(15 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...It is “common knowledge” that Mary Magdalene is portrayed as a prostitute in the New Testament, but like so much “common knowledge” this view, while common, is not “knowledge.” In fact it’s not true. I get asked about this on occasion, and so I thought I should devote a couple of posts on it.
I discuss most of what I think we can know in the final section of my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene (Oxford University Press, 2006) (A book I remember fondly, in part because I wrote it in a coffee shop in Wimbledon!). In that book I devote six chapters to each of these important Christian figures, in each case explaining what we can know about them historically and then what we can know about the later legends that sprang up about them.
In my introductory comments
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
When I first read the New testament I was shocked with revelation that the whole thing is completly constructed. There is no indication that any of the Marys is the same person. Sometimes I thinke either nobody reads or nobody cares.
If I may ask an off-topic question, please Dr Ehrman? As a historian of early Christianity, to what extent do you also have to be a ‘theologian’? The reason I ask this is, as someone who studies early Christianity as a hobby, I find that I get more and more embroiled in theological issues. Arguably, your book, ‘How Jesus became God’, is primarily about theology.
It depends what you mean by “theologian.” Most of the time people mean something like “one who is engaged in trying to understand the things connected with God”; I’m an expert on some aspects of the history of Christian doctrine, but am not a theologian in the conventional sense. That is, you can study theology historically without evaluating the religoius/spiritual significance/truth of various theological views.
Thank you Dr Ehrman. I guess I’m asking what proportion of your (research) time do you have to devote to studying theological/doctrinal issues as opposed to pure history (eg. the general activities of Jesus and the early Christians)?
Most of my time is studying history itself; but it’s hard to draw a hard line between the history of what people did and what they said. Even so, I don’t spend a lot of time at *all* on things like exploring the differences between THIS 5th century view of the hypostatic union and THAT one. Pure theological discussions, or even who believed what, becomes a remote interest of mine starting in about the mid-4th century when the issues become increasingly nuanced and technical.
“In the Gospel of Mark, an unnamed woman pours ointment over Jesus’ head prior to his arrest and trial… But the Gospel of John, written about thirty years later, also speaks about a woman anointing Jesus…
Now, when Luke tells the story it is much like Mark’s”
So Mark and Luke are speaking about the same woman anointing Jesus and John is talking about a different woman anointing Jesus.
Do you think Jesus was actually anointed by any women? Or are these made up stories?
Don’t know. The story presupposs that she was “preparing Jesus body for burial,” which for me almost certainly shows it was composed afterward.
Knust and Wasserman make a good case that the story of the adultery was originally part of the Gospel of the Hebrews. They also show that it was likely added to John’s gospel in the second century, which was before the cannon was closed. I would say that it was part of some people’s “original” New Testaments.
Absolutely was. And IS!!
Hi Bart!
Could you make a post (but it would take a lot of space I assume) or even a booklet/book in the future debunking/analysing all the Jesus prophecies that are interpreted from the OT according to the NT?
Some of these are clearly not referring to Jesus, but we see it today even in the translations fitted to represent the interpretations (words changed in modern times)
If not, could you recommend a complete work done by a critical scholar on the prophecies of Jesus matter that I can find?
I also want to seek for myself what the original words were and I want to know what Hebrew Bible website/english translation close to the original text of OT that jews wrote are there to be found online.
I appreciate that you respond to most of your audience messages. It is very caring for the community
Thanks,
Daniel
No, I’ve never done that, but there certainly is a lot of scholarship on it. The best way to get information that is detailed and reliable would be to go to academic commentaries on the books in question. In the new edition of my textbook The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (8th ed, done with Hugo Mendez) there is a new feature: at the end of each chapter (on Mark, on Matthew, etc.) is a list of commentaries that are useful for that book. That would be one way to start. If you want a sophisticated analysis of the use of the Old Testament in the writings of Paul, a now-classic is Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. As to online Hebrew texts, I don’t know; but just about every form of teh Hebrew Bible you can find in print or online is pretty much the same, word for word.
Could at least some of the references to harlots, adulterers, and adulteresses in the New Testament be referring to theological infidelity instead of prostitution? The Hebrew word zanah is frequently used in the Old Testament as an accusation of idolatry rather than of a sexual sin such as in Exodus 34:15 “and they would play the harlot with their gods” and Leviticus 20:5 “those who play the harlot with Molech”.
The Greek word porneuó is arguably used by the author of the Book of Revelation in the sense of theological infidelity as Revelation 2:20 reports: “you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice idolatry (porneuó) and to eat food sacrificed to idols”. James 4:4 also appears to use the Greek word moichalis in the Hebraic sense of not showing theological loyalty: “Adulterers (moichalis)! Do you not know that to be a lover of the world means enmity with God?”
Demon possession was arguably used in James 3:15 in the sense of brethren we were preaching prophecies and revelations other than what James considered acceptable orthodoxy. Could Mary of Bethany have been charged with theological infidelity instead of prostitution?
The word would normally be taken in the literal sense in a narrative about a person/persons; if being used in a different rhetorical context, it can certainly be used as metaphor. (I don’t believe Mary of Bethany, in any case, is every labeled with the term?)
In the Old Tesatment, is tithing done only for produce? Or it is also acceptable to be given in terms on money like we did every month in our church?
It’s foodstuffs, given to the temple to provide for the priests. As the world developed and it was no longer just farmers, it ended up changing.
Just to be clear, none of these women were literally called “Mary.” That’s a name we get via the Greek and Latin renderings of the Hebrew/Aramaic “Maryam,” which later became “Miriam,” thanks to a vowel shift. In the Torah, Maryam/Miriam was the name of Moses’ older sister.
