Loading...I have devoted a few posts to the relationship of / competition between Peter and Mary in early Christian traditions. I conclude by posing a rather significant question. Peter, of course, has traditionally been seen as the “rock” on which Christ built his church, the very foundation of Christianity (Matt. 16:18 – “You are Peter (Greek: petros) and upon this rock (Greek: petra) I will build my church.”). And indeed, according to 1 Cor. 15: 3-5, Peter was the first to see the resurrected Jesus (and realize he had been raised from the dead), and that is the very beginning of Christianity. But what if the Gospels are right, that Mary actually was the first. Wouldn’t it make better sense, then, to say that Mary started Christianity?
Here is how I talk about the matter in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene:
******************************
There is no doubt that Peter became dominant as the leader of the church early in the Christian movement, and Mary receded into the background. We have scores of passages that talk about Peter, his involvement with Jesus during his life, and his leadership of the church after his death. And scarcely any reference to Mary.
Somewhat ironically, this is what makes a number of scholars conclude that the religion actually started with Mary, rather than Peter. The logic is this: later storytellers were fully aware of Peter’s vast importance to the burgeoning Christian movement. How could they not be? He was the main figure during Jesus’ ministry, one of the inner circle, the leader of the Twelve. And after Jesus’ death he became the head of the church in Jerusalem and eventually the main missionary to the Jewish people. He along with the apostle Paul was responsible for the spread of the religion from its tiny, inauspicious beginnings to its relative triumph throughout the empire. Peter was huge.
And what about Mary?
She was scarcely known and little talked about. And so the question: if storytellers were to make up, or at least to modify, the stories of Christianity’s beginnings, would they invent the story that it was a woman who started it? Wouldn’t they be more likely to celebrate the greatness of the illustrious apostle Peter? Wouldn’t they show that although he had denied Christ at the moment of crisis, he had redeemed himself in the aftermath, by being the first to realize that Christ had been vindicated by God, raised from the dead, and exalted to heaven? Why would someone make up a story about a virtually unknown woman discovering the empty tomb and proclaiming the resurrection? Especially if the point of the stories is to give evidence that Jesus’ death was not the last word, that God himself had the last word, by reversing the illicit judgment of the Jewish leaders and the Roman authorities by raising his son from the dead. Would the “idle tale” of a woman be invented as evidence for the resurrection?
It seems unlikely. But then where did the stories of Mary Magdalene, either by herself or in the company of other women, originally come from? If it is hard to imagine them being made up by a number of early Christian storytellers, then maybe the stories have a real historical basis. Maybe it actually was Mary who found the tomb empty on the third day and who proclaimed that Jesus was raised from the dead.
This post has an intriguing thesis. And it’s easy to read it: you simply have to be a member of the blog. There’s a small membership fee, but all of it goes straight to charity. So treat yourself. Treat charity. Treat the known universe. Join!
Dr. Ehrman,
The apostles had a choice. Believe that Jesus was raised and the Kingdom was upon us or go back to their day jobs. There were perks that the rulers of the twelve tribes enjoyed such as food , shelter and adoring followers that labor could not compete with. I think they went with the story, which was also a message of hope, that allowed them to maintain the status quo. What do you think?
It’s a view that’s been around since the end of the 18th century (Reimarus), and I’ve never found it convincing. Their lives were pretty awful most of the time, both before and after Jesus’ death….
this is beautifully written:
“And it would be an age in which there would be no more oppression based on class, wealth, prestige, or gender.”
maybe she did see all that
in Petra!
Where Phaesalis, Queen of Galilee returns to, around 33 CE. Paul traveled to Arabia — why not the Apostle to the Apostles?
Archaeologists find that even the least-wealthy had nutrition. They find compressed economic stratification. Nabataea had internal peace — some rulers presiding for three decades, 0 rebellions observed.
Strabo says the king was the servant to servers. That the royal family served each other. Few to no slaves.
Women as co-regents on coinage. Owning in inscriptions. Exalted in sculpture.
Artworks promoted happiness.
If Jesus was a rebel, logic says there was an aligning army, right? I’m not saying Zealot (so, Hasmonean). In Hawaii, there’s like 6 Kingdom groups and they all don’t talk to each other.
I’m saying pro Nabataean, like Mr. Camel Coat. Tonight I read that even part of Galilee, not just Perea, used to belong to “Aramaic-speaking Arabs.” Thank an Aretas if you wanted an end to Herodian incivility, but also the Jewish peoples didn’t choose Jesus, so maybe he just ascended the mountains to his dad’s home.
