|
|
|
Question 89.
Dear Fr Christopher,
Greeting in Christ.
Many contradictory views on Mary Magdalene’s life come to light lately.
It is clear that most of them come from untrustworthy persons that have
nothing to do with the Church. But who was Mary Magdalene in reality
according to the teachings of our Church? Was she a prostitute that was
relieved from a heavy demonic possession by Christ or was she a
righteous person?
Constantine
Answer to Question 89.
Dear Constantine,
Indeed there are many confusing and blasphemous stories relating to the
person of Mary Magdalene. The answer to your question can be found in
detail on the Talks page of my website as it was a subject that I
covered two years ago. (Talk 94, 19/5/11)
Nevertheless, it is a subject that needs to be heard again and again for
as long as the attacks on her person continue, because through these
heretical and diabolical teachings they not only dishonour the person
whom the Church has recognized with the title “Equal to the Apostles”
but they also blatantly blaspheme the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The first thing we need to clear up is the widely accepted
misunderstanding that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Mary has been the
victim of western writers who have unfoundedly associated her name with
another unnamed woman in the Gospels. The Orthodox Church has never
shared this opinion and even considers that Mary was a virgin.
The best way to clear up this misunderstanding is to see the passages
from the New Testament which refer to Mary Magdalene so that we can have
a proper, clear and unbiased understanding of who she wasn’t. Magdalene
is of course not her family surname. She is called Magdalene because she
came from the small city of Magdala on the banks of Lake Genesaret in
Galilee. This detail is of the utmost importance as you will understand
as we analyse the Gospels.
There are at least 11 times when Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the
Gospels. St Mark says that “when Jesus was risen
early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,
out of whom he had cast seven devils.” (Mark 16: 9-10) Part of
the misunderstanding is that western scholars identified seven devils as
meaning that Mary was a sinful and sexually immoral woman and that was
why she was possessed with demons. The Gospels are full of people being
possessed with demons, but none are mentioned that they were possessed
as a result of their sexual behaviour. In fact none are mentioned that
they were possessed because they were sinners. If that was the case,
then what can we say about the man that was possessed by a legion of
demons or the young lad who was possessed by a devil from his early
childhood? Why do we automatically assume that when a woman is possessed
by demons then it has to be in connection with sexual behaviour?
St. Luke tells us that as Jesus went throughout every city and village,
preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God:
“the twelve were with him, And certain women,
which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called
Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, And Joanna the wife of Chuza
Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him
of their substance.” (Luke: 8: 2-3) Mary then was not the only
woman cured of demons, but other women who followed Christ were also
cured of demons. If demonic possession means prostitution can we then
assume that Jesus was followed from city to city by a group of female
prostitutes? Of course not!
Many of the Church Fathers, in interpreting what these seven demons
refer to, have said that we should not think that Mary was actually
possessed with demons, but just as the graces of the Holy Spirit are
numbered and called by the prophet Isaiah the seven spirits of grace
which are the spirits of wisdom, of understanding, of counsel, of might,
of knowledge, of godliness and fear of God, so also the opposite of
these are called seven demons. Every spirit of grace, every spirit of
light has its counterpart spirit of darkness. Whatever the
interpretation, Mary was certainly spiritually ill, but that does not
make her a sinner, least of all, a prostitute.
In all the other cases where Mary is mentioned in the Gospels it is in
connection with the crucifixion and the resurrection. To save time we
need not look at each and every occasion where she is mentioned; it is
enough to say that nowhere in these passages is there anything that
would even suggest the slightest hint that Mary led an inappropriate or
unethical life before she met Christ. The only thing inappropriate is
her name: the fact that she was called Mary which we will now see.
There are two episodes in the Gospels which although seem almost
identical to each other are in fact two different occasions. In these
two episodes three people take part: the central character which is
Christ and two different women. The name of one of these women is
completely unknown to us, but the second is Mary from Bethany, the
sister of Martha and Lazarus. Lets then see these two episodes beginning
with the episode of the unknown woman. Matthew, Mark and Luke relate the
story of the unknown woman. Matthew and Mark are almost identical
whereas in Luke there is a slight variation which could be interpreted
as being another episode with another woman.
Matthew tells us that Christ was invited to dinner at the house of a
certain Pharisee named Simon, in the village Bethany. While he sat at
meat a woman came having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and
poured it on his head. The reading continues: “But
when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose
is this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and
given to the poor. When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why
trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye
have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. For in that
she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.”
(Matth: 26:6-12)
Notice that in this version and in Mark’s which we shall see in a moment
the unidentified woman is simply referred to as a woman whereas only in
Luke is the woman referred to as a sinful woman.
