(12 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...In my undergraduate class on ancient Gospels and modern Jesus films this semester we looked at one of the truly intriguing but little known early Gospels, “The Gospel of Mary.” This second century does not claim to be written by Mary Magdalene, but she is the main figure in it – the one to whom Jesus gave a secret revelation about ultimate reality, much to the chagrin of the male disciples who can’t believe that Jesus would reveal the secrets of the world to a *woman* instead of them.
It is a Gnostic Gospel – by which I mean that it is based on “gnostic” myths about how humans are trapped here in their material bodies and need to learn the secrets about themselves, about the world, and about how to escape their physical prisons – all this through the secret “knowledge” (Greek = gnosis) that Jesus can provide.
We have no record of a Gospel according to Mary (Magdalene) from the early church, The book was, in fact, unknown until its discovery at the end of the nineteenth century. Despite the sensational nature of the find, the book was not widely known for many decades: its first publication did not come until 1955–a marked contrast to the treatment accorded other Gospels discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter or the intriguing fragmentary collection of several Gospel passages called Papyrus Egerton 2. Some of these are of less inherent intrigue than the Gospel of Mary, but they all were published almost immediately upon discovery (well, Thomas was about a decade later, for various reasons). Whether the relative lack of scholarly interest in the Gospel of Mary was related to (a) the fact that this was a Gospel allegedly by, or about, a woman disciple, (b) the circumstance that it embodied a relatively complex gnostic cosmology rather than a more straightforward narrative, or (c) something else, is hard to determine. But the publication was also delayed by some mindboggling and frustrating events that I explain in my Introduction to the work in my book The Other Gospels (co-edited with my colleague Zlatko Pleše.)
Here is how I describe the book in that edition
**********************************
The account s begins in medias res, with Jesus responding to a question from the disciples about whether “matter [will be] destroyed or not.” Jesus’ reply shows…
Hey want to know what Jesus replies? I can tell you right now, you would never guess. If you’re a member of the blog, you can keep reading. If you’re not — you can JOIN! It doesn’t cost much, and every penny of your fee goes to help those in need. So why not?
Very interesting. So the author of this gospel chose to create an account using Jesus’ disciples plus Mary. Is it thought that the author might be a woman since Mary is made to have a closer relationship with Jesus than the male disciples?
There’d be no evidence either way, unfortunately, apart from the fact that very few women could write.
Sofia and Christ were actually emanated/”created” in the upper aeons before time began in the concept of the “watery light”, which is the “One” emanated in different layers, but still One.
Christ and Sofia, and Jesus and Mary Magdalene seems to be related. Well it does seems so, and are suggested from the Gospel of Philip 63:32, “ And the companion of the saviour was Mary Magdalene, he loved her more than all the other discipled, and used to kiss her often on the mouth?. Perhas it is not made explicit, but in my mind it is suggested in the gnostic gospels, Christ descend into the human Jesus through the baptism in the Jordan river, and so did Sofia descend into Mary Magdalene, to correct Sophias fall through his sacrifice. In the (fragmented though) “Valentinian Exposition ” it is said that when Sofia receives her consort, then the pleroma will receive Sofia joyfully, and all will come to be in unity and reconciliation. I see the paralell when Ireneaeus quote some gnostic texts/philosopy when he reflects on the gnostic bridal chamber between (union) Christ and Sofia, and he also explains that Sofia (descended into Mary Magdalene?) will leave her place in the middle realm (between the lower and upper aeans) and again enter the Pleroma in the process of unification.
No wonder Jesus the Christ, favored Mary the Sofia above the male human apostles with their inherent male superior pride.
It’s curious that the Gospels say so little of Mary M, yet 3 of the 4 Gospels place her as the first witness of the resurrected Jesus. However, Paul, writing earlier, makes no mention of her and cites Peter as the first witness. So, was Mary a later addition to the lore, and/or grew in prominence in some circles? Your book on Peter, Paul and Mary M is one of the few I haven’t read yet. I suppose I need to get it and read it!
