Talk:Mary Magdalene/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pop culture references

The 1988 movie, The Last Temptation of Christ shows a (spoiler) fantasy vision of Jesus marrying and having sex and children with Mary Magdalane, who is portrayed as a prostitute in the film (presumably like the novel it was based on which came out in the 1950's). Is this the earliest reference to Jesus and Mary being a couple? The novel would predate Holy Blood Holy Grail by three decades... (I haven't read it, only seen the movie though).

• And on the subject of Pop Culture References, isn't the sentence, "The Sandra song "Maria Magdalena" on her album "The Long Play" is titled after Maria Magdalena." Kind of redundant? This is a bit like saying George Washington's white horse was white because it was white.

The miraculous Easter egg

I guess if we have the invented Easter egg "tradition" in this entry, we deserve the Urantia fantasy. Isn't Mary Magdalene a figure in a video game anywhere? Wetman 16:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When I wrote this, I was profoundly ignorant of the Russian Orthodox tradition of Mary Magdalene's interview with Emperor Tiberius to which she had the foresifght to bring an egg, as expressed in the murals painted for the Russian convent of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem, consecrated in 1888. Just related as a story about Mary Magdalene, it certainly does sound like a late invention. My sincere apologies. --Wetman 08:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not Orthodox, but I love that story btw.

The alleged "icon" of Mary Magdalene holding an egg, is actually a lithograph by Richard Stodart (born 1945) available at Cristallo Studio for the hefty price of $240. I have revised the text to reflect reality. As an "icon" it is as spurious as this fake tradition, which is still featured in the entry. Is there any document telling of such a miracle tale anywhere previous to the Internet? Enjoy watching me grovel and apologize if there is! --Wetman 12:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Grovel grovel grovel. I shall change the reference from Stodart to the Czarist decors at the Convent of Mary Magdalene, as a better example. But where does this tale originate? It must be in a hagiography of Mary Magdalene. Or is it not? Is it Byzantine? Is is Russian? --Wetman 08:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, you've already mentioned this website previously. It does not have anything in common with the subject of Mary Magdalene asides from the etymological similarity of the artist's last name. --User:Lychon 21:36, 30 Jan 2006 (UTC)

That icon is merely one of many icons expressing the same tradition. Did you look at the external link describing the icon of Mary Magdalene on the iconostasis in the convent in Israel? I also found this quote at [1]:

The earliest recorded testimony about Holy Easter painted eggs is found in a 10th-centuíry parchment manuscript kept in the Saint Anastasia Convent, close to Salonika in Greece. At the end of the church rubric, after the Easter prayers, the manuscript says that a prayer blessing eggs and cheese is also read and that the father superior, kissing the brethren, gives them eggs and says, ëChrist has resurrected!? According to the manuscript ëNomocanon by Photius? (13th century), the father superior even punishes the monk who fails to eat a red egg on Easter, because such a monk resists apostolic traditions. Thus, the practice of giving Easter eggs dates back to apostolic times, when Mary Magdalene was the first to give the believers an example of this joyful offering.

No one disputes the old Russian tradition of giving eggs at Easter, needless to say. It's the extension to Mary Magdalene: "thus the practice... dates back to apostolic times, when Mary Magdalene was the first" etc, that is flimsy. Where is the interview with Emperor Tiberius and the miracle of the egg first related? A hagiography of Mary Magdalene one supposes. That information should go into the entry, if it can be found, to silence doubters like me. What is 'ëNomocanon by Photius'? Would that be Photius, Metropolitan of Moscow? Can we get a more accurate title for this work? A big late Czarist mural decor in a church consecrated in 1888 is not quite as ancient as "the icon of Mary Magdalene on the iconostasis in the convent in Israel" makes it sound...--Wetman 08:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also found this far weightier reference: "S. V. Bulgakov, Manual for Church Servers, 2nd ed., 1274 pp. (Kharkov, 1900) pp 0568-0575 Translated by Archpriest Eugene D. Tarris © April 19, 2004. All rights reserved." This section is in a PDF at this url: "http://www.transfigcathedral.org/faith/Bulgakov/0568.pdf" It gives detailed instructions for church servers, that is those who assist the priest and deacons, during the celebration of Paschal Matins, which is the main Easter service. It includes instructions for the exchange of red eggs at the close of the service, and alludes to the tradition of Mary Magdalene's red egg. This particular service book is evidently from 1900, but clearly shows a far older tradition.

The Orthodox Church in America's synaxarion for July 22 repeats the tradition [2], citing a Greek manuscript kept in a monastery near Thessalonica as evidence of the tradition's antiquity.

Are you satisfied? Wesley 06:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed, and most sorry! A Manual of 1900 and a turn-of-the-20th-century mural are actually a great deal more ancient than I had imagined, to be sure. There are red-enamelled gold eggs from the workrooms of Carl Fabergé that are even older than that, actually. A careful translation of the Mary Magdalene reference in the Manual for Church Servers 2nd. edition 1900 would be a good reference to add to this entry, since the Manual of 1900 explicitly alludes to Mary Magdalene. --Wetman 08:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The sinner "tradition"

"For some Christians, Mary was believed to have been the same woman that Jesus had rescued from being stoned to death. However most modern scholars believe that the prostitute Jesus rescued and Mary were two seperate persons. However the Mel Gibson movie The Passion of the Christ had portrayed the prostitute and Mary as the same person." Is this "prostitute" the woman taken in adultery? Some Christians have historically been discouraged from reading Scripture on their own: could this still be true among some sects? Wetman 23:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The entry reads "Early tradition identified as Mary Magdalene the unidentified woman who was a sinner" "Early tradition" is simply a variant of "legend states," which would have won my West Dakota Prize ("awarded for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a Wikipedia entry"). "But seriously..." the development of Christian mythology that is not based on Scripture is always too interesting to pass over in this manner. Can we edit into this entry some of the earliest characterizations of Mary Magdalene as a sinner? Irenaeus? or third century? or later? --Wetman 07:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You could date the sinner reputation at 591 easily by referencing Pope Gregory's homily in which he said, "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark." Earlier references to MM's supposes sinfulness are hard to come by.--redegg 21:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wife of Jesus?

