I just read The Da Vinci Code and found it to be a very interesting read, but I heard that there were large historical inaccuracies in it. Since Hatrack has a pretty intelligent crowd, I wondered if any of you guys know what any of those are.
P.S. I am outraged that NBC put the Princess Diana videos on in place of ER. That has nothing to do with anything, but I'm still outraged.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I believe Annie had a lot of comments on this book. I just thought it was good, trashy fun. (The book, not Annie)
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Haha... But trashy? Why trashy? I've heard the Mary Magdalene theory before, along with some of the societies. What I really want to know, is that part about having "selected" the gospels accurate?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I believe Morbo provided some pretty good links here. BTW, where is he? I miss him. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Links to the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdelene, etc
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I remember at the start of the book I thought it was pretty cheesy, especially how he kept establishing how attractive Langdon was. But then when the idea of the grail came into the picture I just ignored everything and read like a fanatic. I'm addicted to grail stuff. The Magdalene theory was one I had heard, but it was pretty neat how he kinda tied it all together. The Golden Bough is one of my favorite books.
But some of the people on the other thread keep insisting that I'm a lowbrow, unintelligent chump, apparently. If there are historical innacuracies, I actually want to know what they are.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Morbo is busy working, having one of those "life" things, and last I heard, no longer had web access at home. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
[ March 05, 2004, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Hmm... Which counterpoints are those?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I hope Morbo is doing something he loves. He is such a bright guy, any employer would be lucky to have him. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Agreed.
Hobbes Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
From the Greely piece:
quote:Nor can I imagine the Vatican picking up the tab for serial killings. As usual in such stories, the Roman curia is pictured as smooth, sophisticated schemers who will stop at nothing to preserve the power of the church.
Either this guy doesn't know his pre-20th-century history, or this was a joke. It's easily imaginable, just not bloody likely in modern times with much more sophisticated methods. I understand that's what he meant, but lines like the above just crack me up.
I wish I could help you with the historical relevance of the book, but I've not read it, and it sounds more like a specific history of some fringe Catholic groups' stories, which have a "take with a grain of salt" aspect on all but accounts of actual people (and be careful which people are 'actual' or not). That said, the Catholic church is the best source for historical info of the late Roman / Byzantine / early Dark Ages era. I just don't know about what you're looking for in specific.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I forgot to post it in the other thread so I'm doing it here in hopes that you read it John. You rock!
Hobbes Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
From the Miesel article:
quote:He requires the present New Testament to be a post-Constantinian fabrication that displaced true accounts now represented only by surviving Gnostic texts..... For Brown, it isn’t enough to credit Constantine with the divinization of Jesus. The emperor’s old adherence to the cult of the Invincible Sun also meant repackaging sun worship as the new faith.
OK, these are the two things I'm most interested in. Is there any reliable evidence to back up Brown's claim that:
1. Constantine edited and selected the versions of gospels he agreed with and sought to destroy the rest.
2. Constantine embedded several aspects of paganism into Christianity in order to make the religion appealing to the people.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:1. Constantine edited and selected the versions of gospels he agreed with and sought to destroy the rest.
No, he converted on his deathbed.
quote:2. Constantine embedded several aspects of paganism into Christianity in order to make the religion appealing to the people.
What day is holy to Christians? Sunday. Want to guess what Constantine worshipped before converting? One can also point out the the "lowercase T" cross came from Constantine, as Romans used crosses in the shape of an "X" or that kinda looked like the pi sign (the former being most popular).
There are others, but it's way late and I don't have them on the top of my head.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Brown uses two Gnostic documents, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, to prove that the Magdalen was Christ’s “companion,” meaning sexual partner. The apostles were jealous that Jesus used to “kiss her on the mouth” and favored her over them. He cites exactly the same passages quoted in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation and even picks up the latter’s reference to The Last Temptation of Christ. What these books neglect to mention is the infamous final verse of the Gospel of Thomas. When Peter sneers that “women are not worthy of Life,” Jesus responds, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male.... For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
That’s certainly an odd way to “honor” one’s spouse or exalt the status of women.
The last comment by Jesus may contradict Brown's assertion that Jesus wanted Mary to lead the church, but it does not contradict the fact that they may have been married.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I thought it was weird how the Davinci Code said that OSC thought the buggers were all gay, black or liberal.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Or gay, black liberals?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Nuke gays and liberals!