Question about Romans 10:4, is it saying “Christ is the end of the law” or “Christ is the end for righteousness of the law”
The Apostolic Bible Polyglot suggests the former as do the surrounding verses, but this is against most translations, which meaning is correct? I see this as a difference between it talking about just the righteousness of the law or talking about the law itself.
“For Christ is the end for righteousness of the law to every one trusting” (Rom 10:4 ABP)
For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness.
. . .
Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that “the person who does these things will live by them.” (Romans 10:3-5 NRSV)
The question most exegetes address is whether Paul is saying that Christ put an “end” to the law as a way to acquire and maintain a relatinoship with God or that Christ was the “goal” of the law, the point to which everythign else was pointing and so was its fulfillment. Paul himself, of course, says in Philippians that with respect to the righteousness of the law he himself had been “blameless” but he considers it all now to be completely useless given what he knows about Christ.
This might be a can-of-worms question, but what are the origins of Gnostic thinking? It almost sounds like it arises from a similar hotbed of spiritualism that revolved around Boston and New England in the 1800s, which produced the likes of Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith and others.
CAn of worms that scholars have loved dipping into. The most widespread urrent thought is that it is an amalgamation of various strands of thought from the time, with Middle-Platonism being the driving force.
Are there any logical contradictions between the mainstream Christian gospel (like for example the idea that no one comes to the Father except through Jesus) and Mary’s revelation of how to the soul can ascend to heaven? I have the impression that there were controversies surrounding Mary M vs Peter in general, but would you say there are any inherent logical inconsistencies between their teachings?
Those who rejected Gnostic views were quite insistent that the teachings were very different; for one thing, “secret knowledge” and “denying the material body to get to teh spiritual realm” were not seen as the keys of savlation for the proto=orthodox, but faith in Christ and behaving in appropriate ways, precisely *in* the body — and the idea that they body itself would be redeemed. Salvation was in the body, not from it.
I’m aware there were a several “schools”, branches within Judaism, but the salvation “in the body” is not what I understand. I really don’t see it. First of all, I firmly believe the influence from the Greco-roman religions (Hellenism), Zoroastrians (see elements in the Dead Sea Scrolls), even some Egyptian/Babylonian were absolutely present at that time which perhaps caused all the diversity within judaism. It has been my view that a lot of these ideas was refined and incorporated into judaism.
For instanse the Essenes (who lived in all cities according to Josephus) who some claimed were influenced by Pythogaras philosophy OR,vis a versa. In this Pythagoranian view (as in Plato) you have these transmigration of soul a belief that all souls are immortal and that, after death, a soul is transferred into a new body. And the later Gnostics (later called) a judeo christian refined interpretation which definitely is influenced by esoteric Hellenistic ideas.
When I read passages in the Gospels, in particular the early section of John, some of the ideas from Paul,,,,,,and my understanding of the the Revelation as a spiritual ascend back to unity (using much of the same language found in Gnosticism but also hellenistic inspired (symbol of 7/some of the numerology and more), I really can’t understand the consept of salvation “in body”(((beside I know what you mean))). I read it perhaps closer (of course not exactly similar) to a “gnostic” /esoteric understanding and therefor I read it as a salvation of the fallen soul.
I hope I’m not clogging up this thread by adding one more thought, but I have noticed what seems like a frequent use of the word “prostitute” throughout scripture. Was this meant literally, or was it more of a slur (like women being called “sluts” for dressing provocatively today)?
Almost always it was meant literally, when actually applied to women. When used of the relationship of Israel and God, it was obviously meant metaphorically.
Two questions:
1. How much is historically known about conflicts concerning leadership and/or teachings between/among the original disciples…especially after the death of Jesus.
2. I have always heard that Paul, while off doing his missionary/conversion work, had conflicts with the recognized leaders of the ‘movement,’ either or both, Peter and James over interpretations of what Jesus meant in his teachings…how much is really known to support this, if true?
