The defamation of Mary Magdalene

Mary (or rather Miriam, after the sister of Moses) has always been a popular name amongst the Jews. A number of women of that name are found in the New Testament.

The specific information about Mary Magdalen is very limited.
We may guess that her surname is “place of origin”, probably deriving from Magdala, a fishing town on the shore of the Sea of Galilee.
We know (Luke ch8 v2) that she was one of the women who accompanied Jesus in his travels along with his other disciples, and that seven demons had been driven out of her.
We know from the Easter narratives that she was one of the small group of women who sought to attend Jesus after his burial, and we have the story of John ch20 about her encounter with him after his Resurrection.

However, a few other stories in the gospels have had an great effect on the way that she’s been perceived, even though they don’t mention her by name.

Matthew has an “anointing in Bethany” story (ch26 vv6-13). While he is eating at the house of Simon the leper, an unidentified woman pours oil on his head. The disciples complain that the ointment could have been sold to provide for the poor, but Jesus declares that she is preparing him for his burial. No other motive is suggested. The implication is that this is an acted-out prophecy.

Luke has his own anointing story (ch7 vv36-50), but the setting is in the middle of the Galilee mission. The most recent place-name mentioned is Nain. The women is identified as a sinner and she is weeping. Not just from repentance and a sense of guilt, let it be understood. She is weeping with gratitude, superimposed upon the repentance, because she already knows that her sins have been forgiven, though her faith. That is clear from the remarks of Jesus, who says the magnitude of her sin can be measured by the magnitude of her grateful love. She anoints his feet, in humility, instead of his head. Before the anointing she must dry the feet with her hair, because her tears are making them wet.

Luke also has the story (ch10 vv38-41) of the reception of Jesus at the home of the sisters Mary and Martha. The village is not named, but Jesus has already “set his face” (ch9 v51) for the eight-chapter journey towards Jerusalem. There is no suggestion that either of them is the woman in the anointing story.

We come now to the story of John ch12 vv1-8, which complicates matters greatly. In his version of events, the household of Mary and Martha is combined with the household of Lazarus in Bethany, who is their brother. The event that takes place that night is Matthew’s Bethany anointing, on the whole. That is, the woman who anoints him is identified as Mary. Judas is the disciple who complains about the waste. John’s version of the reply Jesus made is a little odd; “Let her keep it for my burial”. How can she keep it, when she has already used it? Perhaps the simplest answer is to refer it to her previous decision NOT to sell the oil. “It was right that she should keep it and not sell it, so that she could use it for this purpose today.” On that interpretation, John agrees with Matthew in treating the act as “anointing in advance”.

John complicates things further by adding detail from the anointing in Luke. The act is transferred from the head to the feet of Jesus, and Mary wipes them with her hair even though it is not necessary. She has not been weeping, so the feet are not wet. Nevertheless, there is no suggestion of the “repentance for sin” motive. He does not identify Mary of Bethany with the sinner. Nor does he identify Mary Magdalene with either of them.

No, church tradition, interpreting the New Testament, has been responsible for dragging the name of Mary Magdalene into these events. The quest for ways of harmonising the gospels would naturally lead to the assumption that all three anointing stories were the same story at heart, which would have the effect of identifying Mary of Bethany as a reformed sinner. Apparently it was Pope Gregory the Great who first identified Mary Magdalene as the sinful anointing woman and more specifically identified her sin as fornication. He depended heavily on the assumed connection between fornication and being possessed by demons, which doesn’t have direct Biblical backing. Perhaps also “keep it for my burial” encouraged the idea that Mary of Bethany must have been one of the women around the tomb.

I had it in my head that Mary Magdalene spent the Middle Ages as patron saint of prostitutes, but this role seems to have been informal rather than official. Certainly the Oxford English Dictionary defines “Magdalen” as “a reformed prostitute”. Her name was given to communities of nuns formed from reformed prostitutes and other institutions designed to shelter them. All because Pope Gregory decided to simplify the Biblical character list and give her name to somebody else.

Mary Magdalene was Jesus's Wife and most trusted disciple .

The Church with the stroke of a pen changed all of that .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

no one knows what happened.

if anyone subscribes to the tar-tarian legends, all of these characters are actually different people than the stories and statues tell us.

seeing a parthen0n in tennessee pretty much cements the tar-tarian concepts.

but jc is supposedly part of the tar-tarian legends as well.

again, who knows what happened.

the villlains who run the world make up stories about waars, w2, w-t-c, kor0na, gulf of t0nkin, antarika, etc etc etc.
they for sure were lying in the past, even easier then.

That's a very well-researched and interesting post... You've clearly done a great job of untangling the complex web of Mary and Marys in the New Testament. Here are a few thoughts to add to the discussion:

The fluidity of names: It's important to remember that naming conventions in the first century weren't as strict as they are today. Multiple women with the same or similar names could easily appear in the Gospels.

Symbolic interpretations: Early Christians often interpreted events in the Gospels symbolically. Perhaps the different anointing stories represent different aspects of devotion to Christ, rather than being literal accounts of the same event.

The evolution of tradition: It's fascinating how church tradition, as you mentioned with Pope Gregory, can shape interpretations of scripture over time. This highlights the importance of critical analysis alongside faith.

Mary Magdalene's legacy: Even if the "fallen woman" label wasn't directly Biblical, Mary Magdalene's association with forgiveness and redemption has offered hope to many for centuries.

Overall you raise great points about the challenges of interpreting the Gospels and the importance of considering historical context. a reply to: DISRAELI2

a reply to: asabuvsobelow
The church didn't , misogynistic men did.

originally posted by: komangwidiatmika
The fluidity of names: It's important to remember that naming conventions in the first century weren't as strict as they are today. Multiple women with the same or similar names could easily appear in the Gospels.

