Posted on 02/28/2004 10:06:23 AM PST by presidio9
For a provocative look at the emergence of Christianity two millenniums ago, skip Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and examine instead some of the fascinating recent scholarship on the early church.
Interest in the early church has blossomed because of "Passion" and the "Da Vinci Code" thriller. But "Passion" and especially "The Da Vinci Code" take great liberties with history, while serious research has gotten much less attention.
Consider the newly published "Gospel of Mary of Magdala." It offers a new translation by Karen King, a Harvard Divinity School professor, of the obscure Gospel of Mary, which was lost for 1,500 years before two fragmentary versions were found.
The Gospel of Mary offers a proto-feminist recounting of a scene in which the resurrected Jesus tells the disciples to preach, and then leaves them. The disciples are emotional and tearful — until Mary Magdalene takes charge and bucks them up.
"Do not weep and be distressed," she tells them, and, sure enough, they pull themselves together. Then Mary begins to relate Jesus' private teachings to her, saying, "I will teach you about what is hidden from you."
But the disciples rebel at being instructed by a woman. Andrew and Peter virtually accuse Mary of making it all up, and she starts crying. Levi intercedes, scolding: "Peter, you have always been a wrathful person. . . . Assuredly, the Savior's knowledge of her is completely reliable. That is why he loved her more than us."
Bibles, like history, are written by the winners. There were innumerable early gospels and teachings (some 85 percent of Christian literature from the first two centuries has been lost). Some won approval and entered the New Testament, and the rest were condemned as heresies or died out on their own. The Gnostic Gospels and other early writings suggest that initially the role of women was hotly debated, but ultimately the idea prevailed that men should dominate.
"God's pattern is for men to be the leaders, both in the church and in the family," Pat Robertson writes in his best-selling book "Bring It On." He cites I Timothy: "Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them."
Likewise, Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak."
That view is hard to square, though, with other accounts that portray Mary Magdalene as a favorite of Jesus'. The "Pistis Sophia" scripture quotes Jesus as telling Mary Magdalene: "You are she whose heart is more directed to the Kingdom of Heaven than all your brothers."
And the Gospel of Philip says of Mary Magdalene: "She is the one the Savior loved more than all the disciples, and he used to kiss her on her mouth often. . . . The rest of the disciples . . . said to him, `Why do you love her more than us?' "
These gospels aren't necessarily suggesting a romance between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and in any case their value is much debated — traditionalists argue that they are prized to make ideological points rather than to clarify history. The Gospel of Mary was written in her name but not by her, and apparently was written in the early second century, long after the events it describes.
Still, the dispute over the role of women can be seen raging in many early Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas even quotes Simon Peter as saying, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Susan Haskins, in her history of the idea of Mary Magdalene, says that egalitarian principles in the New Testament initially prevailed in the first-century Christian community. But then, she writes, Christianity gradually returned to the traditional patriarchal system of Judaism.
That suppression of female leadership may be behind the labeling of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, starting with a sermon by Pope Gregory the Great in 591. And recent scholarship has established that Junius, whom Paul calls "distinguished among the apostles," was actually Junia, a woman whose name was made masculine by later translators.
How should we regard these alternative versions of Biblical events? They are a reminder that there were competing strains in the early Christian church, and that different outcomes were possible. My guess is that the ordination of women would not have been controversial if Mary Magdalene, rather than St. Peter, had emerged as the first pope.
Mary of Magdalene was probably not the woman saved from stoning, but had demons driven from her by Jesus.
She likely was not the woman who poured valuable perfumes on Jesus' feet, and washed them with her tears and long hair.
But she was the first human to bear the "Good News" of Jesus' resurrection after the stone was rolled away, and she met "the Stranger" on the road. "Go and tell them I am risen." Hard to argue with an ordination like that, no matter what Paul had to say later.
The New Testament is filled with encounters between Jesus and women, remarkable for an age that discounted women altogether. "Thank you, God, for not making me a slave, a Gentile, or a woman," was a traditional prayer of the Jew of this age.
