostic texts.
Thus after describing Brown’s depiction of Mary Magdalene along with
a discussion of his sources, I will turn to these Gnostic texts to consider
their portrayal of Mary Magdalene.
II. Mary Magdalene in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code
[6] In Brown’s novel, Mary, not an inanimate chalice, is the Holy
Grail.[10] The quest for the Holy Grail is the search,
not for the chalice used at the Last Supper, but for the resting place
of Mary Magdalene.[11] Mary
Magdalene was the first and greatest apostle and was of royal blood and
of the house of Benjamin.[12] The Catholic Church launched a secret campaign
against Mary Magdalene and at a very early date slandered her name and
labelled her a prostitute out of spite.[13] But
the narrative plot of Brown’s novel depends to the greatest extent
upon the idea that Mary and Jesus were married and had children.[14] Most
of the defence of the marital relationship between Mary and Jesus takes
place in the Da Vinci Code in a discussion between detective Sophie
Neveu and Sir Leigh Teabing in which Teabing states, “the marriage
of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record.”[15] As
Brown depicts it, in support of this idea, Teabing “located a huge
book and pulled it toward him across the table. The leather-bound edition
was poster-sized, like a huge atlas. The cover read: The Gnostic gospels. Teabing
heaved it open, and Langdon and Sophie joined him.” Teabing states,
“These are photocopies of the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls, which
I mentioned earlier . . . the earliest Christian records. Troublingly,
they do not match up with the Gospels in the Bible.” Flipping toward
the middle of the book, Teabing pointed to a passage. “The Gospel
of Philip is always a good place to start.” Sophie read
the passage:
And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her
more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth.
The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval.
They said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?”[16]
Sophie then states that the passage says nothing about marriage, but Teabing
corrects her: “‘Au contraire.’ Teabing smiled,
pointing to the first line. ‘As any Aramaic scholar will tell you,
the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse.’” Subsequently “Teabing
flipped through the book and pointed out several other passages that, to
Sophie’s surprise, clearly suggested Magdalene and Jesus had a romantic
relationship.”[17]
[7] A page later, Teabing is still talking, “‘I shan’t
bore you with the countless references to Jesus and Magdalene’s union.
That has been explored ad nauseum [sic] by modern historians. I
would, however, like to point out the following.’ He motioned to
another passage, ‘This is from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.’” Sophie,
unaware that a Gospel existed in the name of Mary Magdalene, reads the
following text:
And Peter said, “Did the Saviour really speak with a woman without
our knowledge? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer
her to us?”
And Levi answered, “Peter, you have always been hot-tempered.
Now I see you contending against the woman like an adversary. If the
Saviour made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the
Saviour knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.” [18]
Thus through the mouth of Teabing, Brown would have the reader believe
that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married and had a sexual relationship
and that this is part of the historical record that has been established
by scholars. He also suggests that Mary bore Jesus children and after Jesus’ death
escaped to France.[19]
III. Dan Brown’s Sources
[8] By speaking through his character Teabing, Brown lists the major sources
upon which he is dependent for his theories: The Templar Revelation:
Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ by Lynn Picknett and
Clive Prince; The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalene and the
Holy Grail and The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred
Feminine, both by Margaret Starbird; and The Holy Blood and the
Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln.[20]
[9] Among these sources, Brown is most dependent upon the work by Baigent,
Leigh and Lincoln. In fact, the first name of the character called Leigh
Teabing in the Da Vinci Code comes from the name of the second author
of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and Teabing’s surname is an anagram
of Baigent.[21] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln put forth a variety
of factors that they believe show that Jesus would have been married. For
example, they maintain that it was almost mandatory according to Jewish
custom that a man be married, except among the Essenes in certain communities.
Otherwise, celibacy was vigorously condemned.[22] Furthermore, they maintain that the story of the wedding
at Cana in the John 2:1-11 is actually Jesus’ own wedding. In their
interpretation, Mary orders Jesus to replenish the wine, acting as if she
is the wedding hostess. Furthermore, when Mary says to the servants, “Do
whatever he tells you,” Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln believe that the
servants “comply, as if they are accustomed to receiving orders from
both Mary and Jesus.”[23] Baigent,
Leigh and Lincoln question why Jesus’ holy gifts should be used for
producing something as banal as wine, why Mary should make such a request
of her son and why two “ ‘guests’ at a wedding [should]
take on themselves the responsibility of catering – a responsibility
that, by custom, should be reserved for the host.” The answer at
which they arrive is that the wedding is really Jesus’ own wedding.
Furthermore, they argue, when the “governor of the feast” (NRSV:
chief steward) speaks to the bridegroom saying, “‘Every man
at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk,
then that which is worse: but thou has kept the good wine until
now’ [he] is clearly addressing Jesus, who is the same person as
the bridegroom.”[24]
[10] While Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln argue determinedly for their position,
they are mistaken in a number of ways in their arguments that support Jesus’ married
state. While it has been claimed occasionally by scholars that Jesus was
married, the vast majority of scholars of the New Testament and early Christianity
are convinced that he was celibate.[25] In
Jesus’ first-century Jewish milieu, other groups existed in which
the members were expected to remain celibate, such as certain groups of
Essenes, as Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln maintain.[26] Members of another ascetic
group, the Therapeutae that existed in Egypt and bore resemblances to the
Essenes also practiced celibacy.[27] It
is also probable that in Matthew 19:12 when Jesus speaks of those “who
have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of heaven,” there is an
indication of Jesus’ commitment to celibacy in the face of his all-consuming
mission to preach the kingdom of God.[28] Paul, who was Jewish himself, saw celibacy
as commendable because of the claims of the kingdom (1 Cor 7:7-9) and at
least some later Christians were familiar with men who remained celibate
(Rev. 14:4). Thus, contrary to what Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln think, celibacy
in the time of Jesus was not universally condemned and it is most probable
that Jesus was unmarried.[29]
[11] As for the wedding in Cana, it is likely that according to the Jewish
wedding customs of the time, the wine supply was dependent to some degree
upon the gifts of the guests.[30] Thus
the “responsibility of catering” as understood in a twentieth
or twenty-first century context was not understood in the same way in a
first century, Palestinian context. Additionally, Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln
seem not to have noticed that the text clearly states that Jesus and his
disciples were “invited” to the wedding, presumably meaning
that he was not the bridegroom (John 2:2). It is also probably the case
that the author of the Fourth Gospel includes the story in order to make
a theological point. Jesus turns water into wine–in fact, lots of
wine–in order to illustrate that Jesus is the one who was sent by
the Father. He replaces water that was to be used for Jewish purification
by the choicest of wines, indicating that all previous religious institutions
and feasts lose meaning in his presence. Thus the author of the Fourth
Gospel concentrates upon Mary and Jesus’ interactions and their interactions
with the servants in order to make a point about this first sign of Jesus’ messiahship.[31]
[12] In Holy Blood, Holy Grail, it is Mary Magdalene who is Jesus’ wife.
