Redimete Diem!Look
carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, |
|
Home |
Da Vinci Code
| The Pilgrim's
Progress |
Worship |
Sermons |
Courses |
|
Confronting The Da Vinci Code
Part 5: Has Mary Magdalene been
Stifled?
“And the companion of the Saviour is
Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene is the real story that is being told by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code. As calculated and energetic is his effort to deny Jesus' divinity there is a much more shrewd and cunning determination to virtually lift Mary Magdalene to that very status. At the end of the book, Robert Langdon has a spiritual experience at the supposed grave of Mary which moves him to reverence and makes him fall to his knees, after which he thinks he hears a woman’s voice speaking to him. What we really know of this Mary comes from the most ancient of testimonies - the gospels themselves. She is always known by her link with the ancient community of Magdala. This is significant because the other Marys we read of the in the gospels are all described and identified by their relationship to a male, as was the common Jewish reference point for women in that day. We know more about Mary Magdalene than we do most of the apostles. Sometime before the events of Lk. 8:2, Jesus met her and drove out seven demons from her. Since that moment, the gospels liberally mention and describe her as one of the several female companions and supporters of the apostolic band. She was also there at the crucifixion, standing apart and at a distance from the scene with the other women and not up close to the cross where Mary, Jesus’ mother and the apostle John stood. She witnessed the burial of the Lord, again from a distance, and with another of the women. And with other women, she went to the tomb to pay the body of Jesus honor on the morning of that first Lord’s Day. Then, she and the other women carried the news of the angels to the apostles. The last mention of her is when the resurrected Jesus appears to her and speaks to her. In her shock and relief she called him her teacher (“Rabboni”) and apparently embraced him. But this he told her she must not do. It is the only time she is singled out specifically and it is the only time when she is alone with Jesus. There was no personal preference or relationship. But even though these eye-witness testimonies record so much of her presence and participation, we are told the ancient church fathers, and Constantine himself, sought to eradicate the truth from the records by attempting to erase her name from memory. But there is absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever. By the time of Constantine, there were numerous copies of the Scriptures scattered to all parts of the empire. We have remnants of many of them recovered from all kinds of places and some of them date back nearly to the originals themselves. There are no such editorial emendations, no selective re-writing of history. Instead, the selective re-writing of history began with the appearance of mysterious Gnostic tracts that began emerging 150 to 200 years after the time of Christ and yet claiming to be further accounts of other eye-witnesses. (That is about as believable a claim as if today I were to come up with what I claimed to be a “first-hand account” of a conversation between Grant and Lee during the War Between the States!) The problem is that some people do believe them. But what Dan Brown has written he has based on the Gnostics' ludicrous claim to credibility, while he dismisses the proven credibility of the more ancient writings simply by prejudice.
There are two passages from the Gnostic writings that are held up for our attention (pp. 246-7). The first is the Gospel of Philip (which dates from approximately the latter half of the 3rd c.). It does not read as the original gospels do, it is a mixture of spontaneous statements of wisdom and illustration. Among some of its teachings it claims:
Then, in the heart of the writing is this obscure passage below. The integrity of the document has suffered and what has been lost is marked with brackets and in some of those brackets suggested readings are offered: As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than [all] the disciples, and [used to] kiss her [often] on her […]. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness." At its worst, the writing only presents itself as a scandal, sort of an ancient tabloid-style newspaper trying desperately to ruin someone’s reputation. At its best, it doesn’t have to say what Brown and some others have presumed and lead others to conclude. Earlier in the same writing, there is mention and description of a “kiss of fellowship between believers where nothing sexual is intended” (Bock, p. 22). It is more likely, then, that the kiss alluded to in the former passage carries a similarly spiritual connotation rather than a sexual one. The other Gnostic writing is called the Gospel of Mary Magdala. It is badly segmented and portions are lost. Below is a lengthy quotation from it. The context is important. The scene is one where the disciples ask Mary to tell them things he told her but not them. We pick it up in amid her teaching: And desire said, I did not see you descending, but now I see you ascending. Why do you lie since you belong to me? The soul answered and said, I saw you. You did not see me nor recognize me. I served you as a garment and you did not know me. 12) When it said this, it (the soul) went away rejoicing greatly. Again it came to the third power, which is called ignorance. The power questioned the soul, saying, Where are you going? In wickedness are you bound. But you are bound; do not judge! And the soul said, Why do you judge me, although I have not judged? I was bound, though I have not bound. I was not recognized. But I have recognized that the All is being dissolved, both the earthly things and the heavenly. When the soul had overcome the third power, it went upwards and saw the fourth power, which took seven forms. The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is the excitement of death, the fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven powers of wrath. They asked the soul, Whence do you come slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space? The soul answered and said, What binds me has been slain, and what turns me about has been overcome, and my desire has been ended, and ignorance has died. In a aeon I was released from a world, and in a Type from a type, and from the fetter of oblivion which is transient. From this time on will I attain to the rest of the time, of the season, of the aeon, in silence. When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her. Then comes the interchange below: But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, “Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.” Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things. He questioned them about the Savior: “Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?” Then Mary wept and said to Peter, “My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?” Levi answered and said to Peter, “Peter you have always been hot tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said. And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach. Mr. Brown only quotes the latter part in order to draw sympathy for poor, misunderstood Mary. He even draws the "proper" conclusion for you on p. 248: Teabing says “I daresay Peter was something of a sexist.” That comment of the character of Professor Teabing makes him an intellectual idiot and proves the author, Mr. Brown, is malicious in his intent to twist and pervert. As a fictional record, it is clear that the author of The Gospel of Mary Magdala is deliberately posing the scenario to make it look as though Andrew and Peter, who still hold to an orthodox view and find Mary’s teaching unacceptable in content, are still wrong simply because it was Mary that was doing the talking. And, of course, that is exactly what Mr. Brown wants you to think as well. (to be continued next month) David G. Barker, 2005 |
| David G. Barker david.barker@ncpres.org |