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Whew, thanks John! That second question would have bothered me all night.
Any Catholics here care to comment on whether these pagan roots bother them?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Catholics swear that Jesus was 6'3, and that anyone who disputes His physical height as lower or higher than 6'3, is purely evil and a soldier of the devil.
[ March 05, 2004, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: The Silverblue Sun ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
And if he were here, he'd consume you with balls of fire from his eyes...and bolts of lightning from his arse!
... no wait, that's William Wallce.
[ March 05, 2004, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Welcome back Thor.
Hobbes Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
You guys are smart enough to know that no one can ever leave Hatrack.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
While there is plenty of evidence Jesus and Magdelene were married, it's by no means an accepted "truth" among historians (even though more are starting to believe in the high possibility). As for the pagan roots, I don't think there's really a need for modern Christians of any denomination and sect to worry about, because while it shows that there is no "pure" version like the peoples after the resurrection, it does show how flexible and encompassing Christianity really is, and that unlike popular misconception to the contrary, Christianity has changed with the times more than any science has. It's also a good "lesson" on how a successful religion can best stay successful—by uniting people, not just by commanding them. As far as I know, most religious historians tend to take this route when addressing the changes in religious observance throughout history, and I totally agree with that opinion. Looking at it from that perspective, I've gained a great amount of respect, admiration, and a sense of beauty from the growth of different faiths.
The only thing is, I've not been studying Christian history in anything but the most academic of contexts, so I have little particulars on things like what "The DaVinci Code" talks about. I've been getting more interested in Islam, Buddhism, and (more recently) Judaism in terms of history. I do know that there are more sources for Christian—especially Roman Catholic—history than any other faith in the world available for the lay-person.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Those of you interested in a Catholic-type opinion on these types of theories would do well to start with several of the essays from C. S. Lewis's God in the Dock, specifically "Myth Became Fact", and then graduate to G. K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man.
Also, as to the Gospels thing, I'm not sure how this is dealt with in the book in question, but the Christian Canon of Scripture is definitely post-Constantine. It was decided through a series of Ecumenical Councils from the late 300's through most of the 400's A.D. (or C.E. for you hardcore Atheists ).
There are several elements of paganism that have been incorporated into Christianity over the years and it doesn't bother me in the least. If you read my recommended reading here, you'll know why.
I'd be interested in your evidence for Jesus and Mary being married, John L, outside of non-canonical gnostic texts. You kinda make it sound like there's some other body of evidence and, if there is, I'd like to see some of it (and no, I'm not baiting you, I really would be interested in other sources for that idea).
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sorry John I think you are at least wrong on this point.
quote:
quote: 1. Constantine edited and selected the versions of gospels he agreed with and sought to destroy the rest.
quote: About this time Constantine the Great, who was previously a man of no religion, is said to have embraced Christianity, being induced thereto principally by the miracle of a cross appearing to him in the heavens. But this story is liable to much doubt. His first edict in favor of the Christians, and many other things, sufficiently evince that he was indeed at that time well disposed toward the Christians and their worship, but that he by no means regarded Christianity as the only true and saving religion; on the contrary, it appears that he regarded other religions, and among them the old Roman religion, as likewise true and useful to mankind; and he therefore wished all religions to be freely practised throughout the Roman Empire.
But as he advanced in life, Constantine made progress in religious knowledge, and gradually came to regard Christianity as the only true and saving religion, and to consider all others as false and impious. Having learned this, he now began to exhort his subjects to embrace Christianity; and at length he proclaimed war against the ancient superstitions. At what time this change in the views of the Emperor took place, and he began to look upon all religions but the Christian as false, cannot be determined.
This, however, is certain, that the change in his views was first made manifest by his laws and edicts in the year 324, after the death of Licincius, when Constantine became sole emperor. His purpose, however, of abolishing the ancient religion of the Romans, and of tolerating only the Christian religion, he did not disclose till a little before his death, when he published his edicts for pulling down the pagan temples and abolishing the sacrifices.
That the Emperor was sincere, and not a dissembler, in regard to his conversion to Christianity, no person can doubt who believes that men's actions are an index of their real feelings. It is indeed true that Constantine's life was not such as the precepts of Christianity required; and it is also true that he remained a catechumen all his life, and was received to full membership in the Church, by baptism, only a few days before his death, at Nicomedia.