The authors argue that this is the case in part because it would have been
unthinkable for an unmarried woman to travel unaccompanied, particularly
with a religious teacher and his entourage.[32] While
it was true that women and men were supposed to travel with members of
their own family, in this case it seems that Jesus was happy to have followers
of both genders who were not from his own biological family.[33] While
brothers accompanied some of the disciples, in the canonical Gospels the
disciples do not travel with spouses.
[13] When it comes to whether or not Mary Magdalene was actually a prostitute,
Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln condemn the early Christian portrayal of Magdalene
as a prostitute, because the motivation was the “overcompensation
of a vindictive following intent on impugning the reputation of a woman
whose association with Jesus was closer than their own and thus inspired
human envy.” They believe that the early church begrudged her unique
bond with Jesus and attempted to diminish her in the eyes of posterity.
She has been thought of as a harlot for centuries, but for Baigent, Leigh
and Lincoln, she did not deserve to be so stigmatized.[34]
[14] But while they assert that Mary is not said to be a prostitute in
the canonical Gospels, they simultaneously state that the unnamed woman
who anoints Jesus in the story of the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50 may
actually have been Mary Magdalene because Luke calls her a “fallen
woman” or a “sinner.” Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln state:
Subsequent commentators have assumed that the Magdalen, since she apparently
had seven devils cast out of her, must have been a sinner [cf. Luke
8:2]. On this basis, the Magdalen and the woman who anoints Jesus came
to be regarded as the same person. In fact, they may have well been.
If the Magdalen was associated with a pagan cult that would certainly
have rendered her a “sinner” in the eyes not only of Luke,
but of later writers as well.[35]
They further assert that Magdalene is “something more than the common
prostitute of popular tradition” because they believe she was a woman
of financial means (Luke 8:3), and that her name is consistently at the
head of the lists of female followers of Jesus just as Peter’s name
is at the head of the lists of male followers in the Gospels. Furthermore,
when “Magdalen” anoints Jesus, it is significant for Baigent,
Leigh and Lincoln because it is the proper prerogative of kings, and of
the Messiah, which means “the anointed one.” She was also the
first to witness the empty tomb after the crucifixion, and “Among
all his devotees it was to the Magdalen that Jesus first chose to reveal
his Resurrection.”[36] In other words, when biblical interpreters
in the early church mistakenly associate Mary Magdalene with the prostitute
in Luke 7:36-50, it is inexcusable, but when Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln
also presume she was a prostitute, it is a necessary component of their
argumentation.
[15] They then identify Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany, to a large
degree because Mary of Bethany is identified as the woman who anoints Jesus
(John 12:1-8). [37] They
conclude their discussion of Mary Magdalene as Mary of Bethany by saying, “It
is thus clear that Mary of Bethany and the woman who anoints Jesus are
the same woman. If not equally clear, it is certainly probable that this
woman is also the Magdalen. If Jesus was indeed married, there would thus
seem to be only one candidate for his wife–one woman who recurs repeatedly
in the Gospels under different names and different roles.”[38] It
is this woman–Mary Magdalene–who they believe eventually arrives
in France, carrying with her the Holy Grail, or the “blood royal.”[39]
[16] However Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln fail to notice that Mary Magdalene
and Mary of Bethany are from very different geographical regions–Magdala
in Galilee and Bethany in Judea. Their second names are not surnames, but
ways to differentiate between them. Of course, it is never stated in the
Gospel accounts that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. One of the most noticeable
figures to suggest this was Pope Gregory in a homily he preached at the
basilica of San Clemente in Rome in 591 CE. While speaking about the sinful
woman in Luke 7:36-50, he equated her with Mary Magdalene from whom seven
demons had gone out and thus depicted Mary Magdalene as a former prostitute.[40] In
her recent book Mary Magdalene, The First Apostle: The Struggle
for Authority, Ann Graham Brock points out that Gregory’s conflation
served as an essential factor in the diminishment of Mary Magdalene’s
apostolic authority.[41] In
effect, his exegesis paved the way for later considerations of Magdalene
in which her sexual status as repentant prostitute became more important
than her original apostolic status. Thus by conflating the texts in which
the sinful woman anoints Jesus (Luke 7:36-50) with the introduction of
Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:1-3) and wrongly identifying Mary Magdalene with
Mary of Bethany who does anoint Jesus (John 12:1-8), Baigent, Leigh and
Lincoln actually follow in Pope Gregory’s footsteps.
[17] For Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, early Gnostic writings only serve
to support their argument that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. They
contend that the Gospel of Mary, which they wrongly include in the
Nag Hammadi collection, attests to an ongoing feud between Peter and the
Magdalene that represents those who are “adherents of the message” (presumably
what is called orthodox Christianity) and “adherents to the bloodline” (presumably
those who follow Mary Magdalene’s and Jesus’ descendants).
To further prove their point about Jesus’ and Mary’s sexual
union, they use a citation from the Gospel of Philip: “And
the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalen” and assert that the
word companion is to be translated as “spouse.” They further
support their thesis by again citing from the Gospel of Philip: “‘But
Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often
on the mouth.’” [42] In order to argue their case,
they seem to have depended to a large degree on Elaine Pagels’ The
Gnostic Gospels where she makes comments suggesting that according
to the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip that Mary
and Jesus had an erotic relationship.[43] But as I will argue below,
the relationship between Mary and Jesus in the Gospel of Philip and
the Gospel of Mary is most likely not one of erotic love, but of
spiritual companionship.
