Were Jesus & Mary Magdalene really married? (VII of VII)

4 Comments

1. (Originally posted October 2004; my replies indented)

   Happy almost Birthday! :)

   Thank you! ;)

   Just FYI, there was a recent History Channel special on the whole DaVinci Code book and some of it’s speculative fiction. Elaine Pagels spoke and said that while Mary was clearly a disciple, there’s not much to validate any such claims they were married or had a physical relationship. Might be worth looking up!

   Yeppers, it’s called fiction for a reason. ;)

   It’s amazing the amount of hoo-ha it’s caused – the Catholic Church writing official responses and all that.

   Well, I’m guessing here, but I think the brouhaha was caused for two main reasons:

   One, the author stated at the beginning that all his historical data was true. Some of it was, of course, but a lot of it is open to interpretation — just as the issue of Jesus & Mary Magdalene’s possible marriage is open to interpretation. After interpreting the data, you may believe they were married, of course… but there’s no way to know for sure your data is impeccable, or that you even have all the relevant data.

   *nod* Yeah. I thought it was a pretty amusing thing to put in a book of fiction.

   Just because the data you do have says this situation is so… does not necessarily make it so. I’m reminded of the classic spoof of the scientist who gravely concluded grasshoppers had their ears in their legs, because when he cut off their legs and made a loud noise, they no longer jumped. ;)

   I think this was an issue, though, because it appears there are an awful lot of folks who simply accept what they read as Truth, rather than reading thoughtfully and analytically. That being the case, their world view is easily shaken, and they need the “appeal to a higher authority” — in this case the catholic church — to reassure them and re-establish the so-called veracity of their previous, rather static world view.

   Hmm. Makes a certain amount of sense.

   Second, the CC is an extremely large and easy target, and who wants to be associated with a tired, outdated, and pathetic sore loser such as they’ve turned out to be? In the last century or so they’ve made an awful lot of blunderingly stupid and counter-biblical decisions, many of which are only being exacerbated by the current sad little Pope who, astonishingly, apparently really believes in his own infallibility. Talk about megalomania…!

   Thus, considering how many folks the CC has manipulated, damaged, or outright murdered, in even just the last century, there’s doubtless a lot of ill feeling floating around which salubriously enjoys seeing their personal beliefs about the evils of the CC justified, and just as much enjoys seeing the CC get its well-earned (to them) comeuppance — even if only in fictional form.

   I can’t say I don’t fall into this category, to be honest — I very much enjoyed reading Wills’ book on Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit for the simple reason it clearly laid out my objections to the CC — and even better, provided thoughtful, reasonable, and biblically based solutions. I’d love to see the CC take such a religiously devout, tolerant, and thoughtful path. Note, however, I’m definitely not holding my breath.

   Personally, I expect the CC to fade away before a more forgiving and accepting faith, much as the Olympians and the Norse have before it. Buddhism, perhaps? They do seem to easily encompass Jesus into their teachings. It’ll be interesting to watch and see.

   I honestly doubt given the sheer temporal and otherwise power that the CC has, that it will fade away. I suspect that perhaps in our lifetime we might see schisms start to crack the facade of monolithic power – since most American Catholics don’t abide by a good number of the Pope’s edicts and what not.

   There’s no perhaps about it, Dobie — it has been happening for some time now. Consider but one example: Ireland used to be unremittingly, proudly, rebelliously catholic. Now, due to clerical pederasty scandals, the inability of raped children to get abortions, and other embarrassing catholic excesses there, the European press refers to Ireland as “post-Catholic.”

   Most importantly, this increasingly irreligious situation is not unique to either the US or Ireland — despite the current pope wishing to delude himself about pederasty being “only an American problem.”

   You really should read Wells’ book Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit, Dobie. It’s about the modern church, within the last century or so. Check out my most current Library review on it if you’re uncertain, or find it in your local library. I think you’d find the CC’s appallingly self-serving double-talk on the Holocaust of particular interest.

   Unfortunately, the culprit that looks most likely to usurp the CC’s moral authority is fundamentalist Protestantism and other evangelicals, who has been growing in power as the country’s political bent drifts rightward. Faith-based aid and all that. Pretty scary.

   That’s only in this country; I certainly don’t count hysterical U.S. prudishness to be a good indicator for the world’s major religions. Furthermore, I suspect even in the U.S. this is just a reactive hysteria, and the faith in secularity will eventually officially win out.

   Let’s not forget medievally catholicism used to be the official religion in Europe mostly among the higher class and city folk, and required the force of law to stamp out all remaining traces of paganism in the countryside. The word itself — pagan — derives from the Latin paganus, which means “country dweller.”