One can always quibble: is Christianity based on the life and ministry of Jesus, or upon stories told about the life and ministry of Jesus, stories that may be quite distorted and in some cases heavily fictionalized? You’ve covered this point in your books. We can be fairly certain that Jesus existed, somewhat certain of a few basic events, and that he was deeply involved in a kind of end times expectation. And that’s about it. The rest of it is probably embroidery and myth. And most of that embroidery rationalizes the fact that the kingdom of God never appeared. After 2000 some years, Christians are still waiting, and waiting, and waiting…. and the sad fact is, those expectations can renew from generation to generation, until mankind simply goes extinct.
There is an element of faith to it. Happy science to you.
My apologies if I have asked this before (my memory is terrible but I couldn’t find anything in the archives), but what do you know of a guy named Pseudo-Dionisius? I understand that’s another forgery.
He is a neo-platonic Christian theologian of the 5th or 6th century who was thought throughout the ages to have been Paul’s convert in Athens in Acts 17; he wrote mystical revelations that can be quite mind-blowing.
“Maybe it actually was Mary who found the tomb empty on the third day and who proclaimed that Jesus was raised from the dead.”
The gospel saying that Mary found the tomb empty seems to be made up if we are to believe that Jesus was not put into a tomb (he was likely put in a common grave), correct?
Yes, if there was no tomb, she didn’t discover it. Of course, not many of us think there wasn’t a tomb.
It’s unlikely there was a tomb; Jodi Magness has ably summarized the arguments against it. I think it likely rather that some people came to believe that they saw Jesus after he died, either via visions or perhaps there really was someone who claimed to be Jesus after the crucifixion (we had people claiming to be Nero after his death, after all). The empty tomb was a back-invention.
“not many of us think there wasn’t a tomb” im confused, i thought you argued there wasnt a tomb? is this something youve changed your mind on?
I don’t think there was a tomb. And not many others agree with me. (I think the double negative in my sentence makes it confusing!)
“not many others agree with me” is there a good discussion where i could get both sides of that debate? i trust you, but i would like to know what those other people think about this
It is normally simply assumed that Jesus was buried. I first encountered the idea that he was not in the (large!) book on Jesus the Mediterranean Peasant by Dominic Crossan, and thought the idea was nuts. But when I actually studied it, I realized it’s not nuts at *all*. I discuss the matter in my book How Jesus Became God.
I completely get that the gospel accounts of the resurrection certainly indicate that Mary saw him first. But the I Cor 15 passage doesn’t exactly say that Peter saw him first. It says he appeared to Peter and then to the twelve (shouldn’t it be 11?). It’s an inference that this means Peter was first to see him. Of (Peter and the 12), Peter was first. It really doesn’t say nobody else saw him. This passage actually leaves out everybody else, which would include Mary or for that matter any women. I understand that’s your point about the growth of male domination in the church. But Corinthians was written before the gospels. It leaves out the women. The gospels then put Mary as the first. So, does that mean that Paul knows nothing of Mary at the tomb? Surely he knows the stories that eventually were worked into the gospels – the oral traditions. Or does he?
Since it gives a sequential list Cephs, THEN the twelve, THEN … THEN… THEN… it’s usually thought he started at the beginnig. But maybe not. But no, I don’t think Paul knows the Gospel traditions about mary. He may not even know the ones about Judas (note: jesus appears “to the twelve”!)
This surprises me. I would have expected that the story of Judas betrayal would have been quite important to the remaining disciples and that it would have come up when Paul travelled to Jerusalem and met with some of them. If the disciples were recounting the narrative about Jesus death and resurrection to someone who hadn’t been there, wouldn’t the role of Judas have been mentioned? I can understand they might have left out the story of Mary in their recounting, but not Judas.
It is an arousing thought you stimulate us with, but, *No*, she would not be the founder of Christianity,in my view, as you cite being the first at the tomb,when Christianity is born with the Resurrection. Not even Paul, for that matter, as many today believe. They were both messengers (disciples), Paul being a reluctant and stern attest to his conviction. When you read, Matthew 16; 13-20, it is clear who Jesus was designating, Petra, the rock. Verse 17,18,19 are especially important in that Peter was given revelation by the Father in Heaven(17) of this truth, and upon this rock I will built my church(18), declares Jesus, and the most important point, I (Jesus) will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (19). What more can I say ?
True. but wasn’t Matthew a friend or follower of Peter? It would carry more weight if it was stated by Mark or Luke.
Well if you need more weight, look also at 1 Cor.15 3-5 , in which Prof. Ehrman clearly pointed out in the opening paragraph of his post, which make Paul an earlier attest than even the synoptics.