[18] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln have more to say about Mary Magdalene.
One of their major theses is that the original French word for the Holy
Grail, the Sangraal or Sangreal or “some such form” was
broken subsequently in the wrong place. Instead of “san Graal” or “san
Greal” (holy grail) the word should be divided into “Sang Raal,” or “Sang
Real.” In modern French, this would be Sang Royal, referring to “royal
blood”.[44] Furthermore, Baigent, Leigh
and Lincoln believe this means that the Holy Grail would have been two
things simultaneously:
It would have been Jesus’ bloodline and descendants–the “Sang
Raal,” the “Real” or “Royal” blood of which
the Templars, created by the Prieuré de Sion [Priory of Sion], were
appointed guardians. At the same time, the Holy Grail would have been,
quite literally, the receptacle or vessel that received and contained Jesus’ blood.
In other words, it would have been the womb of the Magdalen–and
by extension, the Magdalen herself.[45]
[19] Once again, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, provide
their readers with a tantalizing half-truth. Their theory about the French
for “holy grail” is dubious at best. According to Olson and
Miesel, Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur (1470)
includes the best telling of the medieval Grail story, where he calls it
the Sankgreall and the Holy Grayle. When he speaks of the Sankgreal (blood
of the grail), Malory clearly means the Lord’s own blood and not
his alleged bloodline. Additionally, “‘grail’ is derived
ultimately from the Latin gradale, meaning ‘by degree or stages,’ referring
to a type of deep platter from which foods were served course by course
at a medieval banquet.”[46] The
usage of the term “grail” as a common noun thus predates all
references to the Holy Grail. Thus, the division of Sangreal into “Sang” and “real” is
wrong. In modern French, royal blood would be le sang royal and
Holy Grail is le Saint-Graal. Sangreal means “Holy Grail” and
if it were divided, would actually be “San-greal.” What is
rather surprising about their theory is that Mary Magdalene’s womb
becomes indispensable to her significance. According to their theory, her
womb was the vessel that carried the “royal blood” of Jesus,
meaning his bloodline. Because Magdalene’s significance is based
upon the condition of her womb, in effect Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln’s
Mary Magdalene is prominent ultimately because she had a sexual relationship
with Jesus and was biologically capable of producing his descendants.
[20] Brown also used sections from the Templar Revelation, by Picknett
and Prince. Although Picknett and Prince critique the Dossiers Secret (secret
documents) that Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln depended upon for much of their
work as being inconsequential and perhaps even forgeries, they curiously
believe this proves the merit of the documents as the basis for their own
work [47] When they come to the depiction of Mary Magdalene in the canonical
Gospels, Picknett and Prince say that “throughout history, [Mary
Magdalene] has always somehow embodied the contemporary attitude to women”[48] and that her depiction as the
repentant whore mirrored contemporary attitudes in the church. They further
maintain that this characterization as a whore has nothing to do with the
Gospels in which she was the first witness to the risen Jesus, and "not
merely the first female witness but the first person to see
him after he emerged from the tomb.”[49] As well, she was the first disciple to receive
a direct apostolic commission from Jesus, who commanded her to take the
news of his resurrection to the other disciples.[50] Furthermore, her importance is suggested by the fact that almost
without exception (John 19:25), Mary Magdalene’s name comes first
whenever a list is given of Jesus’ female followers and that indicates
she was a woman of independent means who provided for Jesus and other men.[51]
[21] When they turn to discussing the Gnostic gospels, Picknett and Prince
look at both the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip.
They date the writing of the Gospel of Mary as “roughly the
same time as the canonical Gospels,” indicating that this means it
is of a similar status to the canonical Gospels and it was destroyed because
it gave witness to a significant secret.[52] But in this assumption they are mistaken.
The Gospel of Mary has been dated to the first or second half of
the second century CE, which could up to a century after the canonical
Gospels were written, and not a similar time.[53] For
Picknett and Prince, in the Gnostic gospels Mary Magdalene’s pre-eminence
is proclaimed, because “[S]he is literally Apostle of the Apostles
and therefore acknowledged to be second only to Jesus, ranked above both
male and female followers. She, it appears, was the one person who was
effectively the bridge between Jesus and all his other disciples, and it
was she who interpreted his words for their benefit. In these texts, it
was not Peter who was Jesus’ chosen second-in-command, but Mary Magdalene.”[54] As
I will also discuss below, in the Gospel of Mary they particularly
find a Magdalene who rallies the despondent disciples after the crucifixion
and inspires them to become devoted apostles.
[22] In the Gospel of Philip, Picknett and Prince believe Mary and
Jesus are depicted as being on more physically intimate terms than teacher
and pupil.[55] When they discuss the phrase in which Mary
is said to be the “companion” of the Saviour, they state, “Whereas
today the word ‘companion’ implies comrade, colleague and friend
in a purely platonic sense, the original Greek word actually meant ‘consort’ or sexual
partner.”[56] To
support their translation of “companion” as “sexual partner,” they
look to McL. Wilson’s early commentary on the Gospel of Philip who
nowhere speaks of Mary as a sexual partner, but rather as a “consort” based
upon a kind of Gnosticism called Valentinianism which many believe provides
the background for the Gospel of Philip.[57] As McL. Wilson points out, in Valentinianism “there are
three Christs: the aeon Christ as consort of the Holy Spirit in the Pleroma,
the Saviour as consort of Sophia, and the earthly Jesus. It would be natural
for them to assume that the latter also had a consort, and Mary is the
obvious choice.”[58] The
term “consort” here does not seem to have sexual overtones.
Furthermore, McL. Wilson dismisses the theory that in the Gospel of
Phillip, Mary becomes spiritually pregnant and perfect. Presumably
if he does not interpret Mary as being spiritually pregnant in the text,
he would not believe her to be physically pregnant, either.[59] Picknett and Prince also believe that the Gospel
of Philip “explicitly describes the Magdalene as Jesus’ sexual
partner,” particularly because Jesus is said to kiss Mary Magdalene
and the numerous allusions in the text to unions between the bride and
the bridegroom.[60] I will discuss the significance
of this kiss in section IV, below.
