Talk:Mary Magdalene

Marie de Magdala: the only woman of an ontological dignity equals in that of Jesus Christ

According to the current theological data on Marie de Magdala, this one is the only woman who can represent the spiritual wife of Jesus Christ and God's feminine Embodiment, being consequently a member of Logos. Marie de Magdala and Jesus would have lived their spiritual marriage in the virgin chastity, Marie de Magdala having stayed virgin after the resurrection of Jesus. The status so conferred on Marie de Magdala engendered numerous researches and discussions, in particular concerning the fact that she credibly reached the immortality by rising to the sky without dying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.0.100 (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For my part, I agree with this interpretation. It is logical according to the evangelic texts that Marie de Magdala is the ontological and spiritual wife of Jesus, that is God's feminine Embodiment. User: Olivier Goetz ( ol.goetz@laposte.net ) in 28.10.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.0.100 (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene, the feminine Incarnation of God

According to the last theological speculations, Mary Magdalene, considered as the virgin and spiritual wife of Jesus, seems to be certainly the feminine Incarnation of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.193.190 (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hair?

"In many, if not most, medieval depictions, Mary Magdalene is shown as having long red hair, which she wears down over her shoulders."

I tagged this as needing a citation, especially since the two examples in the article that fit this description are both post-medieval (the 16th-century painting at the top, and the 19th-century pre-Rafaelite painting shown near the statement). The pre-Rafaelites, in particular, nearly always painted women with long, loose hair, if I recall correctly. David (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statement removed

I have removed the following statement as it has been tagged "citation needed" for several months:

• The Gnostics, the community that Mary represented, did not condone marriage (the sexual union aspect). Since the Gnostics believed that the material body was not important, they did not agree with reproducing because it created more souls being imprisoned in the body.

If anyone can find a source to back this up, feel free to re-add it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes to lead

Recently the lead was changed; I reverted those changes, for two reasons: first, the birth year provided does not appear to be sourced or verifiable; second, the bit about Magdalene possibly being the wife of Jesus is already explored in much greater detail, lower in the article -- mentioning it as such without any attribution or clarification, so early in the article, strikes me as undue weight on a contentious subject. Comments? – Luna Santin (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the birth year is unverifiable and the bit about her being the possible wife of Jesus is too FRINGEy to warrant mention in the lead. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category

Should the category Category:Courtesans and prostitutes be added to this page? --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Mary Magdalene was neither a courtesan nor a prostitute, so the category does not apply. Prtwhitley (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

To those who believe and are lead by the holy spirit know explanation is needed, for those who don't believe there is no explanation that will bring them to believe. So whats the point, by the power of the holy spirit I will pray for the spirit from with in to help you see the light. It can only come to you by faith, and love of God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.98.206.63 (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Even though she had sinned

Yes we all might know the past of Mary Magdalene but even though she did all the bad things in her past she asked jesus to forgive her and she really ment it.And jesus forgave her because everyone deserves a second chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.248.14.169 (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How is having the misfortune to be afflicted with seven demons bad? Seems to me that what you think "we all might know" is incorrect. She was NOT a prostitute.

Furthermore, your statement does not address any changes or additions to the article, which is the point of the talk page. Prtwhitley (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Reason for date

Have I misread the article? I can not find in it, a reason for 22 July being the feast day; or has that been lost to the mists of time?--83.105.33.91 (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagged "Protestant view" for expansion

I tagged that subsection for expansion, but if it can't be, then it should probably be removed. There's no need for a section that is only two sentences long in such an otherwise finely-written article. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if wrong

I do believe there are certain verses in the bible that support Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. One I remember but can't remember exact verse is the stoning incident where Jesus said (paraphrased) that only one who has not sinned, cast the first stone. Then, throughout it seems to be the same woman.--68.103.153.82 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" woman was definitely someone else, and anyway an adultress isn't necessarily a prostitute. Mary Magdalene might be the sinful woman (again, not necessarily a prostitute) who cleaned Jesus' feet with her tears and then dried them with her hair, but it isn't clear she is. The only thing the Bible clearly says about Magdalen's past is that Jesus cast out seven demons from her. It's Christian tradition that she was a prostitute, but that tradition isn't backed up by Scripture. —Angr 05:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Her Sin was Abortion

There is nothing in the Bible that she was a prostitute, leaving open the possibility her sin was abortion related, perhaps she helped women obtain abortions. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That "possibility" is speculation and has no place in this article. Please see WP:OR. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Resolve This Inconsisteny

In a section of the article which seeks to establish an intimate relationship between Jesus' and Mary Magdelene, the author has not made clear to whom he is refering. He also changed the gender of the object pronouns so that the sentences make no sense whatsoever. What are his goals here?