In fact today is not so different, when it comes to popular names. Whenever I came into contact with a nice girl in my college days, I would always find a Dave or David in the vicinity interested in the same girl. And every other girl in our circle of friends was a Sue, so that they had to be distinguished by nicknames.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
Mary Magdalene was Jesus's Wife and most trusted disciple .

The Church with the stroke of a pen changed all of that .

Or did they correct an earlier editing error. Which may very well have corrected an even earlier error. Continue as desired.

a reply to: diaclonethunder

they for sure were lying in the past, even easier then.

To comprehend the bible one has to realize the style in which it was written. The bible was written in typical greek fashion of those times. Written as a dramatization of history. Turning the mundane into a story that would capture the imaginations of the readers. To enthrall the audience with stories of magic and intrigue.

Learned people of those times certainly realized the bible was a dramatization. The 3rd century church father Origen stated in De Principiis ...

“Where the word found that things done according to the history could be adapted to these mystical senses, he made use of them concealing from the multitude the deeper meaning; but where in the narrative of the development of super-sensual things, there did not follow the performance of those certain events which were already indicated by the mystical meaning, the scripture interwove in the history the account of some event that did not take place, sometimes what could not have happened; sometimes what could but did not.” (De Principiis)

If we examine the woman that had been bleeding for 12 years in Luke 8 for example. That was cured by touching Jesus. Was that a miracle or the dramatization of an important event that the writer wanted to convey. If the woman had reoccurring bleeding from menstruation for 12 years that would make her roughly 24 yo. Touching Jesus could just mean a sensual relationship. The first person mentioned by name in Luke 8 for no rhyme or reason is Mary Magdeline. Was she the bleeding woman. Who's bleeding was cured by carrying Jesus child.

Nice reasoning G 👍 got a link?

a reply to: glend

a reply to: Dalamax

De Principiis (Book IV) part of paragraph 15

Para. 15 seems to be explaining how obsurdities in scripture is intentional and designed to throw off the unwary.

a reply to: glend

a reply to: Dalamax

The reader attracted to stories of Jesus superhuman feats mentally see themselves as performing those superhuman feats. Those stories attracting their desiring mind. Whereas those ruled by their altruistic heart, having no desires for superhuman feats, are more likely to see behind the absurdities.

But to be on more on point of this thread. Here is a point that seems to be glossed over. The seven demons driven out of Mary Magdalene are known as pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and apathy. Scripture therefore suggesting that Mary Magdalene became a fully enlightened soul in her own right. Apart from Jesus she may have been the only disciple to attain that awakened state. Which begs the question. Was Revelation and Gospel of John really written by a "John" or was Mary Magdalene the true author. The misogynist church refusing to allow her true identity be known.

In Pistis Sophia, Mary is the most vocal of the disciples and asks some of the best questions

The only basis for connecting Mary Magdalene with Magdala is the similarity of the sound of the name.

The Lord said "Salvation is of the Jews" to the Samaritan woman. He also told the rich young man to follow the law and the prophets if he wanted to save his soul. He also said "The scribes and pharisees sit on the throne of Moses. Therefore, whatever they tell you to do, you must do, but the evil things which they do themselves, you must not do." This suggests the gospels are in agreement that the Lord thought the Judaism of his time was effective in preventing possession by seven demons.

It is unlikely a fisherman or fisherman's wife would get so rich. It is likely that if Mary Magdalene got rich buying and selling fish in Magdala, she would be an observant Jew for two reasons: First, the people of Judea may have preferred to support their own; second, because if she were not saved and spiritually strong, she might have gotten outcompeted or otherwise taken out of the running for top fish merchant.

So there was a chance she was from somewhere else and was not named after Magdala or the fish business.

Most of the languages of Europe and West Asia have Proto-Indo-European as their root. The closest living relative to Proto-Indo-European is Lithuanian. Many languages may have sounded like it long ago but then died out or evolved to their present form.

In Lithuanian, "Dalint" means to distribute. "Dalina" means he or she distributes. "Magija" is obviously a loan word for magic. The three Magi prove this. There is a chance Mary was named after her profession or "Magija Dalina" which could have been truncated to "Mag-Dalina" when they turned a verb into a name. To reiterate, there's a chance a few ancient languages might have had a few words that sounded like Lithuanian.

Magic did not always refer to stage magic or to miraculous powers. It may have referred to some sort of Babylon-like religion. Herodotus is said to have been wrong about most of the details of the Cult of Ishtar but suppose he simply surmised what Babylon must have been like based on some cult or other near him in his day.

Can it be she was both rich and possessed because some person or group was taking advantage of her sprirtual ill-health to make her something like a priestess of Ishtar? Perhaps even a trafficking victim?

Can it be the Jewish religion was a little cumbersome for a spiritually compromised person to just pick up and save their soul with before someone made them stop? Newcomers or outsiders or people who had not grown up observant may have found themselves in a place where they wouldn't put enough faith and work into religion quickly enough to stave off the mob. Can it be the Pharisees of the Lord's day were a bit corrupt, and wouldn't support latecomers if other parties had made the latecomers useful in keeping ordinary sinful folk in line?

Consistent with this notion, what if Lazarus had been blacklisted because he didn't want such work?

What if the point of the early communities which shared everything was to support the blacklisted? What if the communities were not for everybody?

What if Annias and Sephira had to contribute all they had because they had participated in exploiting the spiritually unhealthy?

a reply to: Solvedit
The Semitic languages, including Aramaic, are not part of the Indo-European family.

originally posted by: DISRAELI2
a reply to: Solvedit
The Semitic languages, including Aramaic, are not part of the Indo-European family.

Mary Magdalene could have been from somewhere else.

Not to mention your claim is still controversial.