[23] After a number of leaps in logic that I do not have space to analyze
at length, Picknett and Prince finally arrive at a conclusion that is similar
to that of Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln: Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany
were the same woman and Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, although in their
view she was a sacred prostitute.[61] For
Picknett and Prince, Jesus and Mary had a sacred marriage because she was
a pagan priestess through whom Jesus actually became King (of the Jews). “It
was through sexual union with her that he actually became the acknowledged
king. Without her he was nothing.”[62] In fact, she was a sexual initiatrix whom
Jesus protected as she faced discrimination in the patriarchal world of
Judaism.[63] It is noteworthy
that while Picknett and Prince are not supporters of Baigent, Leigh and
Lincoln’s theory that Mary’s womb was the Holy Grail and they
begin with more evidence for Mary’s apostolic status, they too ultimately
find Mary’s major significance in her sexual relationship with Jesus.[64]
[24] Because Margaret Starbird concentrates primarily on her personal journey
as she constructed her theories of Mary Magdalene in her book The Goddess
in the Gospels, I will not comment on it here. But in The Woman
with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail she makes
surprisingly uncritical use of Holy Blood, Holy Grail in her discussion
of Mary Magdalene. She bases theories about the Magdalene on a fourth-century
legend in which Magdalene is said to have brought the “Sangraal” to
the south coast of France.[65] She
further states, again, based upon Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln’s work,
that if you break the word sangraal after the g, the result
is sang raal, which in the Old French means “blood
royal.”[66] Based upon this interpretation she states, “Suddenly
one is faced with a new reading of the familiar legend: Instead of a cup
or chalice, the story now states that Mary Magdalene brought the ‘blood
royal’ to the Mediterranean coast of France.” And, for Starbird,
it is not enough that Magdalene would have brought the blood in an “earthen
vessel” such as a chalice. She asks, “What if that earthen
vessel was a woman? Perhaps this Mary was actually the wife of Jesus
and brought a child of his to Provence!”[67]
[25] Starbird also identifies Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany, the
sister of Lazarus and Martha, who sat at the feet of Jesus (Luke 10:38-42)
and anointed Jesus with nard (John 11:2, 12; 12:3).[68] At
the same time, she believes that the church wrongly labelled Mary as a
prostitute and that the anointing of “Jesus at Bethany by the woman
with the alabaster jar may have been misinterpreted by the author of Luke’s
Gospel writing nearly fifty years after the event.”[69] Instead, Mary was a “sacred
woman” (prostitute) of the Temple of the “Goddess”, who
played an important part in the everyday life of the classical world.[70] Jesus’ statement
that she was anointing him for burial (Mark 14:8; Matt 26:12) would have
then been understood by the early Christian community as indicating Magdalene’s
status as the bride who was anointing a king for marriage, similar to the “Sacred
Marriage” celebrating the union of a local god and goddess in ancient
times.[71] Starbird, too, uses the Gospel of Phillip to “confirm
that Mary Magdalen was an intimate companion of Jesus” by saying
that she is said to be a close “companion” or “consort” of
Jesus who often kissed her on the mouth.[72]
[26] What is also surprising about Woman with the Alabaster Jar is
that although Starbird considers herself a feminist, she argues that the
archetypal symbol for female, the V or ▼, is actually the archaic
symbol for the chalice that is the “vessel” or “womb” of
life. The male archetypal symbol, on the other hand, is
an upside down V or 
. After arguing
for the amalgamation of these two into a symbol for wholeness, Starbird
states “that the feminine principle is that of love and
relatedness in the Jungian sense” while the masculine principle is
that “of Logos/reason, which is associated with power and light.”[73] Thus
for Starbird the essence of being female has to do with love and relatedness
while the essence of being male has to do with achievement (she defines
the Greek term Logos–which is usually translated as “word”–as
achievement) and reason.[74] Presumably without intending to do so, Starbird
has fallen into a general understanding of men and women that began with
Plato (428-347 BCE) and was summed up well by Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE – 40
CE) when he distinguishes between the intellect, which he calls masculine,
and sensation, which he calls feminine in De opificio mundi, 165.[75] In
ancient times women were generally believed to be is inferior to men, particularly
in their inability to reason, while they was particularly good at sexual
vocations because they excelled at receiving passively.[76] Thus
Starbird unknowingly supports this ancient way of thinking in which the
female is inferior to men in anything other than sex or biological reproduction.
IV. Teabing and the Gnostic Gospels
[27] I will now return to Brown’s claim that “[a]ll descriptions
of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are
accurate” by considering his descriptions of the Gospel of Philip and
the Gospel of Mary. [77] Of course, one of the first observations to
be made about Teabing’s statements is that no one who is a student
of early Christian texts believes that the Nag Hammadi documents are the
earliest Christian records. The Gospel of Philip is from Nag Hammadi,
written in the second or possibly the early third century. It is to this
text that I now turn.
A. The Gospel of Philip (2nd century ce)
[28] The Gospel of Philip is the only text from which one might
be able to build a case that Jesus and Mary were married and sexually involved.[78] The text from the Gospel of Philip states:
There were three who always walked with the lord: Mary his mother and her
sister and the Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister
and his mother and his companion were each a Mary (59, 6-11).[79]
As for the Wisdom who is called “the barren,” she is the mother
[of the] angels. And the companion of the [ . . . ] Mary Magdalene. [ .
. . loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often]
on her [ . . . ]. The rest of [the disciples . . . ]. They said to him, “Why
do you love her more than all of us?” The savior answered and said
to them, “Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one
who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one
another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and
he who is blind will remain in darkness” (63, 30-64, 9).
B. Companion
[29] Of course Teabing is wrong when he says that the Gospel of Philip is
in Aramaic. Nag Hammadi scholar Hans-Martin Schenke confirms that the copy
of the Gospel of Philip that has come down to us is in Coptic and
that this probably represents a translation from the Greek.[80] In fact, when the author uses
the word “companion” in the Gospel of Philip he uses
the Greek term koinonos twice and the Coptic term hotre (companion)
once. In his book The Woman Jesus Loved: Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi
Library and Related Documents, Marjanen points out what most students
of Greek know, that koinonos is used in different ways in many writings,
including the New Testament. The word denotes a “person engaged in
fellowship or sharing with someone or in something.” What a koinonos “can
share with his or her partner can take many forms, ranging from a common
enterprise or experience to a shared business.”[81] In
the Bible, a koinonos might be a marriage partner (Mal 2:14; cf.