It's somewhat interesting. If Jesus had wife, what about their children? Could someone please provide some citations? (I don't know much about Christianity).

There are some who believe that Jesus & Mary had a daughter. Some go so far as to site the child's name; SaraSaint Sarah. As far as Biblical verses proving this, there are none to my knowledge. As far as historical proof, there is definitely none, since there is no historical proof, or physical proof, that Jesus himself actually existed at all. ---- May 7th, 2005

--** There is, contrary to the above suggestion, direct evidence that proves the existence of Jesus. It was documented by a Jew, not a follower of Christ, that Jesus of Nazareth had been crucified and had developed a large following. Josephus Flavius was the Jewish Historian that documented Jesus of Nazareth's historical existence. (23 July, 2005) **-- The Joe

This site http://grailchurch.org/marriedjesus.htm has some information about early beliefs or implications that Jesus was married, although how reliable the information might be, I do not know (if I knew more, I would add it to the article). As for Josephus Flavius allegedly documenting the existence of Jesus, actually, see Wikipedia's Josephus on Jesus for more information on that, but in short "Many modern historians reject the passage as an interpolation." Schizombie 09:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The site is not reliable whatsoever, from the first sentence onwards, glossing over the fact that there is no evidence for Jesus being married, let alone for identifying his wife as MM.

It is interesting that some people believe in such thing without any evidence whatsover (and I personally wouldn't be shocked if Jesus were married), while at the same time left-handedly dismissing existing evidence such as Josephus, especially calling upon other Wikipedia articles (that might be just as flawed as the one they are criticizing) and/or a supposed consensus of historians. Nowadays, the greater part of scholars believe the "Testimonium Flavianum" to be interpolated but nonetheless based on an authentic core. Quite apart from the other evidence in Josephus and in other works and the logical fallacy of assuming non-existence until existence is proven (and it is). Str1977 10:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe I should have specified that I don't believe MM was the wife of Jesus, and it doesn't matter to me if they were or weren't. I was interested in why some people do believe they were, and the article could be beefed up in that respect, or perhaps there could be another article to cover that. I thought the site I mentioned might point to some of the reasons why people believe it, but I'm guessing the sources they cite are taken from the recommended reading they had at the bottom rather than firsthand. Schizombie 18:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Schizombie, for the clarification. My post was in no way meant to attack you but directed into the open.

As I said, I wouldn't be shocked and my faith wouldn't be shaken if Jesus were married wether to MM or to any other woman. In fact in younger days I believed these theories too, but nowadays I see no evidence either way and hence do not positively believe either way.

As for the reasons why many people believe this, I can give some elucidations from these former days:

• during the last 200 years there has been a certain anti-church bias in many fields, i.e. if the church says so we don't believe it unless it can be absolutely proven to be so (and maybe even then not). That's also one of the problems with the Testimonium Flavianum and arguments about Jesus' existence (or have you ever heard someone doubt the existence of Socrates or Confucius?)
• Another thing is the issue of "sexual morality" - the church is perceived as being narrow-minded and prudish in this and this position is attacked by some (mostly unconciously) by claiming Jesus for the opposing party, in this way for a more liberal view on sexual matters.
• Finally, as the last line of the cited site indicates, there is also a syncretistic tendency to claim Jesus for non-Christian cults, e.g. the Hieros Gamos. And for that you need a female.

But these are just subjective observations.

I won't go into the other references of the site, but I am fairly certain that they are quoted out of context (especially Hippolyt, I mean, he was of a very rigorist bent, even breaking community with his Pope for a while) or flat out wrong (it is not established that Rabbis were obliged to marry in Jesus' day - that's a provision of the Talmud, but how this already applied to the 1st century is another question, and one shouldn't forgot Jesus' words about "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven" - this could also be a self-reference.

Enough for tonight, good night. Str1977 00:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

While sources like the Gospel of Philip depict Mary Magdalene as being closer to Jesus than any other disciple, there is no ancient document which claims she was his wife.

What Gospel of Philip depicts *actually*? --Rrjanbiah 08:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(I've linked the Wikipedia entry. --Wetman 12:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Sorry, I couldn't spot any. Possibly any verse or so?--so that I may Google it. --Rrjanbiah 17:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the Gospel of Philip Mary Magdalene is the "companion" of Jesus, who kisses her (in one line). There is nothing about their marriage, but a good deal about the blissful and blessed union of man and woman in the nuptial chamber, quite contrary to the mainstream good ol' boys. --Wetman 22:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. I'm interested to see the *exact* verse. --Rrjanbiah 14:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

E-text is available in the external references at Gospel of Philip. It's not a long text, and a sense of context is essential— unless one merely wants to "disprove" something-or-other. If you find a second reference to Jesus and Mary in the Gospel, do please work it into the entry. Thank you. --Wetman 21:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

" Gratitude to her great Deliverer prompted her to become his follower." I have eliminated this repetition of the previous sentence in the text; it adds nothing, though its capitalization is a Mark of Admirable Piety. --Wetman 18:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the Da Vinci Code a work of fiction? Any evidence its author really believes that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus?