But Jesus had many conversations with women, women who were often impudent and pushy. One was even a Gentile (or half-Gentile) who asked Jesus for a blessing, and he rebuked her for wanting what was ordained for the table of "the children"--meaning the Chosen children of God, the Jews. She pointed out that even the dogs got to get the crumbs that fell from the table, and Jesus granted her blessing.
And there was the woman with ammenorhea who touched Jesus' garment, the Woman at the Well who mocked him, but was blessed.
Catholic tradition likes to put these characters together into one very interesting woman, but that discounts the interesting fact that there were so MANY woman, many incoveniently named Mary.
CLANG CLANG CLANG
False and speculative religious teaching with hidden agenda alert!
Harvard Divinity School professor is translated into common English as profound heretic. The Holy Spirit slid these stupid apocryphal fallacies into oblivion, when Church councils discarded them as false, by the end of the sixth century A.D.
For two reasons, that this drivel was authored by a pseudoscholar at Harvard, and is cited in the liberofascist journal New York Times, true intellectuals may disregard these speculations as a waste of time.
For example Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy, and whoever the New York Times likes to quote.
For feminists to dissect the time of Jesus as the beginning of the Feminazi thinking is ludicrous.
Women of that culture had, still have diminished roles to play and did not dare cross them.IMO
The penalty was death and in some places still is.
The entire premise is way off base.
Assuming that I read this garbage correctly! LOL!
That is not an ordination. It is an order, or a request, but to call it an ordination is simply facile ignorance.
Jesus elevated women to a new status, especially since His mother was preserved from Original Sin, since she was to be the Christ-bearer, the Ark of the New Covnenant. Women were shown to have greater courage than the Apostles: they were with Jesus as He died. But they also would not have been identified as a threat to the state, to the Sanhendrin, as men were. The danger posed to them was less than that suffered by men.
Judaism itself held women in higher esteem than other adjacent cultures. At the time of Christ, Judaism tolerated only monogamy, for example. Women could enter contracts, conduct trade, and own property, as evidenced by archeological finds in the Holy Land. You claim that a common prayer of men thanked God for making them not slaves or women sounds like feminist theological urban legend more than anything else.
Regards.
Right, but the liberals don't really like getting into that, because it forces them to say mean things about the Religion of Peace, and that would be insensitive.
You see Madeline portrayed in artwork with her little bottle of ointment and long beautiful hair --but this was probably not Madeline, but another unnamed woman.
Madeline was not a prostitute, but had demons driven from her.
The adulterous woman saved from stoning is not named.
The Woman at the Well is also not named.
My favorite Mary is the one who "chose the better part" while Martha (of Stewart) is busily hustling hors d'oerves. Mary sits at Jesus' feet with the other apostles and asks impertinent questions to Jesus' full approval --"Leave her alone.". She's the one who cries to Jesus about Lazarus' death, too. "He's not dead, but only sleepeth."
It would have helped if one name had not been so popular--"Mara" the "bitter one."
The two are jointly described as Paul's relatives and fellow-prisoners, and as "eminent" or "noted" among the apostles, and as having been in Christ before Paul was. The same word (episemos can also mean "notorious," as when used of Barabbas in Matthew 27.16). Altogether 26 people are mentioned by name, including one other relative of Paul's (Herodion); at least 6 of the others are women.
we were deep into the scriptures last night, as my youngest boy, 18 and his friend returned from seeing the film.
We came across the penalties for homosexuality as well.(death)
But I digress...............
To which my theological superiors would inevitably reply "And PAUL said *B*"
re: At the time of Christ, Judaism tolerated only monogamy, for example.))
Really? I wonder why it was necessary, then, to specify that a diacon must be the "husband of one wife"--I mean, shouldn't that have gone without saying?
If Jesus says, "Go and tell them that I am risen," to Mary of Magdalene, it's far too good for me, at least, to argue with. He had his choice who would first bear his message, and he rewarded a faithful messenger with a clear high honor.
Oh yeah. Too damn bad for the NYT and all the other media that tried their damnedest to trash Mel and his film. It's such a raging success they are left to carp about "inaccuracies" as though they're Biblical scholars and/or true believers.
To them, the word "God" is followed by "dammit" and "Jesus Christ" is just another term for showing digust.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.