3 Macc 4:6), a companion in faith (Phlm 17), a co-worker in proclaiming
the Gospel (2 Cor 8:23), or a business associate (Luke 5:10).[82]
[30] The precise identity of the companion in section 63 of the Gospel
of Philip is not altogether clear in the text. But in paragraph
59 (see above), Mary is said to be the “companion” of Jesus.
Marjanen suggests that cognates of koinos (Greek for “communal” or “common)
as well as their Coptic equivalents can refer to the literal pairing
of men and women in marriage and sexual relationships, but also function
as a metaphor for a deeper, spiritual partnership (81, 34-82, 7). The
words can also be used to describe the salvific experience of a Gnostic
Christian, when the unity with the divine realm is re-established (70,
9-22; 58, 10-14; 5, 23-26). Furthermore, in the Gospel of Philip, when
someone is spoken of as someone’s wife, the Coptic word for wife
is used (70, 19; 76, 7; 82, 1). Marjanen states that the term koinonos is “reserved
for a more specific usage in the writing. This observation fits well
with the fact that the writer of the text is not primarily interested
in a marital relationship as such, but in the close relationship it
illustrates.”[83]
C. The Kiss
[31] One still is left wondering what to make of Jesus kissing Mary. In
Schenke’s translation, he has helpfully filled in the word “mouth,” although
in the text one cannot be certain where Jesus kisses Mary.[84] In her article, “The
Holy Spirit is a Double Name,” Jorun Jacobsen Buckley has stated
that in the text the disciples interpret the kiss in a sexual way, thus
lending some support to the idea that the kiss is meant to have at least
some sexual connotations, and that the context itself attests to a sexual
meaning.[85] But as I have
shown, the passage cannot be construed clearly to have sexual connotations
and interpreting the kiss this way would not seem to be the primary significance
here, particularly when earlier in the Gospel of Phillip it states: “For
it is by a kiss that the perfect conceive and give birth. For this reason,
we also kiss one another. We receive conception from the grace which is
in one another” (59, 1-5). The reference to Jesus kissing Mary might
also be a reference to the “chaste, liturgical ‘kiss of peace’ mentioned
several times in the Gospel of Philip and in the New Testament” (Rom
16:16; 1 Cor 16:20, 2; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:266; 1 Pet 5:14).[86] In any case, the author primarily has a spiritual
emphasis in view, particularly given the reply of Jesus to the disciples
about why he loves Mary more than them.
[32] In this reply, Jesus states, “When a blind man and one who sees
are both together in the darkness, they are no different from one another.
When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and the blind
will remain in darkness.” Thus the kiss between Jesus and Mary Magdalene
in section 63 indicates her privileged position, a position due, not to
her being married to Jesus, but to having spiritual insight into his teaching
that exceeds that of the other disciples. The relationship is primarily
spiritual, with Mary being understood as Jesus’ spiritual counterpart.
The kiss may be the way that special spiritual power is conveyed to her.[87]
[33] The disciples, who are also sometimes portrayed as being spiritually
immature in the Gospel of Philip (55, 28-30), are depicted here
as being somewhat dazed and unbelieving. It is Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ companion,
who understands and who is superior to all of the disciples.[88]
[34] In view of Brown’s claims that his descriptions of documents
are historically accurate, it is astonishing that he did not make use of
the work of Gnostic scholars such as Isenberg, Schenke and Marjanen mentioned
above who had published works on the Gospel of Philip by 1997. Although
he makes use of Pagels’ book The Gnostic Gospels, which was
first published in 1979 and in which she claimed that the Valentinians
rejected ascetic practice, he apparently did not read or make reference
to her later article in which she admitted that some Valentinians may have
practiced celibacy and even celibate marriage.[89] Even if one suggests that Mary and Jesus could have had a physical
relationship as described in this text, it is still not Mary’s sexual
relationship with Jesus that is of primary concern.[90] If Brown really was interested in the veracity
of his use of the Gospel of Philip, considering that the publication
date for The Da Vinci Code was 2003, presumably he could have used
these publications in his own research. As I have shown, contrary to Brown
and to his creation Teabing, the passage from the Gospel of Philip that
they cite are not really about romantic love but about Jesus bestowing
spiritual power upon Mary and about Mary’s superior spiritual insight.
B. The Gospel of Mary (2nd century)
[35] Although I cannot thoroughly pursue the depiction of Mary in the Gospel
of Mary due to lack of space, I will discuss the text briefly because,
as Brock points out, it portrays Mary both as the recipient of an appearance
of Christ and as the recipient of praise from Christ for not “wavering” after
Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection (Gos. Mary, BG 10,14).[91] In
the text she is the one who comforts and rallies the disciples and preaches
to them the words of the Saviour that she received in a vision. The
text reports the interchange between Mary and the other disciples after
her vision:
When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point
that the Savior had spoken with her. But Andrew answered and said to the
brethren, “Say what you (wish to) say about what she has said. I
at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these
teachings are strange ideas.” Peter answered and spoke concerning
these same things. He questioned them (the disciples) about the Savior: “Did
he really speak with a woman without our knowledge (and) not openly?
Are we to turn about and listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?”
Then Mary wept and said to Peter, “My brother Peter,
what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart,
or that I am lying about the Savior? Levi answered and said to Peter, “Peter,
you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the
woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are
you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is
why he loved her more than us. Rather, let us be ashamed and put on the
perfect man and acquire him for ourselves as he commanded us, and preach
the Gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the
Savior said” (The Gospel of Mary, 9-18).[92]
In this text Mary has been given a vision from Christ and becomes an authoritative
figure. According to Esther de Boer, author of The Gospel of Mary: Beyond
a Gnostic and Biblical Mary Magdalene, Mary is depicted in the Gospel as
a disciple of Jesus “in the sense that she has been taught by him.
