Was Jesus Involved With Mary Magdalene?

[PoshSpur]

Ok, I've read the Da Vinci code (although I knew the theories from before), and have heard from both sides of the spectrum.

But what do you think?

[GringoTex]

Quite possibly. What makes the DaVinci Code ridiculous is not what might have happened between Jesus and Mary- it's the idea that Da Vinci painted Mary instead of John in the Last Supper.

[Norsk Troll]

http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/art/j2k3-15.jpg

You bet I was, dude!

[Chicago1871]

In the three years I followed His ass around Jerusalem, did I ever get laid? Hell no. And I was in my prime. I could've been knee-deep in shepherd's daughters, not to mention fine-ass Mary Magdalene. She had a thing for dark meat, if you follow me.
The Gospel of Rufus.

[Val1]

Ok, I've read the Da Vinci code (although I knew the theories from before), and have heard from both sides of the spectrum.

But what do you think?

In sentences of one word: No.

Haven't read DV Code, but a more interesting, if harder to read, exploration of the theme is Last Temptation of Christ.

[Chicago1871]

There was a show addressing this very issue on, I think, the History channel sometime during the week between Christmas and New Years. It only mentioned the DaVinci Code in passing, but addressed more the villification of Mary by the church and what not. Essentially they couldn't conclusively state that Jesus was or was not involved beyond preaching, with Mary. The biggest issue is the changes in translations or mistranslations over the centuries.

[Norsk Troll]

I think I saw that show, Chicago. It was also discussing some of the non-traditional gospels, if I recall. I found it amusing that the justification for certain church positions, regarding Mary in particular, were based upon portions of those very non-traditional gospels which the same church refuses to recognize as true.

[Chicago1871]

I think I saw that show, Chicago. It was also discussing some of the non-traditional gospels, if I recall. I found it amusing that the justification for certain church positions, regarding Mary in particular, were based upon portions of those very non-traditional gospels which the same church refuses to recognize as true.
I got a kick out of that as well.

[monop_poly]

I got a kick out of that as well.

What I get a kick out of is non-Christians denying any validity to the gospels or Paul's writings but giving creedence to gnostic gospel claptrap and E!-style ideas that Jesus and Mary had a thing goin' on.

[yossarian]

What I get a kick out of is non-Christians denying any validity to the gospels or Paul's writings but giving creedence to gnostic gospel claptrap and E!-style ideas that Jesus and Mary had a thing goin' on.

Do you think it's really that they give credence to those alternative ideas or just point to them as an example of how it's all man-made and only political squabbling decided what ultimately was deemed truth and what was not?

[bojendyk]

What I get a kick out of is non-Christians denying any validity to the gospels or Paul's writings but giving creedence to gnostic gospel claptrap and E!-style ideas that Jesus and Mary had a thing goin' on.

Um, I'm an athiest, and I think all of the above are interesting from a scholarship standpoint.

[Chicago1871]

What I get a kick out of is non-Christians denying any validity to the gospels or Paul's writings but giving creedence to gnostic gospel claptrap and E!-style ideas that Jesus and Mary had a thing goin' on.
You mistake where the question arises. Choosing only the gospels you want implies a great deal of bias, uncertainty, influence even. It just raises a lot of questions.

[Dan Loney]

Well, point taken about non-Christians buying into heresies about Jesus. I enjoy stories about how Jesus survived the crucifixion and went to Rome or Spain or India, but more likely he simply died of infection several weeks after being taken down from the cross. Which is the worst of both worlds - denying the Resurrection AND being a pretty boring story.

[YankHibee]

There really isn't anything in the historical record to suggest that they weren't involved. With the records we have, the inference can be made, but it isn't a particularly strong one.

[spejic]

What I get a kick out of is non-Christians denying any validity to the gospels or Paul's writings but giving creedence to gnostic gospel claptrap and E!-style ideas that Jesus and Mary had a thing goin' on.Star Trek is not valid truth, but I am still interested in the events of Benjamin Sisko's life.

[Barbara]

We don't have enough information to know one way or the other. Belief and knowledge aren't the same thing.

I'd like to think that Jesus did get his freak on every once in a while because being crucified is suffering enough - adding celibacy to the mix is just cruel and unusual. But, that's a belief, not knowledge and none of us here can really know.

[dj43]

Dan Brown, the author, raised two key points:

A. Jesus was married.

B. He was married to Mary Magdalene.

While there is no irrefutable evidence for either point of view on either side, there were plenty of instances both in the NT and gnostic gospels where a conclusive statement could have been made. However, the key point is that if Jesus was to be a role model, being a Jew, it would have been more reasonable that He would have been married. Since He spoke of the importance of marriage on several occasions, one would assume that the fact that none of the writers except the gnostic gospel of Thomas, written about 200 years after Jesus, mention marriage. Paul, in particular, had about 3 or 4 opportunities to make a definitive statement but did not.

On the other hand, their was small group of very pious Jews who did not marry, even eunuchs, as a symbol of their piety and belief.

So either way, the queston of Jesus being married is not a big deal to His ministry.

The Mary Magdalene story is interesting in DaVinci, but factually not grounded at all. She was definitely a follower of Jesus and His band, even in the inner circle of non-disciples. But again the Thomas gospel, filled with some utterly kooky stuff along with some decent history and what appears to be copies of the accepted gospels, is the only place a direct marriage is suggested.

A more interesting bit of mis-information is the idea she was a prostitute. She wasn't. This error is due to a mis-reading of Luke 7 and Luke 9. There are 2 Marys mentioned but in different settings and with different names. The "Mary" of Luke 7 is a "sinful woman," possibly but not necessarily an adulterer, while the "Mary" of Luke 9 is Mary Magdalene whose home town reference of Magdala is always included in every other place.

It was the standard practice of the time that when a woman is mentioned her name is always connected to either her home town or her husband or father. Thus the constant "Magdalene" attachment follows that pattern. The Mary of Luke 7 is not referenced in that fashion which clearly indicated she was unknown except by the "Mary" reference.

I enjoyed the adventure side of the novel and overlooked the theological errors but if anyone should care to look into this further, I would recommend "Breaking the DaVinci Code" by Dr. Darrell Bock, a very thorough and scholarly work that is carefully referenced both in biblical and non-biblical writings. For anyone really interested in chasing down potential non-biblical writings purported to have been "excluded," Bock lists a good deal of those and links to other writings that may be of interest.

[Barbara]

Actually Dan Brown's key point was that Jesus and MM had children and that his descendants still live today.

[ratdog]

What I get a kick out of is non-Christians denying any validity to the gospels or Paul's writings but giving creedence to gnostic gospel claptrap and E!-style ideas that Jesus and Mary had a thing goin' on.

I presume you get just as big a kick out of the reverse. Right? Because the more you learn about how the NT as we now have it was written and then edited and re-edited in response to doctrinal and political conflicts of the day, the more you realize that the orthodox versions that won have absolutely no greater inherent claim to factual superiority than the Gnostic or other rejected versions.

[vivzig]

I personally look forward to straightening all of this out with God when I die.