But neither of these is adequate proof that the Emperor had not a general conviction of the truth of the Christian religion, or that he only feigned himself a Christian. For in that age many persons deferred baptism till near the close of life, that they might pass into the other world altogether pure and undefiled with sin; and it is but too notorious that many persons who look upon the Christian religion as indubitably true and of divine origin, yet do not conform their lives to all its holy precepts. It is another question whether worldy motives might not have contributed in some degree to induce Constantine to prefer the Christian religion to the ancient Roman, and to all other religions, and to recommend the observance of it to his subjects. Indeed, it is no improbable conjecture that the Emperor had discernment to see that Christianity possessed great efficacy, and idolatry none at all, to strengthen public authority, and to bind citizens to their duty.
The sign of the cross, which Constantine most solemnly affirmed he saw in the heavens, near midday, is a subject involved in the greatest obscurities and difficulties. It is, however, an easy thing to refute those who regard this prodigy as a cunning fiction of the Emperor, or who rank it among fables; and also those who refer the phenomenon to natural causes, ingeniously conjecturing that the form of a cross appeared in a solar halo, or in the moon; and likewise those who ascribe the transaction to the power of God, who intended by a miracle to confirm the wavering faith of the Emperor. Now these suppositions being rejected, the only conclusion that remains is that Constantine saw, in a dream while asleep, the appearance of a cross, with the inscription, In hoc signo vinces ("By this sign thou shalt conquer"). Nor is this opinion unsupported by competent authorities of good credit.
According to the site this is a translation of:
Conversion Of Constantine: Decline Of Paganism Author: Mosheim, Johann Lorenz Von Conversion of Constantine: Decline Of Paganism
A.D. 300 - 337
[ March 05, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Constantine was baptized on his deathbed, which was a fairly common practice, witht he apparent justification that one would be clean of sins and be sure of getting into heaven.
He converted, as noted above, when given victory under the cross.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, its kind of hard to say he wasn't involved in the interpretation of scriptures when he called the Council of Nicea.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Thanks for the reading suggestions TAK.
quote:It's also a good "lesson" on how a successful religion can best stay successful—by uniting people, not just by commanding them.
That's beautiful John. Instead of seeing the pagan roots as a sign of weakness, you've turned it into a strength for the church. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Hey, welcome back, Thor!
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I don't have web links to back me up, but there is a bit of controversy over whether he converted or not. It's known more surely that his mother converted early on, which contributed not only to his relaxation of anti-Christian laws, but also to his taking in religious advisors and granting political acceptance of Christianity. I believe these things are what is typically confused with actual conversion, since he never took any official actions of conversion (yes, baptism was one of them) until his deathbed. Please note:
quote:That the Emperor was sincere, and not a dissembler, in regard to his conversion to Christianity, no person can doubt who believes that men's actions are an index of their real feelings. It is indeed true that Constantine's life was not such as the precepts of Christianity required; and it is also true that he remained a catechumen all his life, and was received to full membership in the Church, by baptism, only a few days before his death, at Nicomedia.
He didn't make any formal conversion gestures until he was nearly dead, did not live a "Christian" life, and as I already pointed out, actually imposed facets of his sun-worship on the church practices during his rule. It's one thing to cite the "facts" of chronoligical happenstance, but quite another to interpret them into "why" and "how" things happened the way they did. Constantine had a vision and (also), because of his mother's conversion, he legitimized Christianity as a faith in Rome. Other forms of worship were already dying out (mostly in lieu of his own sun-worship), and he did not dismantle those faiths. He had not only Christian advisors, but advisors of his own religion up until his demise. To portray Constantine as a Christian is to grossly understate the actions he took which were decidedly not Christian in nature.
Maybe this summer, I'll put together a more comprehensive, descriptive, and specific essay together for everyone to read, giving far more historical reference and fact regarding this line of thinking. Suffice to say, when looking at more than "this happened then this happened" when viewing the history of Constantine's rule clearly shows the man was not a Christian ruler until he was about to die. You guys just have to promise me that you don't steal what I write for a school thesis, as it'll probably be one I'll use later when I start taking grad-level classes.
Oh, and Beren: that's the whole point. Things don't last for thousands of years being static and unmoving. This is one of the biggest problems I have with some of the less structured atheist arguments against religion.