She also has had access to teaching that the others have not had.”[93] She functions as a disciple among disciples
because “Mary knows more than the other disciples, since the Saviour
loved her more than the rest of women.”[94] Thus,
for de Boer, Jesus’ love for Mary has nothing to do with her sexuality,
but with her being given knowledge. King stresses that Mary is depicted
as being a leader based on her spiritual maturity.[95] Marjanen argues that when Mary
is spoken of as being loved more than the disciples in the Gospel of
Mary, it is not sexual love that is in view but love similar to that
expressed for the Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John.[96]
[36] While Brown would not have had access to the works of Brock and de
Boer that were published in 2003 and 2004, respectively, both Marjanen’s The
Woman Jesus Loved: Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related
Documents and King’s introduction to the Gospel of Mary in The
Nag Hammadi Library in English would have been available to him. Both
of these authors make it clear that Mary’s primary significance in
the Gospel of Mary is her role as the authoritative figure in the
text. As mentioned above, Marjanen states specifically that Mary’s
role is not sexual. King states, “She [Mary] is the Savior’s
beloved, possessed of knowledge and teaching superior to that of the public
apostolic tradition.”[97] As in his treatment of the Gospel
of Philip, in the Gospel of Mary Brown ignored the work of Gnostic
scholars in which Mary’s authoritative role was made clear. He also
omitted the description of Mary in the canonical Gospels. It is to these
texts that I now turn.
V. Mary Magdalene as the Apostle to the Apostles
A. The Gospels
[37] While I have considered Brown’s description of the Gospel
of Philip and the Gospel of Mary and found him to be in error,
I have yet to consider the portrayal of Mary Magdalene in the canonical
Gospels, which, contrary to Teabing, contain the earliest description
of her. While a vast amount has been written on Mary Magdalene in the
canonical Gospels, I will briefly provide the reasons for her significance
in these texts.[98]
[38] She is portrayed as a woman who has suffered from demonic possession
and from whom Jesus had expelled seven demons (Luke 8:2; cf. Mark 16:9).
She is also prominently mentioned as one of the women who accompanied Jesus
in his ministry and provided for him from her financial resources (Luke
8:2-3; Mark 15:40-41). Contrary to the theories of Baigent, Leigh, Lincoln,
Picknett, Prince and Starbird, she is never said to be married to Jesus,
she is never cast as the sinful woman who anointed the feet of Jesus (Luke.
7:36-50) and she is never equated with Mary of Bethany.
[39] One of the major reasons that she is significant in the canonical
Gospels is that she is the key witness to the crucifixion (Matt 27:56;
Mark 15:40; Luke 23:49; John 19:25), Jesus’ burial (Matt 27:61; Mark
15:47; Luke 23:55); and the empty tomb (Matt 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke
24:10; John 20:1). Because other characters shift in the narratives, Mary
Magdalene remains as the only one who sees Jesus’ death and burial
and discovers the empty tomb in all three of the synoptic Gospels. So the
assurance of the correct tomb and the correct body and the empty tomb rest
on the reliability and testimony of one woman.[99]
[40] Mary is also portrayed as among those who are the first to see the
resurrected Christ. For example, in Matthew 28:9 she and another Mary,
presumably Mary the mother of James (cf. Matt 27:56), are the first to
see the resurrected Christ who instructs them to go and tell the male disciples
that he will meet them in Galilee. In John, she alone is the first to see
the resurrected Christ and receive his commission. In Mark’s longer
ending, Jesus appears to her after his resurrection. While this scene is
not in the earliest, most reliable texts, it does point to the continued
significance this tradition played for the members of early Christian communities.
[41] In her recent book The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene, Jane
Schaberg forcefully argues that the account of Jesus’ appearance
to Mary Magdalene in John 20:1, 11-18 contains an account that is better
preserved than the one found in Matthew 28.[100] She
further believes that the account in John should be viewed particularly
against the background of the Elijah/Elisha narrative in 2 Kings 2:1-18
where Elisha takes on the role of the prophet succeeding Elijah and is
filled with the spirit that formerly rested upon him.[101] In John 20 this would mean
that Mary Magdalene becomes Jesus’ successor. While one may question
whether the narrative in John 20 is shaped by the Elijah/Elisha story,
Schaberg does succeed in showing how important the tradition that Mary
was the first to see the risen Christ was to the early Christian community.
Instead of seeing the resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene as a minor,
private and personal encounter between Mary and Jesus before his official
meeting with the disciples as many scholars have previously done, Schaberg
shows how “women were the–or a–primary source of the
resurrection faith.”[102] Of course the central figure among these
women was Mary Magdalene.
[42] Ann Graham Brock has shown how Mary as depicted in the Gospels fits
the characteristics of an apostle as defined by Paul in her book Mary
Magdalene: The First Apostle: The Struggle for Authority. As is well
known, Paul defines apostles as those who witnessed an appearance of the
risen Christ and who received a divine call or commission to proclaim a
particular message (1 Cor 15:3, 5-8; Gal 1:15-16).[103] This
is particularly true in John’s Gospel, where Mary sees the risen
Christ when she is alone and he commissions her to go and tell the disciples
of his ascension (John 20:14-18). It is probably because she is the first
to announce the resurrection and ascension of Jesus to the disciples that
Hippolytus, in his third century commentary on the Song of Songs, called
her the “apostle of the apostles” (De Cantico 24-26).
[43] Brown did not make use of the numerous publications that would have
been available to him about Mary Magdalene in the canonical Gospels, such
as Richard Atwood’s Mary Magdalene in the New Testament Gospels
and Early Tradition who argues for Mary’s significant role as
the primary initial recipient and transmitter of the message of Jesus resurrection
in the Gospel accounts.[104] As I argued earlier, Brown’s
portrayal of Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus who bears his child(ren)
is drawn from others’ misreadings of the Gospel of Philip and
the Gospel of Mary. But he also ignored the actual “earliest” Christian
documents in which Mary Magdalene is portrayed as having apostolic stature.
