(9 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5)
Loading...Mary Magdalene has become one of the most talked about figures from the life of Jesus, even though she hardly ever shows up in the Gospel accounts about him (during his public ministry, just in one verse, total!, Luke 8:2). (She shows up only at the crucifixion and, most important, the empty tomb).
In my last post I began to explore the tradition — not found in the New Testament — that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Here I pick up the thread where I left it off. I had mentioned a number of passages that people read *AS IF* they were talking about Mary Magdalene, even though her name does not occur in them. Here I’ll show that none of these passages is about her.
And then I’ll explain why everyone today thinks she is a prostitute and where that idea came from. Spoiler alert: a sixth-century Pope!
Once again, this comes from my book on Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene (Oxford University Press, 2006)
******************************
None of these New Testament stories, however, deals with Mary Magdalene — except in popular imagination, which has kept blissfully removed from a careful reading of the texts themselves. But the New Testament texts actually tell a different tale. Mary Magdalene is not the person she is sometimes said to be.
(a) Mary Magdalene cannot be the sinful woman who anoints Jesus in Luke 7. This woman, I should repeat, is not called a prostitute. Anyone who assumes that a “sinful woman” must have been someone who was paid for sex is simply misogynist (what else could a “sinful” woman be, if not a whore?). In fact, for particularly strict Jews of the first century, a “sinful” woman could be someone who ground her grain on the sabbath or who ate a bit of shrimp cocktail — for this would be someone who did not assiduously observe the law of Moses. But in any event, this sinful woman who anoints Jesus in Luke 7
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!
Matthew has Jesus say “the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you”. Matthew being a former tax collector it would hardly be surprising that a former prostitute might also be part of the group around Jesus; what Luke describes as “The Twelve were with him and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases”.
Luke softens Matthews description as “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” – this is right before the story of the “sinner” whom the pharisees shouldn’t be allowed to touch Jesus given who and what she is. Luke then immediately after the story introduces Mary as part of the Jesus group.
Luke introduces Matthew as “a tax collector by the name of Levi” then in the next chapter calls him ‘Matthew’ when naming the twelve. So in both instances Luke can understood as protecting Matthew and Mary from being directly called “tax collectors and prostitutes”.
Isn’t an amalgamation of accounts often the best way of arriving at the underlying historical truth?
Well, it’s hard to say. If you have two accounts of what happened on January 6 that are at odds with each other, do you normally think that an amalgamation of them is what will reveal the truth of what really happened?
Thank you Dr Ehrman. I totally get the injustice done to the real Mary M by male writers and clerics over the years but, from a purely literary and dramatic perspective, the character of a ‘reformed prostitute’ is far more interesting than a basically nondescript woman. Which is why, I guess, this image of her has persisted into Hollywood etc., despite the fact that the movie producers must have had technical advisers who were well aware of the truth.
“… for particularly strict Jews of the first century, a “sinful” woman could be someone who ground her grain on the sabbath or who ate a bit of shrimp cocktail — for this would be someone who did not assiduously observe the law of Moses.”
Would a man be called a “sinful man” if he didn’t strictly follow the law of Moses?
Oh yes. That’s who the “sinners” are principally. People, men and women, who don’t bother to keep Torah.
“by the way — if she was caught, where’s the man she was caught with? The Jewish law condemns them both, not just the woman, to death!)”
When the person added this story, why did they only mention the woman and not the man?
Yup, that’s the problem. It’s usually thought that a) it shows the story isn’t historical; b) the author wanted to blame the woman, not the man; and c) that he was writing with a patriarchal bias.
Thank you, Prof. Ehrman.
I’m a (very) lapsed Catholic who grew up in a world of colorful religious iconography in sculptures and paintings. Many were gory and frightening, but easily understood. Evil people (pagans) persecuted good people (Christians) in horrible ways and for some reason it was considered good for children to know that.
( Of course nothing was said about persecution going in the other direction).
But the image of Mary Magdalene really puzzled me. Why was a beautiful mostly naked lady on display in the religious art of a church that is so sex-negative?
Now I know!
You stated twice that Mary Magdalene was “ from” Magdala. Doesn’t the text say that she is Mary “called” “the Magdala?
Joan Taylor published a paper pointing out that Magdala (Migdol) meant tower. So just like Peter was referred to as “Peter the rock” , couldn’t it be possible that she was called “Mary the Tower”?
That’s certainly Joan’s understanding! The Greek of Luke 8:2 calls her “Mary, who is called the Magdalene.” The meaning is debated.
The Aramaic word “magadala” does mean “tower.” It is usually thought to refer to the town on the Sea of Galilee named after its most prominent feature its tower, “Magdala.” I should note that my arachaeologist collegue (also a friend of Joan’s!) Jodi Magness, still thinks the identifier means “from Magdala,” so that it’s identifying this Mary by her place of origin/residence, as hpapens in a variety of ways in ancient naming practices (They have recently uncovered a first century synatogue in Magdala!) If that’s right, than instead of being like “Peter the Rock” it would be more like “Jesus, the Nazarene” (meaning “from Nazareth). I’m open to either interpretation.!
These posts got me to wondering if prostitution is considered to be a sin (either in the law of Moses, the teachings of Jesus, Paul’s epistles, or anywhere else in the biblical writings). A web search says that the law of Moses only prohibited temple prostitutes and gifts from prostitutes. And my searches found nothing in the New Testament explicitly calling it a sin or prohibiting it. But maybe I missed something. Obviously, any prostitution that involved adultery would be sinful and prohibited. To your knowledge, is prostitution said to be a sin or is it prohibited anywhere in the biblical writings?
The word for sexual immorality in Greek is PORNEIA which is obviously related to the word “pornography” (literally, “a writing describing sexual immorality”). I suppose the closest thing to an actual prohibition of prostitution pre se would be Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 6.
Thanks, I missed that in the searching I did last Monday.
I find interesting this comment from the Pope: “…we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?”
So he, and others, considered the ‘seven devils’ as a symbolic metaphor rather than as a literal reference. Otherwise the number could be 5, 24, 3, etc. Yet, he and others consider as real the writing, i.e. gospel in which the story is related.
If the number of devils are representative vices, then also the entire gospel can be considered as a metaphorical story, not actual events. I’m even open to a mixture of actual and symbolic stories presented for specific reasons, which would conclude that the gospel is not really history.