There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.

Mary, His mother and Her sister But then the author writes His sister and His mother and His companion What is the original intention - to speak of the sister of his mother - her sister or to speak of Jesus' own sister - his sister? This is gobbledy-gook. It is ridiculous and invalidates the entire paragraph if it is not removed or clarified.

This seems to be an issue with the original scripture. All independent translations I was able to check have both "her sister" and "his sister". --Drieakko (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore,if one considers all that Jesus said about marriage, conjugal love and lust, it is extremely doubtful that he would have engaged in such a relationship so late in his life with one of his followers. I am willing to accept that Jesus may have married early at the age of 18 or 20 before he began his ministry. But I can not accept that he would have struck up a sexual liaison and yet continue to be called Rabbi by so many sincere and loving followers. How inconsistent. Sin was greatly frowned upon in those days. Jesus was not a freespirit, he was quite disciplined and strict and not likely to engage in light love affairs. I think it is quite inappropriate to maintain the theory that Jesus, who abhorred sin, who defined lust as adultery, and who prohibited premarital sex, would then have had an adulterous relationship with a woman. Incoherent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.108.112 (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The lines that you're referring to are taken verbatim from the English translation of the Gospel of Philip written circa 150-300AD, rather than being penned by a Wikipedia Author. Tiggs (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Where does anyone get the idea that Jesus only new Mary Magdalene in the latter part of his life? It is more than likely that she was a childhood friend and long time companion. It is the foolishness of dogmatic authors that have obscured the true nature of their relationship. It seems to fly against the will of the church to allow Jesus to have any real passions that a mortal man may have. Therefore, every attempt was made to obscure any reference to a relationship between Jesus and Mary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haus888 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Current Viewpoints on Mary's marriage to Jesus

The text of the article states that Many modern writers have come forward with claims that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. I do not think that there are many writers that claim this. It seems to exegerate the following of this view. I would suggest it be changed to "Some modern writers have come forward with claims that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus." JVandezande (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mary's left hand

I'm here in Rome, where there are many statues and paintings about Mary Magadalene. almost all show her carrying something in her left hand. Sometimes it appears to be a palm leaf. Othertimes, an orb of some kind, presumably carrying myrhh? Could we have a section that discusses the significance of this and what she carries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.139.158 (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Just found this online: (Sorry that I didn't already know the meaning of the palm frond.)

A saint carrying a palm frond means that the saint was a martyr. In many cases the palm frond is carried together with the specific attribute of the martyrdom (in the case of St. Agatha her detached breasts). The palm frond meant resistance to pressure, because it stood the strong winds of the desert, in the same way the martyrs did not give up their faith. The image used as a background for this page shows Sts. John and Paul holding palm fronds (a detail of the ceiling of SS. Giovanni e Paolo).

FYI: Here in Rome and Verona, there are more than a few basilicas in honor of St. Mary Maddalena. And therein are many paintings and sculptures of her. She is more often depicted in the paintings within these older, sacred places as holding a palm frond in her hand. She is often pictured with the Madonna and even in some paintings with the Madonna and baby Jesus. The palm frond seems to be a very important piece of this puzzle, and I'd like to see more of the images from the earlier depictions of St. Mary Maddalena (where she was a saint, not a sinner) and considered to be a martyr on this page, as well as in Google images. Yes, later on, she was depicted carrying the red egg and the jar of myrhh, but in the early days, she was a martyred saint and someone worthy of having her own temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.139.158 (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: palms. They are the Roman emblem of Victory, cf "Palms of Victory, Crowns of glory" in the old song. This pagan symbol was Christianized to indicate the victory over death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How often is she mentioned?

AS a curious reader I wondered how often Mary Magdalen is mentioned in the New Testament. My memeory is nto many times, but it would be nice to see a collection of actual mentions of her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.0.170 (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

She is mentioned when Jesus excorcises 7 demons from her, and also when he appears to her after the Ressurection. Sometimes it is thought that Mary, Sister of Martha and Mary, Mother of Joses could actually be talking about Mary Magdaline in passages of the bible where it simply says "Mary". Tarheelz123 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus married to Mary?