It would just seem to me that they, the original disciples, would not be that much different from people today in some ways… today if 10 people saw an accident or heard a speech/etc and then separately asked to recap what they saw or heard, you would most likely get 10 different recounts…some more different than others….which brings up a third question: Since the original disciples were for the most part, if not all, illiterate, and would not have been writing letters/documents back and forth to each other to coordinate what they were teaching/preaching to the people, how did they teach/preach a common non-conflicting message as they went out spreading the ‘word’ separate from each other?
Sorry, started out with a question which evolved to two then three.
All we have are teh writings of the NT to guide us. Paul indicates there was a lot of conflict. The book of Acts indicates it was smooth sailing, internally, almost the entire way. Paul had no reason to claim there was conflict if there wasn’t; the author of Acts had plenty of reason for showing that all those faithful to God saw eye to eye on everything. So it looks like Paul’s view was probably right. My sense is that the original disciples didn’t travel much at all, but apart from Peter were probably together in jersualem the whole time, not writing letters back and forth.
A friend shared the linked article on FB recently. I was wondering, Bart, if you had seen this and hear your take on white bias in bible scholarship. https://politicaltheology.com/the-stubborn-invisibility-of-whiteness-in-biblical-scholarship/?fbclid=IwAR0sNabB3mxRuav4gM1Tvi2NMzpRiQt6jFdp7vABdromGWtydL_7ax6aG2g
I’m afraid I haven’t read it.
Do you think the Levi here is the same Levi as in Mark/Luke?
I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean did the author have that person in mind? I dno’t know. It was a common name.
Yes did the author have the same person in mind? Everyone else mentioned in the gospel of Mary Magdalene is in the canonical gospels so levi should prob be expected to have been also.
The gospel of thomas and peter mention matthew/levi in close connection with Peter also.
Here in the gospel of Mary the implication is that levi and peter were commonly understood to have played prominent roles in initially laying down rules and laws that the savior had spoken.
Isn’t this early support that matthew/levi wrote the first gospel?
Well, since Matthew isn’t mentioned here, I suppose not. Andrew is mentioned. It’s probably not evidence he wrote one of the Gospels though.
I think “Levi” is an honorary title given to Matthew as the one who first wrote down the logia of Jesus.
As in Deut 33 “of Levi he said … they have kept your word and guarded your covenant they teach your judgements to Jacob and your law to Israel.”
This is the sense Levi is used in the gospel of Mary.
I hope the ultimate revelation wasn’t: there’s no God, and I am His only begotten Son.
For what is worth, a holey book.
Prof Ehrman,
An off the topic question, please.
In one of your debates and lectures, you indicated that the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus that hinged on John 3:3 couldn’t have taken place in Aramaic. I believe your opponent at that time (Mike Licona) may have conceded to this point and this further indicated to me that you were right.
To help with my understanding and not to merely take it at face value, kindly assist with some further explanation here.
Please why isn’t it possible for this to have taken place in Aramaic? Is it that the Greek word ‘anothen’ which means ‘again’ or ‘from above’ couldn’t have had words or phrases in Aramaic to mean just that? (strikes me as odd)
Christians have over the period built a terminology in the phrase ‘born again’. Not for that, I don’t see how the very word ‘anothen’ in its basic meaning could be non-existent in any other language for that matter.
Kindly assist with some clarification here.
Thank you.
Would that mean Aramaic language had no phrases or words that could have the word.
When you say “a second time” in English you do not use the word that also usually means “from above.” The argument is that the same is true of Aramaic: the normal words for second time and above are different. In Greek the same word can mean both things.
Prof Ehrman,
If I get you very well, then the context of John 3:3 will be that Jesus expresses the word ‘anothen’ which has a dual meaning. Nicodemus however, gets the wrong meaning by assuming the meaning ‘a second time’ whereas Jesus actually meant ‘from above’.
This, then makes Greek the original language for this encounter and not Aramaic since Aramaic doesnot have a word with the dual meanings – ‘a second time’ and ‘from above’.
Finally, since Jesus spoke Aramaic, then the discourse couldn’t have taken place historically in Aramaic.
Please, is my presentation right?
Yes, that’s the argument.