Scholars seek to correct Christian tradition on Mary Magdalene

Catholic News Service ^ | May 1, 2006 | Jerry Filteau

[NYer]

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The fanciful fictions about Mary Magdalene in Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" are not the only errors about the biblical saint that modern scholars are seeking to correct.

They are also trying to set straight centuries of erroneous Christian tradition regarding her that developed, especially in the West.

In A.D. 591 Pope St. Gregory the Great preached a sermon in which he identified as one person the New Testament figures of Mary Magdalene, the sinful woman who anointed Jesus' feet and washed them with her tears, and the Mary who was the sister of Lazarus and Martha of Bethany.

Although he was only reflecting a tradition that had gained some ground in the West (and was resisted by many of the church's early theologians), the sermon became a reference point for later scholarship, teaching and preaching in the West, Father Raymond F. Collins, a New Testament scholar at The Catholic University of America, said in an interview.

The Greek Fathers -- the great theologians of the early church in the East, who wrote in Greek -- consistently maintained that Mary Magdalene, the unnamed repentant sinner and Mary of Bethany were three distinct women. That remains the tradition in the Orthodox churches.

The identification of Mary Magdalene as a repentant sinful woman was solidified in the Latin Church for centuries by the use of that story, reported in the seventh chapter of Luke, as the Gospel reading for Mary Magdalene's feast, July 22. In fact, in the Roman Calendar before the Second Vatican Council, the day was called the feast of "Mary Magdalene, penitent."

Father Collins noted that this changed in 1969 with the reform of the Roman Missal and the Roman Calendar. Since then the Gospel reading for Mary Magdalene's feast has been Chapter 20, verses 1-2 and 11-18, of the Gospel of John.

The first two verses tell of her coming to Jesus' tomb early Sunday morning, finding it empty and running to tell Peter and John that someone has removed Jesus' body. The second part of the reading tells of Mary staying behind, weeping, after Peter and John leave, and the risen Jesus speaking to her and telling her to announce to the rest of his followers, "I have seen the Lord."

Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson, a theologian at Fordham University and a Sister of St. Joseph, said the version of Mary Magdalene as "the prostitute to whom Jesus forgave much and who loved him ... took on a profound Christian ideal of a sinner who repents and therefore is a model for Christians in that way. But what got lost in the process was her actual role as a leader of witnessing to the Resurrection in the early church."

Of the repentant prostitute version of the Magdalene, she said, "What a lot of us who've done some work on her say is ... it's a wrong one and in the process it's robbing us of (appreciation of) women's leadership at a crucial moment in the early church. In other words, in a way it's easier ... to deal with her as a repentant sinner than as she emerges in the Gospels in her own right."

So who is the real Mary Magdalene? Father Collins, who wrote the "Mary Magdalene" article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, told Catholic News Service, "Luke describes Mary Magdalene as a woman from whom Jesus cast out seven demons, and that characterization of Mary Magdalene is repeated in the longer canonical ending of Mark's Gospel."

But he noted that in Jesus' time it was not uncommon to attribute physical or mental afflictions to demonic possession and this did not imply that the possessed person was sinful. "Whatever affected Mary Magdalene was considered to be the effect of demonic possession so she would not have been considered a public sinner the way the medieval legends have made her out to be," he said.

He said she is called the Magdalene because she comes from Magdala, "a fishing village up in northern Galilee."

He said one also learns from Luke "that she supported Jesus from her resources," suggesting that she was a woman of some means, and that she was one of several women from Galilee who were disciples of Jesus and followed him.

Luke's Gospel is the only one that mentions Mary Magdalene by name in the narration of Jesus' public ministry. But all four Gospel writers place her as a witness to Jesus' death on the cross, a witness to his burial and the chief witness to his resurrection, making her one of the most significant female figures in the Gospels apart from Jesus' own mother, Mary.

