So many legends,
apocryphal stories and layers of myth have accrued to the figure of Mary
Magdalene that the only honest answer is that we can’t really be sure. She
certainly existed, and it is now accepted that she was a major apostle in
Jesus’s group of disciples.
The issue for
readers is that the author of The Da Vinci Code presents Mary Magdalene as the
wife of Jesus, the mother of his children, and the progenitor of the subsequent
royal Davidic bloodline. This is what we have to accept at least for the
duration of reading the book, or else we lose the author’s purpose. For
comprehensive details concerning this popular hypothesis, readers might care to
consult other sources - for instance, genealogist Laurence Gardner’s Bloodline
of the Holy Grail, Lynn Picknett’s Mary Magdalene, Barbara Thiering’s Jesus the
Man, Margaret Starbird’s The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, and Michael Baigent,
Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln’s
Holy Blood, Holy Grail..
Although detractors
of this theory point to its relatively recent appearance in the vast literature
relating to Jesus and his relationship with Mary Magdalene, there have, in
fact, been similar speculations over the centuries, including by some highly
respected religious figures, Martin Luther among them.
The theory was given
additional substance (and, it must be admitted, increased opportunity for some
imaginative theorising) as old parchments and scrolls have been uncovered in
their centuries-old hiding-places. There are documents in the possession of
both Church and layman establishments that have not yet been released, possibly
because they have not yet been decrypted. It is almost certain that many more
will be found, and that together these are likely to help clarify the picture
one way or the other.
What is now known
quite definitely is that Mary Magdalene was a woman of substance, a loyal
supporter and follower of Jesus and, it is now thought, very likely his most
important and most-loved apostle. It was to her that he revealed himself when
he re-appeared after his crucifixion, and it was she whom he asked to reveal
his living presence to the other apostles.
‘Mary of Bethany’
anointed the head of Jesus with spikenard in the house of Lazarus (Simon
Zelotes) in Bethany. (See Matthew 26:6-7 and Mark14:3.) Spikenard is an ancient
and very costly aromatic ointment that was used only on special occasions,
including in ritual observances between those to be committed to each other in
marriage. In John 11:1-3 we are told that the same woman anointed the feet of
Jesus later, using spikenard that filled the house with its perfume. Luke
(7:37-38) reports that a woman anointed the feet of Jesus with ointment and
then wiped them with her long hair, and John (11:1-2) tells us that this woman
was Mary.
Laurence Gardner
points out in Bloodline of the Holy Grail that Mary had performed this same
ritual three months after the wedding feast at Cana which had taken place “two
and a half years earlier”.
He notes that on
both occasions Jesus was seated at table like the king in The Song of Solomon:
“While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell
thereof.” (The Song of Solomon, 1:12) Gardner relates Mary’s act of devotion to
an ancient rite concerning the preparation of the bridegroom’s table by the
bride and says that using spikenard was specific to the ritual of both the
First and Second Marriage ceremonies. In keeping with Messianic tradition, only
the wife of Jesus, he says, would have been permitted to perform these
ceremonies of sacred anointment. (pp. 86-87)
We are on firmer
ground regarding the identity of Mary than we are concerning the later role she
played. The ‘Mary of Bethany’ label seems to have resulted from the fact that
Martha and Mary are referred to as ‘sisters’ in the house of Lazarus of Bethany
(whose real name was Simon Zelotes), but this was a titular term rather like
that applied to nuns of a religious order and does not indicate that they were
blood relations. Mary’s actual name was Sister Miriam Magdala… or Mary of
Magdala; that is, Mary Magdalene.
It is of
significance that in some ascetic and spiritually devout Jewish groups of the
Qumran period, ‘Miriam’ (or ‘Mary’) was a title of some distinction as it
indicated that the bearer was the leader of the women in her particular group
and also took part in the formal ministry along with the male leaders, the
‘Moses’ figures.
Genealogist Laurence
Gardner states that Mary Magdalene’s father was the Chief Priest, Syrus the
Jairus, and therefore second only to the High Priest. The Jairus Priest, he
says, had been a hereditary position from the time of King David and was handed
down only through the descendants of Jair. (See Numbers 32:41)
Mary Magdalene would
have been a fitting marriage partner for Jesus, who was heir to the royal line
of David, for she was descended through her mother from the royal house of
Israel, the Hasmonaean royal line, and a daughter of the tribe of Benjamin to
which Israel’s first anointed king, Saul, had also belonged.
The tribes of
Benjamin and Judah had been supportive of each other from early tribal times,
and if there were indeed a joining of the two royal lines by marriage it would
have been seen by many Jews as a positive and healing factor at a time when
there was much dissension among them, as well as a pervasive hopelessness owing
to the seemingly all-powerful overlordship of Rome.
The figure of Mary
Magdalene that is emerging from the bewildering mixture of fact, legend and
religious tinkering is a far cry from the now officially rejected Biblical myth
of the reformed prostitute.
Scribes of the Roman
Church embroidered on the New Testament description of Mary Magdalene as a
“sinner”, ignoring the fact that this merely referred to the celibate almah
state to which she was obliged to adhere at a particular time in terms of her
religious culture. A plausible theory is that the male-dominated Church
manipulated the term to impugn Mary Magdalene’s character by describing her as
a harlot, and this was reinforced in the sixth century by Pope Gregory I’s
inaccurate proclamation that Mary was a reformed prostitute. Even here, though,
one cannot be sure of the facts, as author, Sharan Newman, among others, claims
that Gregory’s words have, in turn, been misinterpreted and that he did not
intend that Mary Magdalene should be labelled a prostitute. His words
nonetheless had exactly that effect.
If the intention to
label Mary Magdalene as a harlot was never there, one wonders why, in 1969, the
Vatican issued its rather low-key retraction. This should have removed
seventeen centuries of calumny from Mary Magdalene’s name, but largely did not
do so. It is known that retractions typically receive much less publicity than
did the original untrue statements and so continue to be believed by the public
at large. And so it is with the accusations against the character of Mary
Magdalene.
Mary Magdalene is
increasingly seen as one of the major feminist icons of our time. Books about
her proliferate, and some of the stories that exalt her in this new role are
probably as exaggerated as those that earlier diminished her.
In some places,
especially in France, to which she might have fled after the Crucifixion,
adulation of “the Magdalen” has become a thriving industry.
Are we ever likely
ever to know the real Mary Magdalene? At this stage, it seems unlikely. But as
more historical material from her own time becomes available, we will be able
to form a picture that will be closer to the flesh-and-blood woman whom Jesus
undoubtedly loved, whether as wife or as devoted follower and friend.
Here are the answers to the 32 most asked questions about the Da Vinci Code
So here are the reusults of one years work!
However most people find it easier just to download
the eBook with all the answers.
EASY ... Click to place your SECURE order right now for the complete ebook.
The total cost of your transaction will be $5.00
Otherwise here are the answers !