Yes, that’s right. It’s true of all the names in the Bible, since what we’re reading are English translations.
Concise and informative. Thank you!
Bart. I thought that you and your followers here on your blog may be interested in this piece on ‘Evangelicals in the U.S. It mentions Moody Bible School, etc.
https://hedgehogreview.com/issues/the-use-and-abuse-of-history/articles/the-evangelical-question-in-the-history-of-american-religion
Thanks!
Hello, Bart,
Are you familiar with “The Gospel of the Beloved Companion – The Complete Gospel of Mary Magdalene”? It comes from the Languedoc region in France and is compelling. It portrays Mary Magdalene as Jesus’ spiritual partner and an influential teacher in her own right. Her description to the disciples of what Jesus was trying to teach us (after she returns from the empty tomb) is some of the most beautiful spiritual writing I’ve ever read. The book includes the original Greek and does a great job comparing this gospel to the canonical gospels and Gnostic gospels. It is not the usual Mary Magdalene pop culture stuff. have come to believe it is authentic. I’d love to hear your thoughts. – Paula Mekdeci
I know some people find it intriguing. It’s modern,though, not an ancient Gospel. That’s fine, so long as you know what you’re reading!
I was surprised when you said “This cannot be the same event mentioned in Mark, because in Mark it takes place in the home of Simon the Pharisee in the land of Galilee and in John it takes place in the house of Mary (of Bethany), Martha, and Lazarus in the land of Judea.”
To me it seems that it is the same event indeed but John decided to have the scene happen somewhere else and with other characters because the episode fits his narrative better there at Lazarus’. I guess what you meant was that the narratives cannot be reconciled geographically and in terms of protagonists? That wouldn’t be the only time where either or both narrators change the location, characters, or day to fit better in their narrative, like you explained regarding which day is the Last Supper.
Also, I get it that it is meant to be a form of self humbling but the best solution to wipe off either tears or a whole pound of nard from his feet was to use her… hair? Not just any piece of cloth? That doesn’t sound very practical or efficient…
That’s pretty much what I mean. I don’t know if the author of John changed the story or if he inherited a different story — but since the two accounts take place in different locations at different times and involve different people, I would say they are not the *same* event, but two stories describing a similar event. (It’s not simply a small difference that doesn’t affect things) I think the hair is meant to show how closely connected she was and wanted to be.
I’m sorry, I have to make an addendum to my comment above after I read your other points. Please feel free to reply to just one comment, or none.
I am refering specifically to Mark 14:3, Luke 7:37-38 and John 12:3 where we find that:
– they all three agree on the scene starting with Jesus reclining on a kline for having dinner, and ointment being brought by a woman,
– Mark and Luke agree on the use of an alabaster flask
– John and Mark agree on the content being pure nard,
– John and Luke agree on the anointment of Jesus’ feet against Mark’s anointment of Jesus’ head,
– John and Luke agree on the woman using her own hair to wipe Jesus’ feet.
I am just noting that it is a lot of word agreement between John and the others for John’s story to be independent from theirs, hence why I suspect John re-writing that story with a deliberate change of location, characters, and sequence position.
Although you said that in Marks gospel this story takes place In the home of Simon the Pharisee, Marks gospel calls him Simon the leper and Lukes gospel calls him Simon the Pharisee. Do you believe as I do that these are the same two people?
Also in John’s gospel the text says that he came to Bethany where Lazarus was, not to Lazarus’ home. I’ve come to think that Mary Magdalene was the sinner in Luke 7, and then introduced in verse 8 as the woman healed of her demons who immediately started following him. I don’t think it is strange at all that she wasn’t introduced in verse 7 as MM, because she was unknown prior to anointing him with oil and being forgiven of her sins. What do you think?
I’m not sure what it would mean to say they were the same person. If you mean “historically” there was a Simon who was both a leper and a Pharisee, I’d say that’s unlikely, since if an actual Pharisee were an actual leper he would know that he could not be in contact with people who were not lepers.
My view is that woman in Luke 7 is not hinted at as being MM, and nothing that she does seems connected wiht what else we know about MM, so I don’t see any reason to identify her as MM. My guess is that this would never occur to readers unless someone has told them it’s MM — and then it just kind a seems right! (MM, e.g., is never said to have had her sins forgiven by Jesus; this woman is never said to have had demons cast out of her). if you just compare what teh passages that do talk about MM with a passage such as Luke 7, you’ll see that actually apart from her being a woman who has some connection with Jesus — as do Joanna and Susanna — there’s no clear connnectoin. I’d say we could just as easily identify the woman of Luke 7 with, say, Joanna.
I’ve been following Libbie Shraders work on Mary Magdalene and I am aware that she does not think that Mary Magdalene is the sinner woman in Luke but I’m in agreement on her hypothesis of MM as Lazarus’ sister which is where I see the connection in Luke 7.
It just seems odd to me that they are all different stories. I know you were on her committee for her dissertation. I’d like to know your thoughts on her hypothesis.
This wasn’t part of her dissertation (as you probably know). But no, I dont find her argument convincing on MM.
Sorry, one last question.
I checked Kurt Aland’s Synopsis of the Four Gospels English edition, and he lists all four stories of the women anointing Jesus with perfume side by side. Was it believed at one time to be all one story?
Yes, it’s believed to be a variant of an older story, told now in different ways with key details changed for one reason or another.
I have always assumed that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute!
You and 2 billion other peole in the world.