Exile 22:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is. I don't think his literary agent would permit him to let on... --Wetman 09:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This section was not satisfactorily NPOV. I understand that the section may be offensive to certain Christians, but this is Wikipedia and we should respect the principle of NPOV. For instance it is dubious to call a theory "speculation" instead of a "theory".--Wiglaf 15:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

After reading many articles about Christianity and its characters on Wikipedia. I developed a thought, which of course has no scholarly weight to it. Why would Jesus need a wife? If he knew that Joseph had not touched his mother and that she had given birth to him by means of Virgin Birth this may have played a huge part on his decision on whether to marry or not to marry.

Of course to counter my thought I also read somewhere on Wikipedia that Paul tells people to be "Fruitful and multiply." So there could be a possibility that she was in deed his wife. 216.196.177.36 08:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that The Da Vinci Code was based on facts; the author merely composed a plot around them.

~helwer7

Then you are sorely deceived. It's a work of fiction. --81.103.144.88 04:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mother of Jesus vs. Magdalene?

From the last paragraph of the first half of the "Wife of Jesus?" section:

Mary Magdalene appears with more frequency than other women in the canonical Gospels and is shown as being a close follower of Jesus. In the scene of the wedding at Cana, the names of the nuptial couple are not mentioned, but Jesus acts as a groom at such a wedding would be expected to act, although the servants had to be told by his mother Mary to follow his instructions.

Mary Magdalene was not even at the wedding at Cana; that was Mary, the mother of Jesus! This has nothing to do with Mary Magdalene.

To be sure, "His mother Mary" would indeed mean "Mary, the mother of Jesus." If our anonymous contributor has the guest list for the wedding at Cana, as it would seem, perhaps she also has one of the invitations. --Wetman 05:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, I forgot to add my sig. Anywho, I don't know if that snide remark at the end was aimed at me; if it was, it quite clearly states in the cannonical Gospels that it was Jesus's mother that asked for the miracle at the wedding of Cana: "3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." (John 2:3-4). Now, it may state in one of the so-called Apocryphal Gospels that it was Mary Magdalene that attended the wedding feast and asked Jesus for the miravle, but I am not aware of it. Also, this was early in Jesus's ministry, presumably before he knew Mary Magdalene (I think). Aside from any of this, the article even states that this was Jesus's mother! I'm deleting the part about the wedding at Cana. If you can justify it, put it back in.--Conwiktion 05:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Early Protestant scholars of the Mary in the Gnostic texts identified her with the Magdalene, however, some scholars think that this Mary is actually the Blessed Virgin Mary. This fits in better with the notions that Mary was intimate with Jesus, was his greatest disciple, and was to be the center of Jesus' religion: indeed, the Virgin is central to Catholicism and Orthodoxy in this way." Anyone want to re-edit this with a reference identifying "some scholars" and return it to this article, with enough reasoning behind it that the reader can follow the thought, if any? --Wetman 07:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I had already updated the above quote; that is an earlier one; you are right, I didn't cite the source! "Starting in the 19th century, Protestant scholars of the Mary in the Gnostic texts identified her with the Magdalene, even though she isn't always named as such. However, some scholars, including Stephen J. Shoemaker, think that this Mary is actually the Blessed Virgin Mary. This fits in better with the notions that Mary was intimate with Jesus, was his greatest disciple, and was to be the center of Jesus' religion: indeed, the Virgin is central to Catholicism and Orthodoxy in this way. Protestants who rejected the extreme devotion to the Virgin Mary in the Catholic Church may have had an aversion to seeing the same in the Gnostic texts." Some of Schoemaker's books are on Amazon.com. As a side note, the Catholic Church used to use the Apocryphal literature far more before the Second Vatican Council; but one of the mandates of that Council was that the teaching of the Church is to be far more Bible-centered, for greater ecumenism with Protestants. So much research on those texts since the 1960s have not come from Catholic scholars, which may lead some contemporary non-Catholic scholars to be unaware of many ancient traditions. The major one, the centrality of role of Mary the mother of Jesus, is certainly a part of Catholic and Orthodox teachings, but this is rejected by the Protestant traditions, or at least Protestants may be uncomforatble with it. How about this edit? "Starting in the 19th century, Protestant scholars of the Mary in the Gnostic texts identified her with the Magdalene, even though she isn't always named as such. However, some scholars, including Stephen J. Shoemaker, think that this Mary is actually the mother of Jesus. This fits in better with the notions that Mary was intimate with Jesus, was his greatest disciple, and was to be the center of Jesus' religion: indeed, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is central to Catholicism and Orthodoxy in this way. Protestants who rejected the extreme devotion to the Virgin Mary in the Catholic Church may have had an aversion to seeing the same in the Gnostic texts." --Marcusscotus1 16:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually added the Shoemaker reference and removed some unacceptable interpreting of Protestant motivations and the disingenuous sense of a horde of unnamed scholars. --Wetman 06:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC) Great edit! You said it much better! --Marcusscotus1 17:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Despised and dismissed?

I'm curious about the use of 'despised and dismissed' in this sentence: "Tellingly, in the Gospel the testimony of a woman first needed to be defended. All of these manuscripts were first discovered and published between 1938 and 1983, but there are Patristic references to the (despised and dismissed) Gospel of Mary as early as the 3rd century." It seems like an odd offhand comment that requires some clarification (i.e. despised and dismissed by who?). --Lee Hunter 19:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Name one mainstream Patristic writer who referred to the Gospel of Mary with respect. --Wetman 19:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To restate my question, the sentence as it is structured is ambiguous. When I read it, I couldn't say for sure who was doing the despising and dismissing. I'm not arguing the history, just pointing out a problem with the writing. If the Patristic writers treated the gospel with contempt (I know nothing about the subject) that point should probably be broken out into a separate sentence, otherwise the sentence is unclear. --Lee Hunter 14:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fixed?: All of these manuscripts were first discovered and published between 1938 and 1983, but as early as the 3rd century there are Patristic references to the despised and dismissed Gospel of Mary. --Wetman 19:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a much better sentence, but my original question still isn't really clear to me. I've given it a shot by changing it to "All of these manuscripts were first discovered and published between 1938 and 1983, but as early as the 3rd century there are Patristic references to the Gospel of Mary. These writings reveal the degree to which the gospel was despised and dismissed by the early church fathers." This explains the meaning of 'patristic' (I had to look it up) and clarifies that the 'despising and dismissing' came from them. --Lee Hunter 20:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Much clearer. --Wetman 03:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could you name who exactly and in which works 'despises and dismisses' the Gospel of Mary. It seems quit plausible but I never incountered anything on the topic. If you know exactly could you just cite? -- muromec

"Cult" of Mary Magdalene

I know that plenty of people would probably find such reference offensive. I was raised a Catholic (though don't practice) and I know that the Catholic take on saints is hardly a "cult".