   I suspect we’re seeing the same effect in the U.S., with religion in the cities and amongst the intellectual elite thrashing about in its death throes. The forces of law are already doing their best to stamp out any mix of church and state in the “countryside.” I admit, I count that a good thing — I’ve yet to see any state religion at any time in history not fall prey to those who wish to use it as a vehicle to power.

   Christopher Hitchens has an interesting article about Buddhism and the Dalai Lama on Slate, indicating that there’s plenty of room in Buddhism for scary orthodoxy as any other faith.

   Actually, that’s already happened, in… drat, don’t remember the country. Was it Thailand or Myanmar? But yes, all religions are available for co-opting by either zealotry or the unscrupulous. If you read what I wrote again, you’ll note I made no reference to Buddhism being perfect, but rather for its being able to assimilate well. This was one of the reasons christianity overwhelmed the Norse pantheon, for example: they swiped all the holidays.

   Also, christian priests certainly weren’t kind or thoughtful in doing so, as I’ve read about christian writings only now coming to light which indicate they outright cheated — the christian priests would do things like go out the night before an upcoming religious contest and saw most of the way through a “heathen idol” to be sure it would fall when they struck it.

   Let me be perfectly clear here, to avoid further confusion: I believe it is good assimilation technique, not religious ‘wonderfulness,’ which causes different faiths to triumph over each other.

   Jumping back to the original subject, I agree with Dr. Pagels’ assertion (found while doing research on this Firestarter) that there’s nothing that says Jesus & Mary were married… and nothing saying they weren’t, either.

   Like her, I strongly disagree with the modern tendency to entirely dismiss women in the Biblical Jesus story, simply because there’s nothing which overwhelmingly states they were disciples. Like that would have been allowed to survive the ages intact.

   I mean, let’s face it — we revere the gospel writers when we know they weren’t who they say they are. Technically they were just writing with “posthumous inspiration” from the so-called actual author/disciples. Or Paul, who gets all kinds of sainthood and attention — yet he never even met Jesus! ;)

   *nod* Unless you’re counting apocrypha and stuff in the various gnostic gospels. Cool stuff.

   Reply

2. (Originally posted July 2004; my replies indented)

   Easily one of your best offerings to date, perhaps your absolute best article to date. It is clear and seems to be very well researched. I very much enjoyed the entire thing. I have little knowledge on the subject, so I have no “notes” as such, only congratulations.

   Wow! Thanks, George!! ;-D

   Reply

3. (Originally posted July 2004; my replies indented)

   One thing I noticed that I thought very interesting here is that a lot of the text is described as “lost.” How much of that do you think was lost — quite possible, considering the ages it has had to pass through — and how much of it was deliberately censored by various parts of the Church at different times?

   You do know this question is one of those unprovable, opinion-only subjects, much like the question of whether Mary & Jesus were married, right? ;)

   I don’t think anyone can definitively give you an answer to the question you ask… but I’d like to hope there was more that was simply lost, rather than rudely censored.

   I guess I would have read “perfect man” as to have been the ideal goal that was being striven for, and that “man” was being used in the generic form, not in the gender-specific form. This is very much an issue of translation, and probably my not wanting to dwell on gender differences much. I certainly don’t know what they were thinking at the time.

   You keep using “NT” and I keep thinking, “What?!” because I know NT as a proper noun for Microsoft’s operating system, not an abbreviation for New Testament.

   Geek. ;) Okay, I fixed it. Sorry about the confusion — it’s just a writing convention I’ve seen when referring to biblical studies.

   Reply

4. (Originally posted July 2004; my replies indented)

   Fascinating that you should choose this topic at this particular time… I was just having a conversation on this very subject the other night with a chorus mate who has recently gotten her doctor of divinity degree from Yale. Hmmm. Guess I’m going to have to seek out Pagels’ books. :D In my copious spare time! LOL Oh. And The DaVinci Code as well.

   Glad the subject interested you! I’ve already noticed some parts I need to re-write for clarity, too, darnit. ;)

   If you’re going to read Pagels’ books, I’d recommend John Shelby Spong’s really fascinating review of Christianity today, too: Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile. He’s surprisingly Gnostic sounding! Hey, let me know what you think of the books, and maybe I could put up your thoughts too?

   Thanks for the feedback!

   I did read Spong’s book. It’s fabulous! I’m in the process of releasing most of my books (trying to downsize my possessions), but that one is a keeper. I really don’t know what my fascination with religion is all about. Considering the brainwashing I had as a kid, you’d think I’d be SO over the whole topic. LOL

   Reply