VI. Conclusion
[44] As I have shown, in the Gnostic gospels Mary Magdalene is shown to
have a close relationship with Jesus that is based upon her superior spiritual
insight and maturity, not upon a sexual relationship with Jesus or her
reproductive capacity. She is a “disciple among disciples” who
acts authoritatively and who has special knowledge. In the New Testament
documents, Mary is significant because she is the only one to witness Jesus’ crucifixion
and burial as well as the empty tomb. The assurance of the correct tomb,
the correct body and the empty tomb rest on the reliability and testimony
of this one woman. But more importantly, she is the one who receives a
post-resurrection appearance of Jesus and a divine call to preach his ascension
and resurrection, both of which are characteristics of an apostle. Because
she takes Jesus’ message to the disciples, she becomes the apostle
to the apostles.
[45] Because Brown uses sources for the Da Vinci Code that do not
deal with early Christian texts in a careful or thorough manner and because
he does not seem to have carefully studied the Gnostic texts themselves,
he does not use the Gnostic gospels as accurately as his statement on page
1 leads his readers to believe. As has been shown, rather than capitalizing
upon Mary’s apostolic status, knowledge, spiritual maturity or insight,
Brown concentrates instead on her sexual relationship with Jesus. In this
way he confines her to this relationship with Jesus instead of seeing her
in her own right.[105]
[46] While Brown does speak twice about the tradition of Mary as an apostle,
the dubious traditions about Mary Magdalene that are essential to his novel
are that she married Jesus and bore children–traditions that have
more to do with her sexuality and reproductive capability than with her
important apostolic function in the early Church.[106] In a way similar to the views of women held by ancient philosophers,
Brown ultimately does not value her for her intellectual or spiritual competencies
as much as for her sexual qualities. While Brown and his sources criticize
the church for turning Magdalene into a prostitute, he falls into a similar
error in his novel. Instead of showing how Mary was important in the early
church as an apostle who had seen the risen Christ and acted on his commission,
by following the works of Baigent, Leigh, Lincoln, Picknett, Prince and
Starbird, he concentrates on her sexuality. In this way Brown actually
serves to perpetuate the tradition in which Mary’s sexuality takes
precedence over her apostleship and, in effect, contributes to the diminishment
of her role as the apostle to the apostles in a way similar to members
of the early Church that he condemns so severely.
Notes
[1] David Baddiel, “The Da Vinci Code is as Dickensian as Miriam
Margoyles in a Bonnet,” www.timesonline.co.uk,
July 23, 2005.
[2] Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian
Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004); Ben Witherington III, The Gospel
Code: Novel Claims About Jesus, Magdalene and Da Vinci (Downers
Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2004).
[3] Carl E. Olson, Sandra Miesel, The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors
in The Da Vinci Code (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004).
[4] Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 1.
[5] For example, Ehrman, Truth, xx; Witherington, Gospel,
28.
[6] “NBC News Transcripts” www.danbrown.com/media/todayshow.htm,
June 9, 2003.
[7] “Video: Good Morning America (Host: Charlie Gibson)” www.danbrown.com, Dec. 2003.
[8] Dick Adler, “A Tale of Religious Secrets and Revelations”,
pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/abstract/324088861.html April 13, 2003,
2.
[9] Bob Minzesheimer, " 'Code' Deciphers Interest In Religious History," USA
Today, December 11, 2003; see also usatoday.com/life/books/news/2003-12-10-da-vinci_x.htm
[10] Brown, Code, 236-39; 243-46; 249; 253.
[11] Brown, Code, 257.
[12] Brown, Code, 247-49.
[13] Brown, Code, 244, 249, 254, 261.
[14] Brown, Code, 245-48.
[15] Brown, Code, 245.
[16] Brown, Code, 245-46.
[17] Brown, Code, 246.
[18] Brown, Code, 247.
[19] Brown, Code, 255, 257.
[20] Brown, Code, 253; Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, The Templar
Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ (London:
Bantam Press, 1997); Margaret Starbird, The Woman with the Alabaster
Jar: Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail (Rochester, VT: Bear and
Company, 1993) and The Goddess in the Gospels (Rochester, VT:
Bear and Company, 1993); Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, Holy
Blood, Holy Grail (London: Jonathan Cape, Ltd., 1982; New York:
Bantam Dell, 2004).
[21] See also Olson and Miesel, Hoax, 223.
[22] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 330.
[23] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 332.
[24] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 333.
[25] For example, see W.E. Phipps, who argues that Jesus was married in The
Sexuality of Jesus (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1970) See John P. Meier’s
arguments against Phipps’s conclusions in A Marginal Jew: Rethinking
the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 332-45.
[26] Philo of Alexandria, Hypothetica 11.14; Josephus War II.7.2; War II.8.13.
[27] Philo of Alexandria, On the Contemplative Life, 2.18, 8.68.
[28] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28 (WBC 33B; Dallas, TX: Word
Publishers, 1995), 550; see also Meier, Historical Jesus, 343-345
and Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999), 470 for discussions of the authenticity of Matt 19:10-12.
[29] Further arguments for Jesus’ unmarried state could be given
here but will not be because of a lack of space.
[30] Raymond E, Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (AB29;
New York: Doubleday, 1966), 102.
[31] Brown, John I-XII, 104-5.
[32] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 333.
[33] Witherington, Gospel, 72-73.
[34] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 335; to avoid repetition,
I will sometimes use the term “the Magdalene” that has often
been used to refer to her throughout the centuries rather than her full
name.
[35] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 334.
[36] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 334.
[37] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 337.
[38] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 337-38.
[39] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 344.
[40] Hom. 33, PL 76:1239.
[41] Ann Graham Brock, Mary Magdalene, The First Apostle: The Struggle
for Authority (HTS 51; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2003), 168-69.
[42] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 382.
[43] Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1979), 18, 64.
[44] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 306.
[45] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Blood, 400.
[46] Olson and Miesel, Hoax, 182-83.
[47] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 47. The Dossiers Secrets have
since been shown to be forgeries. See, for example, Bill Putnam and John
Edwin Wood, “Unravelling the Da Vinci Code,” History Today 55,1
(2005): 18-20; Massimo Introvigne, “The Da Vinci Code FAQ, or Will
the Real Priory of Sion Please Stand Up?” at www.cwsnur.org/2005/mi_02_03d.htm Sept.