But was Peter the leader of the Jerusalem church? Couldn’t a reading of Paul and Acts lead us to think James was the actual leader? (Bolstered perhaps by his biological relationship to Jesus?)
I do think James became the head, yes. But in Acts Peter is the first to take charge, and James is later. Seems plausible to me, since Peter was the head disciple; right after Jesus’ death he took charge.
Here are three further reasons why Mary Magdalene was more important in the movement than scholars and others suppose.
1. With only one exception, she always appears first in lists of names. Name order signified prominence (see my forthcoming CBQ article).
2. From the second century onwards the importance of Mary Magdalene will have been underplayed because of the widespread sexism in the church.
3. She was a funder of the Jesus movement (Luke 8:1-3). Now, if the early Christians had given prominence to Mary Magdalene in the stories that they circulated, opponents would have got wind of her importance and her property would have been vulnerable to attack or confiscation (see Heb 10:34). It was surely necessary to give a low profile to funders of the movement to protect them and their funds. While Mary Magdalene was still alive her importance will have been understated by the early Christians, for her own protection. An example of this kind of protection is the way our earliest sources give protective anonymity to the donor of the ointment, who was well known to insiders (Mark 14:9; John 11:2).
4. The epithet “Magdalene” is derived from the Hebrew word for tower, which was a metaphor for protective strength in the OT. This name was likely given to Mary to recognize her for her role as donor, in much the same way that Simon was given the name “Peter”, the rock that would protect the church. Similarly, Crispus (Acts 18:8) was given the name “Sosthenes” (Acts 18:17; 1 Cor 1:1), meaning “saving strength”. Bauckham objects that outsiders would have interpreted “Magdalene” to be nothing more than a reference to a place called Magdala, and that “Sosthenes” would have had the appearance of a birth name. But that’s the point. The names had to sound innocuous to outsiders, to protect their bearers, while at the same time conveying the intended meaning to insiders. While male Jews in Palestine often took “nicknames”, I’m struggling to find a single case of a female doing so. It may therefore have been necessary to disguise Mary’s new name as a place name, rather than give her a “nickname”. The pseudo place-name avoided arousing suspicion.
Another donor, Joseph of Arimathea had to keep his discipleship secret (John 19:28).
Yes, food for thought. There’s an old joke that the definition of an intellectual is someone who can hear the William Tell overture and not think of the Lone Ranger. I fail that test, keemo sabe. And whenever Mary Magdalene’s name is mentioned I always think of secret bloodlines and Dan Brown despite trying not to. However just to pose a slightly serious question, Robert M Price talks of a power struggle between Jesus’ relations (eg James) and disciples (eg Peter) in the wake of Jesus’s death, similar to what has happened in other religions in their early stages, notably Islam. Could Mary Magdalene have figured in that power struggle and if so, how?
The author of Luke/Acts is the only gospel writer who fails to have Mary Magdalene see the resurrected Jesus (granted, Mark 16:9 may be a later addition). Instead Peter is given the honor of seeing him, although oddly, it is mentioned almost as an aside in Luke 24:34, with no details given (?!). Paul in 1 Cor. 15:5 notes Peter (Cephas) as the first witness of the resurrected Jesus, with no mention of Mary M or the other women. In Acts the 2 main characters are Peter and Paul. So, do you think the author was deliberately downplaying the role of Mary M in favor of his one hero Peter, and in deference to the resurrection sightings noted by his other hero Paul? Perhaps even Luke’s mention that she had 7 demons cast out of her was a subtle attempt to discredit her.
She was one of the women who found the empty tomb (24:10), but right, Peter andt he others don’t believe them. It takes the man to find out for himself. But jesus doesn’t appear to him either. He doesn’t appear to the apostles as a group until 24:36, but not just to them but also to their “companions” who appear to be the women. So I guess technically he does appear to her? But right, he definitely wants to emphasize the men’s roles…. And that 7 demons thing is strange. So it does look like it’s all part of that Mary-Peter competition thing.
“And after Jesus’ death he became the head of the church in Jerusalem and eventually the main missionary to the Jewish people.” Are you sure there Bart; shouldn’t that be James?
More to the point at hand; one person who does not appear to have been backward in acknowledging the leading role of women in the emerging church communities was Paul himself. So, even if Mary Magdalene had played a key role in the earliest days of the post-resurrection Jesus movement (which is not at all impossible), she does not seem still to have been a recognised authority figure when Paul became active.
It is a fair leap to propose that the Gnostic figure of Mary Magdalene may have been linked through a preserved line of traditon to the lady herself. More likely, she was a handy New Testament peg to hang later opinions on.