[ March 05, 2004, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
<coughs politely>
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Oh, crap, dude. I'm sorry. Yeah, there is evidence outside of the gnostic texts, at least in that Mary seemed to be "around" despite the area of real estate that Jesus and the disciples covered over the 3 years. The reason this is significant is that while there were more men than just the disciples who followed Jesus around, there wasn't a distinct circle of members regularly mention in canon, non-canon, nor historic reference besides Jesus, the disciples, and sometimes Mary. Why does she pop up? Why was she mentioned as being there for the Crucifixion? Why did she become a respected member of the early Christian church (very much like a wife of a rabbi... rebbetzin?). In Roman mention of bringing both Marys to see Jesus on the cross, it doesn't mention "wife" specifically, but why bring this woman along with his mother? There's also much theorizing that she was never a whore (though I think most of that comes from the gnostics).
I don't have the names of books off-hand, because I don't own them, but I can ask one of my friends ("Dr. John", history prof.) for some of his reference book names. He already owes me a list of Indus River Valley and North African material.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
yeah... as I recall there are actually three Marys listed at the cross in the canonicals and they all get mixed up in my mind. Mary the wife of Clopas is the third, IIRC.
Thanks for the elaboration.
[ March 05, 2004, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There isn't just theorizing that "she never was a whore," there's absolutely nothing in the gospels or the earliest traditions that suggest she ever was. Later traditions started to assiciate her with the "woman caught in adultery" (and thank you so much, Mel Gibson, for perpetuating that bit of rubbish) or assume she was a prostitute.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
The only thing I can remember in the Gospels is a reference to "seven demons" being driven out of her... but yes I've heard the theory that she was the woman caught in adultery or that she was the woman who was washing Jesus's feet with her hair at the Pharisee's table...
[ March 05, 2004, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I thought there was a sermon preached somewhere in the distant past that led to that misbelief.
Is is possible that Mary was more like one of the disciples, but was not acknowledged as such in the Gospels?
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I found Mary Magdelene in the Passion to be sorta........ er, distracting.
If the marriage thing is true, all I have to say is "Go, Jesus! Score!"
Now that I've greatly lowered the average intelligence of this thread, we can all continue.
[ March 05, 2004, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Well, if Jesus is suppose to experience all the pain and suffering of a mortal human being, his experience would not be complete if he were not married.
quote:"Blood, pain, sacrifice, anguish, and death." "Sounds like marriage all right." "How would you know?" -- Worf, Bashir, and O'Brien
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I got curious about it and actually started reading the Bible in church one day and there are two different instances of Jesus being annointed by a woman who also kisses his feet and rubs them with her hair. One is Mary, the sister of Martha (who had the seven devils cast out of her, I think). The other is a woman taken in adultery. I'm still studying the gospels a bit, they are not easy to figure at a glance. One event happened with the apostles, I think the other happened in a different setting.
I don't know if said adultress is the same one who was nearly stoned when Jesus said "He who is without sin..."
Also, at one of the annointings, Judas Iscariot complained that the ointment would be better sold so the money could be given to the poor, but the author of the gospel felt Judas actually planned to embezzle the money.
So is Mary Magdalene the same as Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus? I thought so, but I'm not sure.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
I'm pretty sure she *is* the sister of Martha and Lazarus, yes.
as for this:
quote:I found Mary Magdelene in the Passion to be sorta........ er, distracting.
that's probably because she was played by Ralphie...
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Smooth.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
*bows*
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Dana, I agree totally. I wonder, do you have any books or essays you know of that explain it further? I'd love to get copies.
T.A.K., I don't recall it being at the pharisees' table. I believe it was when Jesus was convening (or eating or resting) with the disciples when it happened.
pooka:
quote:Also, at one of the annointings, Judas Iscariot complained that the ointment would be better sold so the money could be given to the poor, but the author of the gospel felt Judas actually planned to embezzle the money.
While that's certainly one way to interpret the instance, there is no solid proof that Iscariot embezzled a thing from the ministry, and historical reckoning actually puts the guy in the position of trying to gain Jesus' legitimacy, and his attempts going horribly wrong, and (wrongfully) interpreted as outright betrayal. Remember: he threw the 30 silver coins (a month's wages then) back in the faces of the pharisees who paid him once he learned of their plans for him. The Discovery Channel recently had a good program discussing this very thing.