This anonymous editor would profit by actually reading Cult (religion) before getting "offended". She says she "Removed the word "cult", replaced with "Sainthood" as this seems both more appropriate and less blatantly offensive." Where is one to start with these people? --Wetman 21:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting edit. "Cult" is both the proper term to use here is totally non-offensive. Let me emphasize that cult used in this context does not have the same meaning or negative connotation as it does when it is commonly used to refer to organizations that attempt to take complete control of the lives of their members. Trust me, I'm a practicing Catholic, and cult as used in this context is quite typical in Catholic writings. I refer you to the wiki-link provided by Wetman. Also, here is an excerpt from cannon law that refers to the "cult of the saints": [[3]].--Conwiktion 05:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, oops... I'm embarassed... someone changed it to veneration, which is also acceptable. So, no changes.... :P --Conwiktion 05:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christian dogmas and Wikipedia

I saw in the article on the theory of a marriage between MM and Jesus that the section seemed to have been edited by a person presenting Church dogma. The hypothesis of Jesus celibacy is Christian dogma, even my minister taught me that during my Christian education. If Jesus is to be assumed unmarried and the theory of MM's mariage with Jesus is to be attacked with the logical fallacy of no evidence then I have to intervene. Please, state what is dogma and what is proven.--Wiglaf 16:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

travel to Provence

A National Geographic documentary about the topic mentions a travel of hers and some of her friends to Provence. They dispute whether the children on the travel were hers and Jesus', but they don't dispute that the trip took place. Does anyone have any certain information about that sail? --Joy [shallot] 16:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

There's now some groundwork for the competition over Mary Magdalen between Burgundy and Provence. --Wetman 02:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This voyage is mostly viewed as a later invention by historians. It appears only in the 11th century. However, even if it did take place, they were no children on board, certainly not MM's or even Jesus'. These are figments of modern-day imagination. The only child mentioned in the legend is the one of a Provencal noble couple: the child is set out on a rock, but MM cares for it. Str1977 23:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Prostitute

The tradition of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute seems to receive no mention in this article. Whether it's proven or not, as so very very little having to do with this possibly fictional person is, the institution that's responsible for her being notable in the first place holds that she was a prostitute before becoming one of Jesus' followers. Whether it's historically true or not, it seems silly that it's completely not acknowledged. siafu 14:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned here--Wiglaf 14:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm specifically referring to the removal of Category:Famous courtesans and prostitutes, which should have been left as was. siafu 14:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Umm, apparently there is no proof whatsoever that she was a prostitute, and the misrepresentation has ended decades ago, why categorize her as such today? If the category was called "Famous people accused of being prostitutes" then you'd have a point, but as it stands it's not right or fair to do this. --Joy [shallot] 14:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, why should we perpetuate the slandering of a dead woman? Catholic mythology may deserve a few lines or a paragraph, but not be allowed to be presented as fact.--Wiglaf 14:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not presenting it as fact to include the category, never mind that the entire story of Mary Magdalene is essentially mythology to begin with. She is notable as having been a prostitute, and should be categorized that way, and the discussion of whether it was fact or not should be clearly delineated in the article. siafu 14:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe when you find the lines saying so in the Bible. I have a copy and I am waiting.--Wiglaf 15:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding. I don't dispute that the legend of her being a prostitute is likely made up later by a misogynistic church trying to quash gnosticism, but that Catholic tradition (and that of many Protestant sects as well) has as much bearing on the nature of Mary Magdalene as a character (which is what she is) as a cannonical text does. Essentially, the woman is a character from mythology, as her historical existence is completely unknown, and demanding a Bible reference is placing one source of mythology above another. I'm not asking anyone to believe as a fact that Mary was a prostitute, just to acknowledge that that is what she is famous and notable for. siafu 15:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but still, her status as a prostitue is so well-known that this article should try to state what is relatively certain and what is not. That she is a saint is certain and that she was a follower of Jesus is relatively certain. That she was labelled a prostitute is worthy of being mentioned in the article. But if it has to be a category, you should call it category:alleged prostitutes. Let's be fair to her.--Wiglaf 15:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I envision a naive user looking through Category:Famous courtesans and prostitutes out of sheer curiousity. It would be somewhat irresponsible to not have possibly the most famous of them all, Ms. Magdalene. Any user that would click the link, naturally, would be reading the article and would clearly see the information on the controversy. Moreover, we don't have a Category:Alleged saints, even though most of the entries in Category:Saints are a product of Catholic tradition, and are not, naturally, mentioned in the Bible. There doesn't seem to be a previous discussion on this issue on this talk page, so there's no clear consensus one way or the other; perhaps it would be wise to seek one? siafu 15:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with a category page is that there is no context or explanation. The naive reader you mention, sees only a list of names and would reasonably assume that all of them are known to be prostitutes and courtesans. You suggest that the reader would click on the link to learn more information, but I suspect that more often the reader would just absorb the "fact" that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and click some other link on the category page. On the saint category page, on the other hand, there is no problem because her status of sainthood (i.e. in the eyes of the church) is an established fact.--Lee Hunter 15:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a big difference between saint and prostitute. A saint is something the Catholic church declares you to be when you're dead, whereas prostitute is something you cease to be after you have died. Consequently, saint is appropriate since it can be seen as a title of honour bestowed on the dead, whereas prostitute is something you are while making a living. A putative prostitute she ceased to be when she died, and saint she became afterwards.--Wiglaf 15:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Now don't be ridiculous. If she were a famous prostitute during her life time, this would warrant her inclusion into that category even though she were dead now. The thing is that this is a wrongful misidentification (which BTW has nothing to do with misogyny or "squashing Gnosticism", just as MM has nothing to do with Gnosticism. The Gospels have three persons: Mary of Magdala (former demoniac), Mary of Bethany (annointing Jesus) and an unnamed woman sinner (annointing Jesus). It is quite reasonable that the latter two refer at least to the same occasion. Whether to identify all three is highly debatable. However, nothing in the Bible says that the sinner was a prostitute. Only Pope Gregory (or rather some tradition he refers to) identified the sin as prostitution, maybe because of the passage "for she loved much", which of course is quite a misunderstanding. Also, MM is not mythology (apart from Gnostic fables about here), but a real historical person ... or two historical persons ... or three. Str1977 23:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've began a prostitution section in this article. Regardless of whether the charges of prostitution are true notwithstanding, the fact that centuries of Christians believed them ought to mentioned. Elcocinero 18:10 4 June 2005.