Mark says of the same event: “And being in Bethany
in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman
having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she
brake the box, and poured it on his head. And there were some that had
indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the
ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred
pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a
good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye
will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. She hath done what
she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.”
(Mark 14:3-8)
Also note that in Matthew’s version the disciples were scandalized by
what they considered was a waste of the ointment which could have been
sold for a good price. In Mark’s version it says that some were
scandalized. In both cases it was not a single disciple but more than
one.
St. Luke speaks of a similar event although he doesn’t mention where the
event took place. “And one of the Pharisees
desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's
house, and sat down to meat. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was
a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house,
brought an alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him
weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with
the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the
ointment. Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake
within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known
who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a
sinner.” (Luke 7: 36-39)
This could be the same event that Matthew and Mark describe or it could
be a different episode altogether. There are enough discrepancies to
suggest this. The sinful woman and her actions are so very different. In
Matthew and Mark the woman was not weeping and poured the precious
ointment on Christ’s head, but in this version we have a sinful woman
who began to wash Christ’s feet with her tears, wiped them with her
hair, kissed his feet and then anointed his feet with the ointment.
There is no mention of disciples or anyone else being scandalized by the
waste of ointment, but only a scandalized Pharisee because Christ let a
sinful woman touch him.
That then is the account of the unknown woman or women. Let’s now see
the episode involving Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.
This account is found only in the Gospel according to St. John. John
mentions the event twice; once before Lazarus’ death and again after his
resurrection. He says that “a certain man was
sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his
feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)” (John 11:
1-2)
After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead he was invited to their house
for dinner. It says: “Then Jesus six days before
the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead,
whom he raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; and Martha
served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. Then
took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed
the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was
filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples,
Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this
ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he
said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and
had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Then said Jesus, Let her
alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor
always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.” (John 12:
1-8)
This account, although it shares similar elements to the others, is
certainly different. The woman is identified as Mary the sister of
Martha and Lazarus and only one disciple is scandalized and is
identified as Judas Iscariot. It is possible that as both the events
took place in Bethany the town of Mary, Martha and Lazarus, that Mary
was an eye witness or heard about the event that took place in the house
of Simon the Pharisee and having seen that it pleased Jesus and heard
his comments that the unknown woman did it in anticipation of his
burial, decided that she would do the same now that Jesus was a guest in
her house. If Mary was present at the Pharisee’s house she would have
also heard Jesus reprimanding Simon for his cold reception and lack of
respect towards him telling him that when he entered into his house he
didn’t give him water to wash his feet as was the custom, but the woman
washed them with her tears. He didn’t greet him with a friendly kiss as
was the custom, but the woman from the time he came in hadn’t stopped
kissing his feet. He didn’t anoint his head with ordinary oil as was the
custom but the woman anointed his feet with precious ointment. If Mary
had seen or heard what took place in the Pharisee’s house then she made
sure to do the same because Jesus told Simon that that was how he should
have received him into his house but didn’t.
Having heard from all four Gospels we can now ask where does Mary
Magdalene fit in to all this? According to what we have heard, her name
is nowhere to be seen. She has simply fallen victim by coincidence and a
confusion because of her name. Let see then how this confusion came
about and solve the mystery. For clarity’s sake I will refer to the
possible three episodes as only two.
During the middle ages, Roman Catholic writers confused the two separate
episodes and the two women involved and considered than they referred to
one episode. One reason was that the first event took place in Bethany
and the account involving Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus also
took place in Bethany which was their hometown.
Then quite arbitrarily, without any source from any existing
ecclesiastical tradition, these western writers identify the sinful
woman with Mary Magdalene and even confused her with Mary the sister of
Martha and Lazarus because both are called Mary.
There is also a possibility that the mix up in the identity of the two
Maries occurred because on the 4th of May the Church commemorates the
Translation of Lazarus’ relics from Cyprus to Constantinople and also on
the same day is commemorated the Translation of Mary Magdalene’s relics
from Ephesus to Constantinople. Thus for these western writers it seemed
logical to think that for them to be remembered on the same day Mary
Magdalene must be Lazarus’ sister.
After this confusion, various literary works began to be written with an
imaginary content on the supposed unethical life of Mary Magdalene which
intensified the confusion right up to our present day. Over the years
there has been so much distortion and slandering of Mary Magdalene’s
name that very many of the faithful have fallen victim to this extremely
wrong opinion that they actually believe that it is all written in the
Gospels.