Cross referencing the items that the mormon prophet claimed that Jesus was a polygimist bore no results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.35.44 (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

same as Mary of Bethany?

Is she the same as Mary of Bethany or not... after all the Mary of Bethany entry claims it... --Hoerth (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Added a short section on the subject. --Drieakko (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A call for critical review of ...

the following books

• http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=&field-author=&field-title=Mary+Magdalene&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&node=&url=&field-feature_browse-bin=&field-binding_browse-bin=&field-subject=&field-language=&field-dateop=&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=&sort=relevancerank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=34&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=14

--124.78.214.145 (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

^^^^^
FYI

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+Mary+Magdalene&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.214.145 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Speculation on Mary Magdalene as prostitute

I reverted edits that strongly took side that Mary Magdalene and the unnamed "sinful woman" are not the same person. They may or may not be (personally I find it very likely that they are originally the same person, although I am also of the opinion that casting her as "sinful" was Luke's propaganda as he twisted the story to fit his own purposes), but it is not up to Wikipedia to say more; just present the facts and opinions from elsewhere. Religious articles in Wikipedia are so full of speculations (which, in one hand, the religions themselves also are) that if the articles start taking sides, there will be nothing but a fruitless fight. --Drieakko (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For me, the following text is not accurate: "In 1969 the Vatican, without commenting on Pope Gregory's reasoning,[56] implicitly rejected it by separating Luke's sinful woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdala via the Roman Missal.[citation needed]" As explained in the article about Mary of Bethany, the position of the Catholic Church, also explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia, is still that the three were the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwnit (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

First witness to the Resurrection

The text now says "In all four gospels, Mary Magdalene is first witness to the Resurrection." It should perhaps be reverted to something like my earlier statement: "In all four gospels, the first vision of the Resurrection is witnessed by Mary Magdalene." As the article says, Luke only reports that Mary Magdalene saw angels announcing the Resurrection. It seems misleading to say that Luke is thus calling her a "first witness to the Resurrection." Also, Matthew only says that Mary Magdalene was among the first witnesses, but the current phrasing will suggest to many readers that all four gospels say that Mary saw the Resurrection before anybody else did. Yes, active voice is better than passive ceteris paribus, but not when it misleads readers. BrianHoltz (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling Mary Magdalene a prostitute is ancient Hebrew racial profiling of women of color such as Rohab and Jezebel. Since Canaanites and Phoenicians were listed under Cush in Genesis 10, the name calling followed. Its appearance in the New Testament follows that tradition as well as expressing Peter's jealousy. Moses’ Ethiopian wife suffered repudiation, also, because of the same difficulties Hebrew's had with Cushites following their enslavement in Africa. [Larry West's "Our Common African Genesis, 2nd ed." 2009] Regarding this reference with its 151 citations as unreliable (without reading) simply places wiki as another mainstream source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrgenesis (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't help but wondering if the self-published book in question is yours. And yes, Wikipedia articles basically reflect what mainstream sources have to say, it is an encyclopedia after all. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The bible is primary source material and not suitable as a source for WIkipedia

Alright then. I came to this article with the hope of finding out something about the subject, MM. After reading it I am left none the wiser. I just need the simple facts about MM not a list of unpublished opinions supported by quotes from the bible.

Remember "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." I don't mean to insult the holy book of Christians but the bible is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia (wp:rs). For a start it is primary source material (It is is meant to have been written by people who were first hand observers of the biblical events) [[1]], when we should be looking at secondary sources from unbiased 3rd parties. Secondly the bible is not a book with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the past 2,000 years it has certainly been corrupted during the manual copy processes. It has many contradictions between the gospels. It is so full of ambiguities that a preacher can use it to back up any assertion.

It's a great book but it is not a suitable source for Wikipedia when every verse has been analysed by published 3rd party commentators already. MoyrossLADY (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

While the Bible may not be a perfect source, we have to remeber most of the "third party" sources come from similar findings. Most historians rely on pieces of wrting from the time, the only difference is some pieces of writing do not last 2,000 years. while the bible may not be taken word for word, interpretations taken from it might be admissable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.194 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be original research, see WP:OR. What we need are interpretations by modern scholars. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed obvious satirical sentences

The first paragraph ended with this:

Mary Magdalene was the mom of baby jesus. In his gold fleece diapers...so small, yet so omnipetent. I like to picture my baby jesus in a tuxedo t-shirt. Because he's formal yet still likes to party.