Zan:
quote:I thought there was a sermon preached somewhere in the distant past that led to that misbelief.
That could be the change in the Catholic church around 1000 AD, when priestly marriage was finally banned (they couldn't afford to support the relatives children of the priests any more).
quote:Is is possible that Mary was more like one of the disciples, but was not acknowledged as such in the Gospels?
Very much so. She was, as I already pointed out, highly regarded after the resurrection, much like the wife of a rabbi (which would make her a similar spiritual "authority"). It's mostly because of things like this that it's believed she was married to Jesus, who was always called "teacher" (or, in proper language of the time, rabbi) by his disciples.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
pooka, T.A.K., -- negative, Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala are two separate people.
John, the only title that I can think of off the top of my head is To Love Delilah: Reclaiming the Women of the Bible but that’s not exactly a scholarly work. I’ll look when I get home tonight (or maybe tomorrow) and see if I can’t come up with a better reference.
Mary Magdalene was the first evangelist. She was commissioned by Jesus to “go and tell” after the resurrection.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
On The Da Vinci Code? There isn't one. The church rarely, rarely takes a position on specific items in pop culture.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm... good question. I know there are Mormons on this board that have researched it more than I have. I'd be interested in the answer as well.
[ March 08, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
OSC-fan, you're not LDS? I thought you were at least pretending to be. They are considered useful but not authoritative. There is actually a series of lectures on the DaVinci Code going on. Or maybe there was only the one. In the paper it said they had to turn away scads of people.
I'm not sure what the attraction is, personally. (of the DaVinci Code for LDS readers). Maybe it's just to have some semi-exciting fiction they don't have to feel guilty about. Or don't think they do. Or something.
quote: March 11
The second in a series of lectures on "The Da Vinci Code: Mystery, Metaphor and Meaning, LDS Perspectives on the 'Da Vinci Code' " will be held at 7 p.m. in the Lied Gallery level three, at the Brigham Young University Museum of Art on campus. Tonight's lecture is " 'The Da Vinci Code': Separating Fact From Fiction." The event is free and open to the public.
I saw a lecture about the Dead Sea Scrolls by a professor on the international translation team last Education Week. I think he said they are considered like the Apocrypha.
[ March 08, 2004, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: The mix-up was made official by Pope Gregory the Great in 591: "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary [of Bethany], we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark," Gregory declared in a sermon. That position became church teaching, although it was not adopted by Orthodoxy or Protestantism when each later split from Catholicism.
quote:Three decades ago, the Roman Catholic Church quietly admitted what critics had been saying for centuries: Magdalene's standard image as a reformed prostitute is not supported by the text of the Bible.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
OSC-fan, I do not believe you are actually LDS.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Also remember that celibacy was unusual in ancient Judaism.
"Unusual" is not nearly strong enough.
kat, I'm glad you and pooka have stated your doubts -- I didn't feel comfortable making that comment.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the Masons and the LDS church claim to have gotten their ceremonies from the same source. Why is this surprising? Also the Greek Orthodox Baptism, the Muslim Masjid, Catholic Ordination, and the Ancient Egyptian embalming have similarities. At least in my observation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I stand by my opinion.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
OSC fan, we don't believe in prophetic infallibity. That is, prophets are free to give their opinions without it all be considered "doctrine."
Many people have guessed that you are Lalo. Would you be willing to affirm that you are not?
Edit: I will go on record as saying that I am not Lalo.
[ March 08, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Wow--"It wasn't a secret" and "Freemasons" were used in the same sentence. NOw that is rare.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ced?
(You know I have to ask.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Joseph Smith was the head of a Masonic Lodge in Nauvoo. I believe this is in the church history textbook, so not even close to a secret.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah, going on the defensive. Yep. Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
I haven't read The Da Vinci Code, but I have read a lot of criticism of it. It is a work of fiction, isn't it? Does the author anywhere claim that any of his "conspiracy theories" are in any way factual? If not, I think some of the heat he's taken has been a little out of hand. Now, on the other hand, I have talked (briefly) to some people who have read the book who seem to think that what he's written is entirely factual. Why would they think that?
I doubt I'll ever read the book -- everything I've ever read in this vein after having discovered Umberto Eco has been a total disappointment.