We do not know much about the life of Mary Magdalene. There are various
legends of her that have been around for centuries especially in France
and Italy and some of these details have passed over into the Orthodox
world. According to these legends Mary was from a noble family whose
parent’s names were Syrus and Eucharistia. In the western legends Mary
is a passionate and sinner youth, but in the Greek versions she is
described as a God-fearing virgin who spent all her time studying the
Scriptures and paid special attention to the Psalms and the prophecies
concerning the coming of the Messiah. I think we should not put too much
emphasis on her life before she met Christ but concentrate only on what
tradition has given us after the resurrection.
Byzantine historians say that when the apostles left Jerusalem to spread
the good news of the Resurrection, Mary travelled to Rome and preached
the word of God throughout Italy. Tradition relates that in Italy Mary
Magdalene was given a hearing before the Emperor Tiberius (14-37 A.D.).
Standing before the Emperor she said, “Christ is Risen!” At this the
Emperor pointed to an egg on his table and stated, “Christ has no more
risen than that egg is red.” After making this statement it is said the
egg immediately turned blood red. She then told the emperor that in his
Province of Judea the unjustly condemned Jesus had been executed at the
instigation of the Jewish High Priests, and the sentence confirmed by
his appointed procurator Pontius Pilate. Some traditions say that she
managed to receive a death sentence for the high priests Anna and
Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate. This seems a bit unlikely and other sources
like that of the 4th century historian Eusebius say that Pilate was
exiled probably to Gaul where he took his own life.
Mary is said to have remained in Italy and helped Paul when he arrived.
She remained two more years after Paul had departed after his first
court judgement. Although we often speak of Paul as the founder of the
Roman Church, the Christian faith was already being preached there
before his arrival. Neither Paul nor Peter is the founder. Mary was
there long before Peter or Paul and even though she is not officially
recognized as the founder of the Roman Church she certainly played an
important role in preparing the ground for Paul to take over. Paul
acknowledges this when he says in his Epistle to the Romans,
“Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour upon us.” (Romans 16:6)
From Italy Mary is said to have preached also in France before returning
to Jerusalem. Some traditions have her visiting Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria
and Pamphylia before returning to Jerusalem. At Jerusalem she stayed a
short while with the Mother of God until her death. From Jerusalem she
was persecuted by the Jews and was exiled to Marseilles together with
the Apostle Maximus of the seventy apostles. Here it is said that she
converted the whole of Provence and for many centuries there existed a
cult religion of Mary Magdalene.
Mary finished her life in Ephesus near to St. John the Evangelist living
in a cave where she finished her earthly life and was buried. Her relics
were translated to Constantinople in 890 AD and placed in the monastery
Church of St Lazarus. In the era of the Crusader campaigns some of her
relics were transferred to Italy and placed at Rome under the altar of
the Lateran Cathedral. Part of the relics of Mary Magdalene are also
said to be in Provence, France near Marseilles, where over them at the
foot of a steep mountain a splendid church is built in her honour. I
should also mention that on the Holy Mountain Athos in the monastery of
Simonopetra is kept an incorrupt female hand which for centuries has of
its own been preserved at a natural physical temperature of a living
body. By Tradition this hand belongs to Mary Magdalene who with the many
miracles surrounding the hand is considered as a second founder of the
monastery. In 1747 the hand was stolen by pirates, but was purchased
back in 1765 by the Abbot of the monastery in Tripoli Libya.
Unfortunately the Monastery’s records were burnt in the big fire of 1891
so we don’t have any more details concerning the history of the hand.
St. Mary Magdalene is celebrated by the Church on 22nd July which is her
main feast and on 4th May the Translation of her relics.
Now let's concentrate on the scandalous and blasphemous books and films
that have appeared in recent years. Books like ‘The Holy Blood and the
Holy Grail” “The Da Vinci Code”, the film by the same name and “The Last
Temptation of Christ”. In these books and films Mary Magdalene is
portrayed as being Jesus’ wife and that together they had children. The
root of these lies is to be found in the Gnostic writings of the second
and third century especially the writing known as “the gospel of St.
Phillip” which suggests that Mary and Jesus had a special relationship.
The Papyrus found in Egypt in 1945 is incomplete with many holes in it
and guesses were made at what might have been the missing words. The
sentence made up by purely guesswork reads “And the companion of the
saviour was Mary Magdalene. Christ loved Mary more than all the
disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth.”
Based on this Gnostic gospel and the cult religions surrounding Mary
Magdalene in Southern France, the authors of the book “The Holy Blood
and the Holy Grail”, put forward a hypothesis that the historical Jesus
married Mary Magdalene, had one or more children, and that those
children or their descendants emigrated to what is now southern France.