Sister Elizabeth said that when one looks at the Magdalene's biblical role as the one the risen Christ appears to and commissions to announce the good news to the others it has "many implications for how we tell the story of the origins of the church. There is the typical story of where Jesus chose the Twelve and put Peter in charge and the women, you know, were accessories. When you put Mary Magdalene into the picture, you can't tell the story that way so simply anymore."

When asked for her own view of what that should mean for the church today, she said, "I would draw the implication that if the risen Christ saw fit to ask a woman to go and preach the good news of his resurrection, the church should do no less nowadays."

[danalaina]

Quote from Ptaz:
"I think what worries me about articles like this and books like the DaVinci Code is that people who are too lazy to study and learn the truth for themselves are tempted to believe such bunk."

The people too lazy to try to learn the truth for themselves aren't likely to have been much of a credit to the cause anyhow. I'm speaking, of course, of any (perhaps wavering or weakened) christians who read TDVC and are somehow miraculously converted to believe in its words more strongly than in the bible or church. It sort of begs the question, though, do you think that this sort of person is correct in believing the bible, the RCC, or any other authority without question? It's logical to expect that the type of person who would accept the one on faith alone would do the same for the other, and that strikes me as laziness too - no matter how many authorities are shouting it.

[AlaninSA]

"Mary was just another sinner in need of Jesus."

"If she was so "sinless" then she wouldn't have need Jesus too. As best I know, Jesus is the ONLY sinless person that ever walked the earth."

---

Wow...so aggressively anti-Catholic that you don't even bother to know whom you're posting about...

Impressive.

[Ptaz]

We have lazy people who believe slanted truths every day and it's almost by osmosis. Just look at the slanted reporting of the evening news. It's so slanted sometimes it's almost a work of fiction and look how polarized it's made this country.

[af_vet_rr]

My point was, we are not reading it in the original languages it was written. The phrase "lost in translation" is very apt, as when you read a translation, you lose little bits of information here and there. It may not seem important, but anybody who speaks two or more languages can tell you that it can add up to quite a bit.

[A.J.Armitage]

we are reading a translation of a translation of a translation

Why do you insist on expounding your views even though you don't know what you're talking about?

[af_vet_rr]

Why do you insist on expounding your views even though you don't know what you're talking about?

Why do you insist on attacking me, rather than the issue I brought up? I know that mentally, it's far easier to attack someone than to try to pick apart their argument, but I've read some of your other posts, and you seem like a fairly intelligent individual capable of an intelligent response.

I will apologize because I did not go into detail about why I thought a major issue was translation, and I will do so now.

In my intial post in this thread, I should have asked the question how much of the view that we have of Mary Magdalene and/or Mary of Bethany is based on what's been passed down, and how much of that is based upon what we read as opposed to others who read the Bible in a different language (i.e. you read it in Greek, I read it in English, we both take away a fairly similar overall meaning, although along the way you may see two individuals or three where I see one or two).

If I've been taught a certain thing, and then I read something that was written almost 400 years ago (interesting to think that we are about to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the KJV) and it contains words and phrases I don't use everyday, or that have changed in meaning slightly since the 1600s, chances are I'm going to comprehend it in a certain way. If there is a named individual and an unnamed individual, and I've been taught that both are one and the same, when I read about them, my mind is going to see the same person.

If I read it in another language, such as Greek, and it's very clear they are distinct individuals, or I have not been taught they are the same individual, then I'm liable to believe they are distinct individuals, such as what the Greek Fathers and the Orthodox see and believe.

Why is that? Language has to play a part of that at some point, seeing as how they are very adamant that there were three different women, whereas those in the West were taught and read something slightly different - while the Textus Receptus may have been in Greek and maybe considered a solid foundation, at some point we've had some meaningingful information changed, even if only slightly.