I would like to comment on one point, however...
John L:
quote:Yeah, there is evidence outside of the gnostic texts, at least in that Mary seemed to be "around" despite the area of real estate that Jesus and the disciples covered over the 3 years.
The "area of real estate" is actually not all that large. Granted, means of transportation were a bit slower, but it really wasn't that much area. One of the things that quite literally shocked me was standing in Jerusalem and being able to see the spot of ancient Bethlehem. I don't think one grasps a clear picture of the area just reading the Gospels, or the whole Bible, or even other historical sources -- at least I didn't.
quote:Why does she pop up? Why was she mentioned as being there for the Crucifixion? Why did she become a respected member of the early Christian church (very much like a wife of a rabbi... rebbetzin?). In Roman mention of bringing both Marys to see Jesus on the cross, it doesn't mention "wife" specifically, but why bring this woman along with his mother?
This, I think, is a much better point with which to make an argument that she may have been important on a personal or familial level to Jesus. Of course, in my limited reading on the subject of the "historical Jesus," which has consisted mainly of Jesus Seminar Fellows Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, the idea that she was his wife hasn't been taken seriously or just isn't mentioned at all.
quote:The fascination with Magdalene has a long and rich history of its own. Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, a cultural historian at Georgetown University, curated an exhibit last year of Magdalene portraits at the American Bible Society in New York. “She’s gone through conflations and misinterpretations and reinterpretations and retrievals,” she says. “I’ve seen her represented in every medium of art through every Christian period—as the witness to the Resurrection, the seductive temptress, the haggard desert mother signifying penitence, the beautiful woman reborn signifying new life.” But for most people, the image that sticks is the rehabilitated prostitute. Scholars blame Pope Gregory the Great for her bad rep; in A.D. 591, he gave a sermon in which he apparently combined several Biblical women into one, including Magdalene and an unnamed sinner who anoints Jesus’ feet. Although the Vatican officially overruled Gregory in 1969, the image stuck until quite recently. “It became a snowball that grew and grew until her name in legend and art history evoked the whore,” says Jane Schaberg, professor of religious studies at the University of Detroit Mercy and author of “The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene.”
Part of the problem may stem from what scholars have called “the muddle of the Marys.” There are a lot of women named Mary in the New Testament, and it’s not always clear which is which.
But some scholars also think mary Magdalene was defamed because she was a threat to male control of the church. As the “Apostle to the Apostles”—the first to encounter the risen Christ and to take the news to Peter and the other male Apostles—she was clearly more than just an ordinary follower. In several Gnostic Gospels—written by Christians whose alternative views of Jesus were eventually suppressed as heresy—Mary Magdalene rivals Peter for the leadership of the early church because of her superior understanding of Jesus’ teaching. The Gospel of Philip, for example, describes her as Jesus’ close companion whom he often “used to kiss.” Karen King of Harvard Divinity School, author of “The Gospel of Mary of Magdala” and a leading authority on women’s roles in the early church, sees her as a target of jealousy because she threatened Peter’s status. By transforming her into a reformed whore, King believes, the church fathers “killed the argument for women’s leadership”—and for recognizing women as fit recipients of divine revelation. King says the transformation also created a powerful symbol of the prostitute as redeemed sinner, the female version of the Prodigal Son. If Jesus could accept her, he could accept anyone.
In “The Da Vinci Code,” Brown suggests that she still had one more hold on Jesus—as his wife. That theory has been circulating for centuries. Some historians think it is possible because Jewish men of that era were almost always married, but many others dismiss that reasoning. Some argue that Jesus wasn’t conventional in any other sense, so why would he feel the need to be married? Others say that relegating her to the role of wife is belittling. “Let’s not continue the relentless denigration of Mary Magdalene by reducing her only importance to a sexual connection with Jesus,” says John Dominic Crossan, professor emeritus of religious studies at DePaul University in Chicago. “She’s not important because she was Mrs. Jesus. That’s like saying Hillary Rodham Clinton is only important because she’s married to Bill Clinton. Both women are important in their own right.”
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Zan, thanks for the info.