The 'Identification with other women of the New Testament' section had the statement that Pope Gregory I declared Mary 'a prostitute' in his Lenten Sermon from 591 AD. This is incorrect. Gregory definitely called her a 'sinner', but did not say that she was a 'prostitute'. This sentence has been edited accordingly. Thiudareiks 00:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thiering

Issue was resolved:

I'm only concerned with your edit, which is highly problematic. Let me explain in detail:

The Australian scholar Barbara Thiering claims that

That's fine by me.

, in addition to the tradition that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus,

What tradition are you talking about? There is no such tradition. The article should have made clear what the basis for this idea current in our day is, but it no ancient tradition.

there is additional evidence that can be obtained by using the pesher technique showing that the New Testament contains a full account of the marriage and children of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Evidence for what. It's only relevant here in regard to Mary Magdalene. But please in a NPOV manner.

For clarity's sake I have inserted an explanatory sentence:

She thinks the gospels were deliberately written in a double way

to explain the basis of this technique.

Also, for the sake of NPOV and accuracy, I have added:

Neither her method nor her findings are accepted by any other scholar.

Your proposed compromise notwithstanding, please name just one scholar who actually accepts either either her method or her findings. Just one.

Str1977 10:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse the abruptness of my replies as I am a newcomer and it is taking me some time to understand how all this works. I would have liked to set up this talk page, but I could not figure out how to do it. I find that most of your suggestions are valid ones and I would like to submit a corrected version in my next update. However, I still believe that the statement that “no scholar agrees” with this is inflammatory. I should not have to show that there are other scholars as this is not a place for a war on how many scholars agree or disagree. The fact that Dr. Barbara Thiering has many published books and articles should suffice. The views of this paragraph are attributed to Dr. Thiering with the exceptions you have pointed out. User:Dylanstephens

Dear Dylan, no problem. I was a newbie once too. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Re the "no scholar" - the thing is I have read a bit from BT and also about her - and I have never come across anyone agreeing with either her method or her findings. Not a single one. Hence I'm asking. I'm looking forward to reading your version. Cheers, Str1977 18:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC) (PS. If you want to post such a "long" signature, type four tildes (~)

Str1977: Please find new version of MM, then on to pesher technique discussion. Dylanstephens 18:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Str1977: Your addition has already been rejected in pesher technique

"However, both her method and her findings have found little support from other scholars."

and besides is covered by that link pesher technique in the added text. It would be redundant here. Dylanstephens

I don't think it redudandant, Dylan, as it refers both to method and findings - on "pesher" in general, but here regarding a specific finding. Str1977 23:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

No mediation necessary now:

Seriously, if the statement that Barbara Thiering is alone in making her claim is true, we have a responsibility to make that clear. It's not belittling to state it, it's simply an accurate representation of the case. siafu 22:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dylan, please see here. Also, I concur with what siafu said. There was nothing belittling in the version that you changed. Regards. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ann. KHM03 12:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd merely suggest that a brief paragraph added to the section, reporting neutrally on Thiering's analysis of the texts, her technique and her conclusions, would be a great deal more enlightening. --Wetman 19:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to complaint

195..., I don't know whether you will come back to read this. I doubt it because your time was too limited to look into the actual issue. But nonetheless:

• If someone claims that there is a tradition of MM as wife of Jesus while there isn't one, it is only right and proper to point this out.
• As a historian I must base myself on sources and if there are no sources that say that X or Y believed such a thing back then, that doesn't prove that they didn't, but it cannot go into the article. That would be speculation.
• As for the Bible in general: when there are other sources (and note that the Bible is actually not one but roughly 70 books) about the same things, I can weigh the souces against each other. And the Bible doesn't fare that bad in this.
• The article clearly indicates sources (according to ...) and gives great room for non-Christian views. But this is not unlimited.

Goodday, Str1977 17:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Easter Egg Tradition believed to be Orthodox not Catholic

I am Roman Catholic and I have never seen the tradition described in the article, among Catholics, HOWEVER my wife is Eastern Orthodox and both the eggs and especially the tag "Christ is Risen" are quite distinctive among Orthodox Christians - I have personally seen this in both Greek and Romanian Orthodox churches. Probably the only Catholics who maintain this tradition are those of Eastern Rites who are about 2% of all Catholics and have a superficially different liturgy and traditions. I intend no disrespect.