It's very easy to put the bulk of the criticism for the debate on St. Gregory the Great, or rather those who followed him, but at some point you also have to consider the fact that while the New Testament in the KJV was based on the Textus Receptus, it was also written to "flow" very well. Putting aside the religious aspect, the KJV is a beautifully written book, and to accomplish that, it's probably safe to assume that certain words/phrases were subtly altered to fit better.

I have a tendency to question things like this, because during my life, I've read a lot of translated information in two different ways - I've seen raw translations, I guess nowadays the closest equivalent would be one of the Babelfish/Language sites where you can translate from one language to another. I've also read the information after it's been "massaged" into a more readable format, and I've seen the problems that can crop up between a raw translation and a human-readable translation.

The article brings up some interesting points, however one thing did disappoint me - they left out Hippolitus, who associated Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany many years before St. Gregory the Great (although St. Gregory the Great's sermon was more influential in combing the two or three women into one).

[A.J.Armitage]

Uh huh.

1) There are lots of translations other than the King James.

2) The King James and all other translations except a few Catholic ones are translations from the original languages, not translations of translations of (however many "of a translation" you erroneously listed).

[af_vet_rr]

1) There are lots of translations other than the King James.

Very much true, but in this instance they are discussing Greek and Greek Orthodox views/interpretations in the East as opposed to those views/intrepetations in the West (most people in the West refer to either the KJV or the NIV). They specifically point out: "the great theologians of the early church in the East, who wrote in Greek".

2) The King James and all other translations except a few Catholic ones are translations from the original languages, not translations of translations of (however many "of a translation" you erroneously listed).

As I said in #26, I phrased my point poorly.

My point is/was, and you make this point for me, is that we are reading translations, and there was interpretation done to make these translations fit the writing style of the era, i.e. as well as to be easily understood by the intended audience.

Putting aside the beliefs that arose or were taught after St. Gregory the Great's sermon, and really Hippolitus as well, and that may or may or may not have influenced the Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and English scholars/translators of that time, there is still the issue of the language(s) itself.

As I said, I think it's very important to understand why the Greeks feel that we are discussing three seperate women, and why some in the West feel that we are discussing one or two women at the most.

I tend to take the Greek/Eastern Orthodox view, because I feel they are "closer" to the original versions of the New Testament. Most English versions that I've read and studied were written in a style and form of English that I don't use everyday, and that may have changed in meaning since the 1500s and 1600s, or that I'm predisposed towards interpreting a certain way.

The more "modern" versions, whether it's the NIV or one of the more obscure ones, I also question, because they could differ enough from the KJV to cause me to doubt both.

[A.J.Armitage]

Explain how the English versions make all three look like one woman. I've never seen it in any I've read.

The more "modern" versions, whether it's the NIV or one of the more obscure ones, I also question, because they could differ enough from the KJV to cause me to doubt both.

"Could".

[danalaina]

Ptaz said:
"We have lazy people who believe slanted truths every day and it's almost by osmosis. Just look at the slanted reporting of the evening news. It's so slanted sometimes it's almost a work of fiction and look how polarized it's made this country."

i honestly worry less about left or right leaning media than i do about how pervasive advertising is becoming from what are supposed to be news outlets - it's *really* bad here in SoCal. i can tolerate just about any sort of opinion, so long as there's thought behind it - even if it challenges what i believe. it's the sort of vapid, vacuous people that you're mentioning of whom i expect next to nothing and tend to receive just that. i'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying about TDVC winning such converts...the next shiny new conspiracy theory will be along soon enough to turn their attention.

[Ptaz]

There's always another crazy conspiracy theory. I have a hobby of collecting conspiracy theories because it makes me laugh. It took me a long time to get to the point where I was basically secure in what I believed enough to not feel threatened when it was challenged, but I do welcome the challenge and then I can choose whether or not to feel if the debate is worth my energies. Most of the time it's not. The latest conspiracy theory that makes me giggle is that the anti-christ is supposed to be revealed on 6/6/06. I think it's just marketing for the remake of THE OMEN.