7, 2005.
[48] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 61.
[49] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 62.
[50] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 62.
[51] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 63, 64.
[52] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 64.
[53] Karen L. King contends that the Gospel was written early in the second
century in The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman
Apostle, (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2003), 5; Esther A. de
Boer argues for a date during the second half of the second century in The
Gospel of Mary: Beyond a Gnostic and a Biblical Mary Magdalene (London:
T&T Clark International, 2004), 13.
[54] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 62.
[55] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 65.
[56] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 65.
[57] R. McL. Wilson, The Gospel of Philip: Translated from the Coptic
Text with an Introduction and Commentary (London: A. R. Mowbray & Co.,
Ltd., 1962); on Valentinianism, see Hans-Martin Schenke, “The
Gospel of Philip” in Gospels and Related Writings, vol.
2, The New Testament Apocrypha (Cambridge: James Clark and Co.,
1991), 182.
[58] McL. Wilson, Gospel of Philip, 97.
[59] McL. Wilson, Gospel of Philip, 97; R. M. Grant, “The Mystery
of Marriage in the Gospel of Philip,” Vigiliae Christianae 15
(1961): 140.
[60] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 261-62.
[61] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 257.
[62] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 257.
[63] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 259.
[64] Picknett and Prince, Templar, 352-53.
[65] Starbird, Woman, 23.
[66] Starbird, Woman, 26.
[67] Starbird, Woman, 26.
[68] Starbird, Woman, 28.
[69] Starbird, Woman, 29.
[70] Starbird, Woman, 29.
[71] Starbird, Woman, 31.
[72] Starbird, Woman, 53.
[73] Starbird, Woman, 159.
[74] Starbird, Woman, 160.
[75] See Giula Sissa, “The Sexual Philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,” A
History of Women in the West I: From Ancient Goddesses to Christian
Saints, ed. Pauline Schmitt Pantell (Cambridge, MA: Bellnap Press,
1992), 46; see also the discussion by Esther de Boer in Marvin Meyer,
with Esther de Boer, The Gospels of Mary: The Secret Tradition of
Mary Magdalene, the Companion of Jesus, (San Francisco: Harper,
2004), 80-82.
[76] Sissa, “Philosophies,” 47.
[77] For example, Ehrman, Truth, xx; Witherington, Gospel,
28.
[78] See also Bart Ehrman who states that there is nothing in any early
Christian texts to suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married in Truth, 160.
[79] W.W. Isenberg, “The Gospel According to Philip. Introduction,
Translation,” in B. Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II.2-7 together
with XIII, 2*, Brig. Lib. Or. 4926(1) and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655. Vol. One:
Gospel According to Thomas, Gospel According to Philip, Hypostasis of the
Archons and Indexes (NHS 20 Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989), 159.
[80] Hans-Martin Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium (Nag-Hammadi-Codex
II, 3) Neu Herausgegeben, Übersetzt und Erklärt von Hans-Martin
Schenke (TU 143; Berlin: Akademie Verlag ,1997), 182.
[81] Antti Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved: Mary Magdalene in the Nag
Hammadi Library and Related Documents (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 151.
[82] Marjanen, Woman, 151.
[83] Marjanen, Woman, 154; see also Birger A. Pearson, “Did
Jesus Marry?”, Bible Review 21,2 (2005): 34.
[84] Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 37: “auf Ihren [Mund].”
[85] Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, “The Holy Spirit is a Double Name,” Images
of the Feminine in Gnosticism (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International,
2000), 215-17.
[86] Pearson, “Marry”, 34.
[87] Marjanen, Woman, 160.
[88] See also Marjanen, Woman, 168-69.
[89] Elaine Pagels, “Pursuing the Spiritual Eve: Imagery and Hermeneutics
in the Hypostatsis of the Archons and the Gospel of Philip,” Images
of the Feminine in Gnosticism, ed. Karen L. King (SAC; Harrisburg,
PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 204.
[90] For example, see Mary Rose D’Angelo, “Reconstructing ‘Real’ Women
in Gospel Literature: The Case of Mary Magdalene,” Women and Christian
Origins, ed. Ross Shepard Kraemer and Mary Rose D’Angelo (New
York: Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999), 124; see Meyer, Secret,
37.
[91] Brock, Apostle, 82.
[92] From Douglas M. Parrot, ed., “The Gospel of Mary” in The
Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James M. Robinson (San Francisco:
Harper, 1990), 526.
[93] De Boer, Gospel, 98.
[94] De Boer, Gospel, 99.
[95] Karen L. King, “Why All the Controversy? Mary in the Gospel
of Mary,” Which Mary? The Marys of Early Christian Tradition, ed.
F. Stanley Jones (SBLSS 19; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2002), 74; see also her introduction to the article, “The Gospel
of Mary (BG 8502, I),” The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed.
J.R. Robinson (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990), 523-24.
[96] Marjanen, Woman, 110, 116; see also De Boer, Gospel, 208;
Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 207, n. 34.
[97] King, “Gospel of Mary,” 524.
[98] For an extensive list of literature devoted to Mary Magdalene, see
Holly E. Hearon, The Mary Magdalene Tradition: Witness and Counter-Witness
in Early Christian Communities (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier/Liturgical
Press, 2004).
[99] See Claudia Setzer’s article, “Excellent
Women: Female Witness to the Resurrection,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 116 (1997): 259-72 for further expansion of these ideas.
[100] Jane Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene (New York:
Continuum, 2004), 318.
[101] Schaberg, Resurrection, 304-5, 314-17.
[102] Schaberg, Resurrection, 298.
[103] Brock, Apostle, 6.
[104] Richard Atwood, Mary Magdalene in the New Testament Gospels and
Early Tradition (European university studies: Ser. 23, Theology;
Vol. 457; Bern, Lang, 1993), 135-37; see also D’Angelo, “Reconstructing,” 129-49;
Susan Haskins, Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor (New York: Riverhead
Books, 1993).
[105] See Schaberg, Resurrection, 350.
[106] See Brown, Code, 245, 247, where he speaks of her as an apostle.