You're right, it seems to be mainly an Orthodox tradition at least these days. I changed the article to reflect this; feel free to make other corrections or improvements as you see them. Thanks for pointing out this one. Wesley 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Too many people tend to forget that this is an Irish/Scotish Druidic tradition from ages before Christianity even exhisted. Look up the Annuls of Ireland and the Celtic calender and holidays. All of which predate Catholisism by hundreds of years. Irishgt 17:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mary of Magdala?

Possibly that Mary Magdalene means Mary of Magdala is the majority view, but I have seen and heard other explanations offered. See http://www.magdalenereview.org/?cat=12 for example, where other things are mentioned, such as Mary of Magdalia, or Mary the stronghold of faith. I don't know how widespread some of those other thoughts might be, or the authority of the sources cited. Schizombie 09:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The explanation as "Magdalena" is not only the general view - it is in fact what's written in the Gospels: Mary of Magdala (and not another Mary). The question is, should we include this information and how? Str1977 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Gospels say (transliterated from Greek) "maria h magdalhnh," translated into English as "Mary the Magdalene." They do not say "Mary of Magdala," which is why there has, since as early as the 4th century, been debate about the meaning of her epithet. St. Jerome speculated that it had to do with "towering" characteristics as well. In early Syriac gospel manuscripts, the name is rendered (transliterated) as "mrym mgdlyt," which has also not been clearly translated as "woman from Magdala." Today, that the epithet reflects her place of origin *is* the accepted view among most scholars, however, they will also admit that there is no contemporary 1st century evidence of a place called Magdala in Palestine. The earliest reference to a place called Magdala, by that name, on the Sea of Galilee is in the late 2nd-early 3rd century (Eusebius). Earlier references to the place we now call Magdala were by a Greek name, Taricheae (Josephus, Pliny). Today there are several authors claiming esoteric meanings for the name Magdalene, most significantly Margaret Starbird, who through the use of gematria believes that the name was given in order to convey a specific numerical meaning. She also cites Micah 4:8 as an inspiration for the name ("And thou, O tower of the flock [Migdal-Eder], the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.") Most academics, however, are united in the position that in the absence of a more logical explanation, the epithet must be related to her place of origin, even if no 1st century evidence of such a place (aside from the epithet itself) exists. redegg 18:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Metaphysical Marriage

This whole section is out of place in an entry about Mary Magdalene; she isn't mentioned once. It should either be tied very closely to MM or moved to an entry about Jesus, since it really addresses the belief that he was married more than the belief that he was married to MM specifically.131.107.0.106 18:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Edits

There have been a flurry of edits in this article of late. Do remember the 3RR rule (not so sure the edits were of simple vandalism, but rather of an inexperienced contributor). Also, don't forget to explain major edits, people. black thorn of brethil 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Many (if not most) claims made in this article are uncited. See [4]. black thorn of brethil 10:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Debunking Da Vinci Code?

Da Vinci code is fiction, why are there references to "debunking" it? It is completely debunked by the word "fiction" on its spine.

This would go to show that perhaps a nerve was struck since it would seem strange that so many authors would feel the need to "debunk" a work of fiction.

Questionable Website

I removed the link to marymagdalene.com because after perusing it, it appears to be more of a conspiracy site rather than informative.

Seems to be biased

Offers ton of evidence about why they weren't spouses, but offers none of the many citations from the Bible and gospels itself that support this.

Also doesn't talk about gospels that Constantine didn't necessarily see fit to be in the Bible—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.216.201.229 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 June 2007.

Skull?

Hopefully, I didn't miss it somewhere in the article, but: why is there a skull laying next to Mary Magdalene in two of the pictures? Or is this just coincidence? --Plumcouch 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My first guess would be Memento mori. --Andrew c 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Prostitute (2)

Was the historical representation (true or false) of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute removed? If so, why? Regardless of truth or falsehood, the common association in the public eye of Magdalene as Whore is such that to not mention it is probably a greater disservise to the article than not mention? I'm not a Bible historian, so I can't really explain how the assertion came into parlance, but surley someone else can. Nedlum 15:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In brief, there are a number of women named "Mary" in the gospels, and not all biblical scholars agree as to which of these were Mary Magdalene. I don't think there's any particular conspiracy in this regard, it's just hard to tell for sure. Wesley 22:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I integrated the "Prostitute" info, as much as it was valid, into the "identifications" section as it best fits there and doesn't warrant a section of its own. Also, there was no recanting of the official position of the Church since there wasn't a official position of the Church in the first place. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I put back the bit on the Catholic Church reversing its position and added a source. Elcocinero 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Elcocinero, you didn't. However, I don't object to what you have actually done and thank you for it. It clarifies what actually happened in 1969. Also, the article seems to be more about a distancing from the identification of Mary of Magdala (former demoniac and witness of the risen Christ) and the sinful woman who annointed Jesus. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"very unpublicized declaration"

I moved the following over from talk:

In 1969, however, in a very unpublicized declaration, the Roman Catholic Church reversed its position, and held that there is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was the sinful woman in Luke's Gospel, nor that she had ever been a prostitute.