Godric, while that except you quoted is all well and good, it ignores what I pointed out about 1) Magdelene (and Mary the mother) being the first Jesus is reported to have visited after the Resurrection, and 2) that Magdelene was regarded by the early Christian Church (before "Roman Catholic" was even an idea, and before Paul took over) as a rabbi's wife, especially regarding the gospel (or "good news") of Christ. There are simply too many cultural pointers to her having been at least enamoured of him, if not actually married.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
OSC-fan, you seem to be mixing up some Catholic and Protestant theology, and you're vastly over-simplifying the history and the structure of the RC Church.
Added to which, Constantine convened the Council of Nicea because there were many theological arguments raging at the time and he wanted them settled. I'm no fan of Constantinian Christianity, but to say that he unilaterally changed the doctrine or chose the canon is ridiculous.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I'm with dkw on this one. While Constantine had a great deal of influence, he did not change the doctrine or choose canon. OSC-Fan, you seriously have some mixed-up history here. Can you provide, instead of dropping names, actual excerpts to support your claims? I mean, a simple search of Amazon.com can give me plenty of names of books to drop and claim as my support.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, you said that the Gnostic writings were not included in the Bible because “Constantine elected not to include them in it.”
That is where I’m challenging your version of history.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
What she said.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
John L:
quote:...1) Magdelene (and Mary the mother) being the first Jesus is reported to have visited after the Resurrection...
From Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography by John Dominic Crossan:
quote:Here is what John 20:1-2 and 11-18 does with Mary:
quote:(1) Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stonehad been removed from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.". . .
(2) But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him."
(3)When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looooking for?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbouni!" (which means teacher). Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"; and she told them that he had said these things to her.
Mary gets to give the wrong interpretation of the empty tomb three times: to the disciples, to the angels, and finally to Jesus himself. She does not even recognize Jesus when he appears to her, at least until he addresses her. She is told to announce not the resurrection but the ascension. And if you object that at least she gets to see Jesus, read on to see what John 20 has to say about seeing the risen Jesus rather than, like the Beloved Disciple, believing after seeing only an empty tomb and empty grave cloths.
John 20:29 "29: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
I suppose I should note here that although Crossan does not believe in the resurrection while I, of course do, I do think he makes some valid points through his arguments.
quote:...2) that Magdelene was regarded by the early Christian Church (before "Roman Catholic" was even an idea, and before Paul took over) as a rabbi's wife, especially regarding the gospel (or "good news") of Christ.
I really don't know enough about this specific subject to refute you, but I would like references if you have any. The general impression I get from what I have read is that there are two (probably more if you get technical) trains of thought about how the early church viewed her and neither is "official." Of course, those arguing one side or the other would feel that their side is official, but I'd like to examine all the evidence and make up my own mind.
OSC-fan:
I was going to point out some errors in your statements, but dkw and John have beat me to it.
[ March 09, 2004, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Godric ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, I don’t agree with all the rest. I’d be hard pressed to find anything you’ve said that I agree with.
Since you’ve admitted that you really don’t care about the distinctions between non-LDS denominations, I’ll just ask you to quit mis-characterizing them as a courtesy to those of us who do care.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<still firmly does not believe OSC-fan is LDS, just for the record>
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know what you said. I disagree with the way you're treating dkw, and didn't want her to attach the attitude of not caring or knowing the differences between Protestant denominations to the church instead of to you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Off Topic: I wonder if there's any independent corroboration that I am LDS? I mean, that would be a heck of a scam. I can't think of any.
*thinks* Oh, except I shared a hotel room with Olivia and Jenny. Never mind.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Not to worry, kat. There are more than enough considerate, articulate, and intelligent LDS on this forum to dispel that possibility.
To your second post – it might be a heck of a scam, but what on earth would be the purpose?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm... I don't what the purpose of posing to be LDS when you're not would be. "Heck of a scam" is not really complimentary. *wrinkles nose*
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
OSC-fan:
quote:...and the way I reply to dkw is none of your business, he can take care of himself...
I think Bob has got some explaining to do...
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
When I've heard the theory that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus, this scripture from Matthew 19 came to mind.
quote:3And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" 4He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." 7They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."[1] 10The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." 11But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."
The way I've always interpreted this was to mean that being able to maintain celibacy is a gift from God. Not all men/women are given this gift, so they should marry to keep their sexual needs in the bounds of marriage.