I do think James became the head, yes. But in Acts Peter is the first to take charge, and James is later. Seems plausible to me, since Peter was the head disciple; right after Jesus’ death he took charge.
Can you explain why he couldn’t have appeared to the twelve, Matthias had replaced Judas had he not?
In Acts, at least, the only place that mentions Mathias, he appears and is made an apostles only *after* the resurrection appearances had ended and Jeuss had ascended to heaven.
Do you have any insight into how it came to be that women became financial supporters of Jesus? do we know if these women were likely single or married, and how they came by the finances and apparent freedom to follow him?
We don’t know if they were wealthy because their living husbands were or if they were widows with inheritance. It would be highly unusual for three single/never married women to be going about with a group of men.
Such an interesting perspective and question you raise!
Mary Magdlene is always mentioned first in the different gospels when the woman visited the tomb, but in John she is trusted the most revelatory conversation with Christ in John 20 11-18. Another rather interesting aspect of this story is for me verse 17 where Jesus says « I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”, I can’t avoid thinking about the at the time John was written (90s or so) the gnostic ideas, the Christ-Sofia ideas, was emerging (perhaps been there earlier like in Barbelo Gnosticism (part of the Sethian Gnosticism). The sybolism is striking,,,Mary, almost as the “weeping Sofia”,,,observing the two angels protecting Jesus, just like the angles protecting the “Arc of the Covenant”
In Valentinian Gnosticism (read also Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses) , Christ and Sofia comes together in the devine bridal chamber, where Christ enters Jesus through his baptism, and in a similar way, Sofia enters Mary Magdalen , even though this is was not made explisit, but seems to be suggested in these Aphcrycons (i.e. the Gospel of Phillip where Mary Magdalen is called «the companion of the saviour (me reading: «Christ» who recognize his true consort from the the upper realm, and the one he was destined to be with from the beginning).
Also the last verses of the Valentinian Exposition (translated by John Turner ) «Moreover whenever Sophia receives her consort and Jesus receives the Christ and the seeds and the angels, then the Pleroma will receive Sophia joyfully, and the All will come to be in unity and reconciliation.»
Yes, perhaps she is the founder of Christianity. She had a central role, were trusted the most inner secrets from Christ (John) at the tomb, and a central part of the gnostic texts (perhaps a suggested “Sofia”.
Thanks, so interesting !
Does Jesus’ little play on words about Peter being a rock work as well in Aramaic?
I’m not sure how the play would work. KEPHAS means rock, but I don’t know if there’s another Aramaic word for a different kind of rock. maybe someone else on the blog knows!
So, does that make it less likely that Jesus never really said the part about “on this rock I shall build my church.”? (or, that Jesus had a sense of humor?)
I think it was added later.
This is only remotely related… when did the Jewish God become God Almighty? I realize, through the Jewish Old Testament, that their God created the heavens and the earth and all that exists. But throughout the Old Testament, their God was consistently reminding ‘his’ people to worship him and not other gods. Even during the time of Jesus, is it his apocalyptic expectation that God will destroy (or dominate) the other gods while he’s destroying the evil in the world? Did Paul see his God as Almighty (within his Roman context) or did it evolve as the Christian faith merged with Roman dominance?
You find something akin to actual monotheism — there IS ONLY ONE GOD — in the writins of 2 Isaiah, e.g., Isa. 45:21-22
Do you think Mary might also be remembered and honored in memory for steadfastness? If the other apostles panicked and fled and Mary stood at the foot of the cross and buried him (or not) do you think she could have her early place for just not fleeing in pants wetting terror when it all went wrong?
I am not educated enough to know if that was pure bravery … if the Judas betrayal was as you hypothesize elsewhere actually that Jesus proclaimed himself King … would a woman have been executed for following along? Or was she risking less than the men and this is crazy talk.
It’s possible. It’s only in the Gospel of John, and she’s there with two other women adn one of the male disciples — so nothing in particular singles her out. But maybe!
What is your take on Elizabeth Schrader claiming that in papyrus 66 that Mary was split into two people to add Martha as her sister? (https://today.duke.edu/2019/06/mary-or-martha-duke-scholars-research-finds-mary-magdalene-downplayed-new-testament-scribes)
I don’t buy it.
Another woman who was instrumental in the spreading of the message of early (pre-resurrection) Christianity was “Photine”, aka: the Samaritan Woman at the Well. In the Orthodox tradition, she is stated to have brought as many people to the faith as all of the apostles together. While the argument of her status being equal to Peter or Mary Magdalen may not hold up, she should definitely be given consideration for her early role as one of the top proselytizers.