First of all: What is a "very unpublicized declaration"? I don't doubt that many in the Church doesn't hold to the identification anymore, while others still do. But to issue a binding declaration on this is most unlikely (just like there has been not declaration affirming the identification in the first place). Also, the sentence only addresses the identification of Mary of Magdala and the sinful woman from Luke, but leaves out Mary of Bethany alltogether. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

no acceptance from scholarly circles

If this statement is not to be POV we must know exactly what the definition ( unbiased definition ) of scholarly circles is. Otherwise I suggest this be changed to "little acceptance", "almost to acceptance", "relatively little acceptance" or something else.--Hontogaichiban 15:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

These assertions (the ones made by Lincoln/Baigent/Leigh and Da Vinci Code) are historical statements, so the relevant scholars are historians, including subcategories like Church historians and Ancient historians. Whom do you have in mind as a accepting scholar? I doubt there is any historian who accepts assertions about a marriage at all - and I am certain there is no historians that accepts LBL or DVC or related literature. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus and Mary

I know that there are people who say they were married, not including those on this discussion page, however, I heard that they could not have been married because they were from two different Jewish sects(tribes?), and from what I understand, by Jewish law, they could not intermarry. Does anyone know anything about this? And can it be confermed? I can't remember when or where I heard it. One of these science cable channels. S.Rodgers--65.24.77.104 04:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't help feeling people are being very polite when they suggest they were married, seems much more likely they were just lovers to me.--Hontogaichiban 08:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any basis for the idea that the reason Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not married was because they came from different tribes. (I am not saying they were married, I'm just saying that being from different tribes would not have been an issue.) The New Testament clearly states that Joseph was a male-line descendant of Judah (see Matthew 1 and Luke 3), which would mean Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. However, I don't think it identifies Mary Magdalene's tribe anywhere. Apparently The Da Vinci Code and its supporters claim that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin, and that a (supposed) marriage between them would have united the royal bloodlines of David (from the tribe of Judah) and Saul (from the tribe of Benjamin). Anyway, there were really only three possible tribes she could have been a member of: Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. All the other tribes had been exiled and lost to the Jewish people hundreds of years before (see Ten Lost Tribes). The tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and at least some of the tribe of Levi which had no land of its own, stayed together and there was no prohibition on intermarriage among them. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene - hebrew transliteration

In hebrew transliretaion system the name Mary Magdalene consists to number 380 and its definition is Isis and as I know Isis was a egyptian godess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Potera (talk • contribs) 09:29, 23 May 2006.

Magdalene or the "Virgin"

If Mary Magdalene is the same as the Virgin Mary.. Then she was never real. The worship of Mari came from Syria..the high priestess was not allowed to get married. which by the way..unmarried and "virgin" seem to be the same and not used like us western people use the word. Saint Sara of France and the "black" Mary of Egypt is the same idol(use your own name) as Mari the black virgin. She isn't venus either as both Venus and the moon was/is seen as male to Middle Eastern & Asians. It's all planetary..

--4.153.29.154 08:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)bel

Since it's all planetary, could you please drop your nonsense somewhere else on the planet. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Holy Blood, Holy Grail: A "Historical?" Novel

Is Holy Blood, Holy Grail considered a "historical" novel? The wikipedia page for the book seems to indicate that it is not considered historical by professional historians and academics, though there is no citation for any evidence to back up this claim. If "mainstream historians" do indeed believe Holy Blood, Holy Grail to be pseudohistorical, then perhaps the adjective "historical" to describe this book is unwarranted. Integrity168 04:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's no historical novel since it's no novel at all but a "non-fiction" book or "faction". Pseudo-historical captures it quite good. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think so either, so I removed the adjective "historical" describing in that sentence that I've been trying to make grammatically aesthetic in the section about Mary Magdalene and Jesus' relationship. Integrity168 08:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't at first understand your query, as I had overlooked that someone at some time (I clicked a few versions to the past without finding out who) had removed the prefix "pseudo-", turning the term into its opposite. I have now reinstated that former version. Thanks for watching where I was sleeping. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

aaaahhhhh. excellent, now that makes much more sense! Integrity168 21:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" requires a qualifier before it at all. Adding either "historical" or "pseudohistorical" seems to slant things one way of the other. Would the New Testament get such treatment? Is it automatically assumed to be "historical" because of its age? What about the Gnostic Gospels? Should they be considered pseudo-historical? And if so, why? The Wikipedia definition for pseudohistorical uses the term "pejorative" which automatically places HB,HG in a bad light. Maybe it SHOULD be, but what is the historicity of other books in the article? It seems NPOV to single this one out. Imagine if "pseudohistorical" was placed before every instance of "Matthew" in the article. How long would that last? Certainly there is plenty of evidence to corroborate events in the New Testament, but so to is there corroborating evidence for HB, HG. Jimaginator 13:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Disciple?

I wrote an essay about the Da Vinci Code for my history teacher so I've read a lot about it and the history around it. By my sources (and that's many) I know that Mary Magdalene never was a disciple even if Jesus counted her as his closest companion.

And you wanna know why? She was a woman. I don't think one should hide such an important fact like that so I'm gonna change it. Call me a feministic besserwiesser if you want to, I'm changing it anyway. No offence, though.:o) 17.07, 16 August 2006, Lady Stardust

Any time you add new information (especially controversial information) to wikipedia, you are a) supposed to cite it b) making sure the reference is from a reliable source and verifiable. It seems other editors have reverted you because these claims lack the proper citation. Keep these things in mind before you re-add your information. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 14:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark writes;