My thought was that if any man was given this gift, Jesus himself was. How could he completely devote himself to God if he also needed to devote himself to a wife and possibly family?
dkw, how do you interpret that passage?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Godric - Which would bring us full circle.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Zgator, I see two possible interpretations of verse 11 – one that “this teaching” refers to the disciples protest that “it is better not to marry,” the other that it refers to Jesus’ earlier statment that to re-marry after a divorce is to commit adultery. The first would imply that celibacy is better, but as few can follow it marriage was permitted; the second would imply that celibacy after a divorce is better, but because few can accept it re-marriage was permitted.
An interesting note from a Jewish scholar – just to create a little cross thread confusion – Phillip Sigal, in The Halakah of Jesus points to this passage as Jesus issuing a ruling against polygamy. If a man is not free to marry another woman because he is already bound to his first wife, then that must mean God permits him only one wife. According to Sigal this is the first example of a rabbinic teacher explicitly ruling out polygamy.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kristine and Kathryn
katharina
[ March 09, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*preens* Why thank you!
Oh. You probably mean Kathryn.
[ March 09, 2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
[ March 09, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Thanks Dana. I hadn't considered the second interpretation before.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well crud! I missed it all.
OSC-fan........ -1
That is the stupidest thing I've ever seen on the Internet, so I'm lowering your score.
[ March 09, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Dana, are you sure you want to be involved with a man who is so obviously deranged?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Well, when I go back and re-read this thread, it looks like I’m talking to myself too, so I guess we’re well matched.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Well, apparently I missed all the fun in this thread. Shucks.
Anyway, someone had named me as a good source of gripes about the DaVinci Code, but unfortunately none of my gripes have to do with historical innacuracies. I hated it for the author's obvious ignorance of art history. It would surprise me if he had read any of the leading art historical research on these topics and, most importantly, "symbology" is a totally made up field.
I never finished the book, though I did get probably halfway through it, and this was more because of its cheap faux-thriller writing style and laughable plot than anything else.
[ March 09, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm not talking to myself. I'm talking to my invisible antagonist!
He's with me always.
Tormenting me...
Slowly!
(and am I a lucky guy or what? dkw is my favorite person in the whole world!) Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Annie is the (wo)MAN
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
*hysterical* Pooka, you are Hobbes in disguise ! AHHHH !!! *runs like mad* Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I killed that thread. I was just jooooking ! Someone ? Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Hobbes in disguise?!? Oooh! where? Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
I recently picked up 2 books by Bart D. Ehrman both about the early Church. They might be of interest to those particularly interested in some of the topics being discussed here. The one I'm currently reading, "Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make it into the New Testament", is a compilation of the nonCanonical gospels.
There's very little extra to it other than the books themselves. At the beginning of each chapter he tells a little bit of historical information about it.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Sarah, can you e-mail me the titles with the authors? They would come in handy for something I'm currently working on.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Anna, that is very, very disturbing.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Umm what is your email? It's not in your profile.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Anyway, someone had named me as a good source of gripes about the DaVinci Code
Hey, that's me.
Although I'm not Hobbes in disguise, I do have lots of fur between my ears. Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Whoops! It's john AT grenme.com Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS, I've written a bit on Dan Brown's blockbuster that completely reconceptualizes the origins of Christianity in the context of a turgid not-very-suspenseful novel. I wrote a snide review of it back in June; a more detailed FAQ on the book's historical howlers this fall, both published in Our Sunday Visitor; and I ranted about it some on my own website.
And so, I get letters. They bear no stickers, because they come via e-mail, but they are indeed the equivalent of the single-spaced, double-sided prayer for my soul. To wit:
quote:Secrets and lies will all come into the light one day. Which side will you be on? Your review of The Da Vinci Code tells me you are on the WRONG side. The Dark Side, as it may be called.
As a women, you should know better in your heart. It's clear someone has poisoned, and controlled your thoughts in this matter. Enough is enough, so think for yourself. OPEN your mind now, while you still can.
. . .
And this one, which I award the prize for Absolutely Most Frightening Letter of 2003:
quote:I recently read your review of The Da Vinci Code and I am writing to inform you that I wholeheartedly disagree with your views. Mr. Brown has done a tremendous amount of research into the earliest history of the Christian church, most of which is easily accessible and is considered fact, by both Christians and non-Christians alike. I am a middle school teacher at a Catholic school, teaching the Old Testament to children between 11 and 12 years of age.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(The book, not Annie)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Kristine and Kathryn![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)