I removed it because it contains incorrect information. Mary Magdalene was not the mother of Jesus. It is also satirical and not in keeping with a serious article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profharoldhill (talk • contribs) 06:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Is it just me, or does the following sentence read as if it was written by someone with an axe to grind?

"New Testament scholarship has shown that this picture of Mary Magdalene is patently false and disparagingly misleading."

Should we reword it so it sounds more neutral and less strident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.13.52 (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

More Evidence that Mary Magdalene was Married to Jesus

Forthcoming Book, Forthcoming Documentary

http://www.harpercollins.ca/books/9781554686537/The_Lost_Gospel/index.aspx

Gathering dust at the British Museum is an ancient manuscript of the early Church, written by an anonymous monk. The manuscript is at least 1,600 years old, possibly dating to the first century and the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. It seems to be the first solid written evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, recounting that Magdalene was a gentile, that Jesus and Mary had children, and that there was a plot to kill Jesus, abduct Mary and murder their offspring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lung salad (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

An IP removed this claim from the article as it "wasn't in the bible" & I restored. Whether the bible say so or not is not the point. Some speculate - so - we can say that 'some speculate'. I don't believe it either - but again - that is not the point. ClemMcGann (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Protestant views

"Protestants have never viewed Mary Magdalene as the 'sinful woman' depicted in Luke 7:36-50." Methinks they sometimes have. I would be curious to see some more detailed info on this. -- JALatimer (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

unreliable source

This paragraph seems to be based on an unreliable source:

Ramon K. Jusino, an internet writer, offers an explanation of this view, based on the textual researches of Raymond E. Brown.[38] In order to make this claim and maintain consistency with scriptures, the theory is suggested that Mary's separate existence in the two common scenes with the Beloved Disciple[Jn 19:25-27] [20:1-11] were later modifications, hastily done to authorize the gospel in the late 2nd century. Both scenes have inconsistencies both internally and in reference to the synoptic Gospels, possibly coming from rough editing to make Mary Magdalene and the Beloved Disciple appear as different persons.[39]

The first citation is to a self-published web site and should be removed. The second is to Brown, an RS, but is he really saying that editors might have tried to make the BD and MM look different? Or is that what Jusino thinks? Leadwind (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed Jusino, but Brown needs to be checked. --Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus as the Bridegroom

This article has not yet addressed the speculation the marriage which Jesus attends in john 2 may be his own. The bridegroom is not identified. It was the bridegroom who was expected to provide the wine at a Jewish marriage--which Christ provided by changing the water to wine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a RS discussing this? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad sources

I've removed quite a few -- tourist agencies, personal websites, Answerbag etc. See my comment above in the section 'unreliable source' about Brown. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see you up to good work, as usual. Leadwind (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

About "New Teastament Apocrypha"

The heading of the apocrypha section "It's important to understand, at this point, that the following descriptions of New Testament Apocryphal writings are generally not accepted by the main branches of Christianity, being seen as corruptions of the original writings, containing errors in the placing of events in time and geography, and often written with an agenda to serve groups with divergent views" reads as "everything in this section is of little value". That citation comes from a book edited by the catholic university of america and, while it is an acceptable source, I would like to see something more balanced. Every "testament" contains, as far as we know, errors in the placing of events in time and geography and of course, every one of them was written with an agenda to serve groups with different views including the canonical ones, perhaps even more so. There are apocriphals as old as the canonical writings, so I think that sort of disclaimer alone gives the wrong idea about the matter at hand. If you are going to explain how the Christianity views them, you also should add what the historians think of them. Leirus (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A 100 year old sectarian source isn't really an RS, so I removed this material. If we can find an RS that denigrates the apocrypha, we should cite it. Leadwind (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Magdalene egg.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Magdalene egg.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Demons

Given the existence of modern scholarly work on this subject there is no reason at all and every reason not to rely on an Encyclopedia as a source. Also, there is more than one point of view in modern reliable sources. This should probably have a section of its own. See [2] and [3] as possible sources. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Gotta agree on that one. I'd say those could be used. @ Lung salad, not sure what you're referring to in terms of the demon discussion. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no obvious definition for what the seven demons were, and both historical and biblical authors only provide tentative comments relating to it. That's all that can be said about it at the moment, barring any groundbreaking new archaeological discovery of some lost commentary dating from antiquity.Lung salad (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene is the repentant sinner of the New Testament [4] and authors consider this was a decisive factor in Gregory turning her into a prostitute. Lung salad (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)