Interesting to me is that it was the Roman Cathollics who worked so hard to change history through well documented forgeries as additions or extended writing, adding to the original spoken and only lately written gosbel of Mark - the other three being the synoptic gospels. It is the church that is so famous in shaping history to fit its political aim at power throughout the centuries. (Ironic that Mel Gibson says this of King Edward in his part as William Wallace in the opening minutes of "Braveheart"). So when I read for example the Gospel of Phillip with the famous "many kisses on the ***" that are supposed to be ordinary Christian "platonic" affections, I wonder why they then would need mention? Taken together with the mysterious wedding at Cana where Jesus is clearly the groom (according to tradition, he is in charge as the groom would be, and even creates more wine (as I did at my own wedding, by ordering more!)) along with all the other pro-arguments, I find it rather compelling argument that the celebacy of Jesus, something declared in the third century required a suppression of mention of her and the later rendering of her as a prostitute that Jesus pitied. "Misquoting Jesus" is a book by theologian Bart Ehrman that illustrates the practice of forgery and fraud in the early churches productions and recopyings of the original scant writings of the original gospels whose earliest was written no earlier than 40 years after the alleged crucifixion. When one stacks up all the incidental history with objective analysis, it becomes most likely that MM had been married to Jesus and less that Jesus was any more than a religious leader on a spiritual-military mission to rid the land of David of a hated Roman occupation, just the way al-Sadr in Iraq has led a religious movement that has fought the U.S. military in Iraq. Jesus Christ was created later by a Hellenized Greek named Saul who made himself Paul and wrote extensively about a man he had never met. Recall that his interpretation of the meaning of the movement was not popular in Jerusalem where the followers of "Jesus" actually violently threw him out of the Temple and he had to be rescued by Roman troops. Think about THAT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.130.157 (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The testament of Mary Magdalene

Ancient hebrew writings suggest that the testament of Mary Magdalene exists, as well as large chunks of the testament of Judas Iscariot. Why doesn't wikipedia have anthing about these writings? It's almost like a conspiracy theory... Wikisquared 13:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I found articles about the "Gospel of mary magdalene" ALTHOUGH IT WAS HIDDEN The search doesn't actually come up with results for it... Wikisquared 13:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene in Talmud

Where can I verify the citation of the definition of Magdalene in a censored aggadah of the Talmud. Where is this aggadah published? I am writing an article for publication. I would like to see this definition of Magdalene as "grow" or "cultivate" wherever it is. I'm writing an article on biblical names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indianastatefair (talk • contribs) 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Gaul sentence

I appreciate the effort to provide more context to this sentence in the Veneration section:

Gregory of Tours, writing in Gaul, supports the tradition that she retired to Ephesus, with no mention of any connection to Gaul.

but the same basic problem remains. There is no mention of either Gaul or France up to this point in the article, so this sentence is assuming we know something that isn't presented until a bit later. Is someone willing to rearrange this section so that it flows in a more natural sequence? It would also be beneficial for the casual reader to give enough clues so they will understand Gaul and France are related. Am I making sense? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Have the new headings Veneration in the East and Veneration in France made it clear enough now? The Veneration in France section needs to proceed chronologically, in order to present the expanding historical development of these lengends. --Wetman 11:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done. It's a simple solution that addresses my concern. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Good! That medieval reimagining of M.M. in France is an important separate development. She's the sentimental Magdalene familiar today from colorful wallet cards. --Wetman 15:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Xenosaga reference

The Xenosaga mention seems to me slightly TOO vague. I understand not wanting to spoil the giveaway, but saying "Three of the main characters of this third act, KOS-MOS, chaos and T-elos, seem to have significant connection with Mary Magdalene." is misleading. Two of those characters /ARE/ Mary Magdalene.

Cultural References

I started by removing non-notable, oblique references to Mary and adding fact tags. Then I realized none of them had citations so I removed the whole section. Very few of the cultural references were something of direct note, but to be included they should have some sort of citation, otherwise anything could be added. Do we really know that any of the refs that were listed actually pertained directly to Mary? --Chuck Sirloin 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the cultural references had gotten out of hand, but I disagree with deleting the whole section. Most of the material does not require sourcing because it is straight forward. I mean, how do you source that Mary Magdalene had a singing part in Jesus Christ Superstar? It simply a fact that is sourced in the movie/musical itself, and in the main Jesus Christ Superstar article. I think weeding out the list is a good thing, but blanking it and requiring sourcing for information that is self evident in the work is unnecessary. -Andrew c 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that and leave items that are referenced to another wiki article. --Chuck Sirloin 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks for cleaning up the list.-Andrew c 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed for Wedding at Cana

I don't know if this helps (probably doesn't but thought you might want to know anyway) the citation for "It has been speculated that the biblical account of the wedding at Cana (John 2) [1] was, actually, the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Proponents of this view argue that Jesus' mother Mary advising the servants to do what Jesus tells them, reflects the role of the groom's mother, who according to Jewish tradition was in charge of the servants at a wedding.[citation needed]" Is in the book by Richard Leigh, the Holy Blood, and the Holy Grail. Just thought that since it says citation needed, you might like to know. St91 21:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC) PS: After thought - can I copy this onto my talk page User talk:St91 as I am dreadful at finding things! St91 22:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrible wording of this sentence

I know this is not what is actually meant,However, "Stephen J. Shoemaker thinks that this Mary is actually the Blessed Virgin Mary (Shoemaker 2001), that this fits in better with the notions that Mary was intimate with Jesus" the wording here implies that Jesus had an incestous relationship with the virgin mary. This sentence should be changed so that it doesn't have this unfortuante double entendre.

Historical Mary Magdalene

I've arrived at this Wiki subject very late in the game I realise...but does anyone else see a need for a paragraph discussing the historical Mary M? I don't mean anecdotes about Easter eggs, Da Vinci Code-esque nonsense, and the like, but rather what, exactly, the earliest references say (presumably its the Bible?)...I bet theres not much to go on, but I'd love to see what there is - unadorned and unencumbered by all the speculation and superstition that seems to surround her. Or is there no more than is already stated in the "New Testament References" paragraph in the Wiki article?
Hate to be a spoil-sport - but how or why on earth do we get such voluminous writings about a person who, I'm willing to bet, has about five sentences maximum in ancient texts??
Anybody else interested in a basic "What is Known" blurb about this person? Engr105th 21:55, 13 September 2007 (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)

She was depicted with black hair also, for ex.in Spain, and we also see the paintings by de la Tour where she has black hair. The section is weak, has not much information in general, not very informative--Bialosz (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC).

And are they medieval? See the Commons category. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2013 (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)