Once there, they intermarried with the noble families that would
eventually become the Merovingian dynasty, whose special claim to the
throne of France is championed today by a secret society called the
Priory of Sion. They concluded that the legendary Holy Grail is
simultaneously the womb of St. Mary Magdalene and the sacred royal
bloodline she gave birth to.
The film “The Last Temptation” is based on the same source and depicts
Jesus on the Cross being given a choice not to die but to marry Mary and
have children to which he accepts but then in old age he repents of this
decision and asks God to let him die on the Cross as he was originally
supposed to do.
Dan Brown, the author of the “Da Vinci Code” novel again has used as the
source of his blasphemous book the Gnostic writings and the beliefs
concerning the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene mentioned in the
book “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail”
All these writings are just attacks on the Bible and its authority. They
attack the true identity of Christ, the true identity of Mary and the
true identity of man’s salvation. In his book, Dan Brown writes that the
bible is the product of man and not of God. Man created it as a
historical record of tumultuous times and it has evolved through
countless translations, additions and revisions. History has never had a
perfect version of the book. He claims that Constantine the Great
commissioned and financed a new bible which omitted those gospels that
spoke of Christ’s human straits and embellished those gospels that made
him godlike. The earlier gospels were then outlawed, gathered up and
burned. He further argues that more than 80 gospels were potential
candidates for the New Testament, but only Matthew, Mark Luke and John
were chosen for purely political reasons at the time of Constantine and
indicates that the true gospels have recently been discovered in the
Dead Sea Scrolls. This is where his argument crumbles because from the
1,000 or so documents found at Qumran near the Dead Sea the only
religious documents found were from the Old Testament and the messiah
prophesied in these Old Testament texts totally support the Jesus
portrayed in the canonical gospels.
In the Old Testament found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are 125
prophecies pointing to the coming of the Messiah. The probability that
all these prophecies being fulfilled in just one person is incalculable:
it would be in the many billions and trillions to 1. The Dead Sea
scrolls therefore reinforce the fact that the Old Testament has not been
changed or tampered with, and that the Jesus Christ found in the
canonical gospels goes hand in hand with the prophecies and writings of
the Old Testament, unlike the Jesus portrayed in the Gnostic gospels.
His argument that Constantine changed the New Testament is also
unfounded. Firstly there were no gospels found among the Dead Sea
Scrolls as Dan Brown falsely stated. Secondly one of the earliest
manuscripts of the New Testament known as the Rylands Papyrus p52 was
found in Egypt and is dated to about 110AD more than 200 years before
the birth of Constantine. There is also the Bodmer Papyrus dated to
200AD which contains text from the New Testament and many more
discoveries of New Testament findings that are identical to today’s New
Testament all dating before the time of Constantine’s rule. Constantine
therefore did not and could not have created the New Testament or change
any part of it.
The Gnostic gospels which were found in different times and places were
not placed in the bible because they contradicted the Old Testament.
Gnosticism refers to a religious movement consisting of beliefs
generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in
a material world created by an imperfect god. The Old Testament
contradicts this because it states that God is perfect and people are
not trapped on earth. Dan Brown based his novel on the Gnostic beliefs
and writings. It was the gospels from these Gnostic writings that Dan
Brown accused were left out by Constantine. But they were left out
because they contradict the Old Testament and because they teach that
the God of the Old Testament was evil and that the serpent was good. The
Gnostics also created a goddess named Sophia who they worshipped as more
noble and wise than Jesus Christ. They were fascinated with the mother
principle in the universe.
I mentioned all these facts because these ideas and beliefs has been
around for centuries and we can be sure that they will be cropping up
again and again in new books and new films and although they are
scandalous to the many millions of Christians throughout the world, if
we learn to ignore them then they might eventually go away. What has
happened in the past is that the Hierarchs of the Churches rose up with
cries of excommunication and forbidding the faithful to read or see
these films. The results from all this screaming and shouting actually
produced the opposite effect. The majority of these works are just
mediocre, which under normal circumstances would have passed by
unnoticed by most people, but because of all the noise generated by the
Christian Churches, it awakened people’s interest and curiosity to see
what all the fuss was about. The end result was that more people than
would have bought the books and saw the films and the producers of these
works made a fortune. I am not saying that we should completely ignore
such blasphemous works and not say anything. But instead of rising up in
anger it would be better to soberly instruct and educate the faithful on
the origins of these works so that they can sieve out for themselves the
truths from the lies.
With love in Christ
Fr. Christopher
|
|
|
