Lauren Davies

Magdalene is introduced in Luke as someone from which Jesus had cast out “seven demons” (8:2), and thus as reformed or healed, albeit in what manner remains ambiguous. As Geldenhuys correctly identifies, “demon possession is a phenomenon which occurred almost exclusively, but then to be sure on an amazing scale, during Jesus’ appearance on earth, and to a lesser extent during the activity of the apostles” (1951:174). Despite the frequency, however, of Jesus’ miraculous acts throughout the New Testament corpus, it is only in the case of Mary Magdalene that seven demons are released from one individual. Despite this large number of demons, expressing a significance to the woman and act itself, the healing is mentioned only in passing, perhaps indicating that it was not a particularly dramatic event, and so enabling those more spectacular in nature to be focussed upon. Even within this juxtaposition of ideas, Magdalene’s multifaceted nature is displayed: she is at once stricken with innumerable ills, and yet the implication and understanding of these ills appears inconsequential to the narrative and her character. Numbers within ancient societies had symbolic significance, and within Biblical Literature, seven was understood as a number of perfection, completion or divinity (Ehrman, 2017:80), for example, seven days of creation and seven attributes of God. Whilst some attribute these seven demons to be the seven deadly sins, this classification came later than the dating of the Gospel writing and canonisation, such as with Evagrius Ponticus, and was not explicit in the Bible. In many cases, it is understood that the “seven demons” may correspond to the depth of such sin, and thus the corresponding devotion which she must have had to Jesus to be cleansed of such transgressions. However, although it is generally interpreted that these demons were related to her morality or sin, it may be the case that the intention was simply to indicate an illness of the mind or body. It is undeniably the case that where Jesus heals, he does so in accordance with illness, not sin. In cases of sin, individuals are often forgiven, such as the woman who washes Jesus’ feet (Luke 7:36-50). Moreover, if Jesus was to exorcise demons for the purpose of removing sin, was not his mission on earth of salvation through crucifixion redundant? What it is perhaps possible to derive from this narrative, and the significance of the ‘seven’ and its undertone as a number signifying completion, is that whatever ‘demons’ were injurious to Magdalene, be they sin, or physical illness, she was completely overwhelmed by them.

Magdalene is also understood throughout as having a degree of autonomy afforded to few other women in the gospels. Indeed, following on from Luke’s  description of Magdalene’s demons, the author writes that “Mary, called Magdalene… and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources” (Luke 8:2-3). This is one of many signs that Magdalene was largely unrestrained in terms of her position as a woman, and could largely exercise religious freedom. Indeed, as explained by Helen Bond and Joan Taylor in the 2018 documentary ‘Jesus’ Female Disciples: The New Evidence’, it is clear here that Luke is discussing financial resources, whereby these women are “bankrolling the whole movement” (2018). Yet, whilst this is the case to some degree, she still conforms to the roles assigned to her as a woman. For instance, she the individual who is at the tomb-site mourning, thus fulfilling the traditional Judaic and early Christian roles for lamentation. Biblical mourning saw the traditional site of lamentation through the lens of gender, whereby women were women were identified as “ideal speakers of loss and rupture”, due to their embodiment of the condition (Eskenazi and Weiss in Schreiber, 2008). Thus, Magdalene is the realisation of the ideal lamenter in the case of Jesus’ death. Moreover, the resurrection appearances across the Gospels assign to her differing roles post-appearances of the risen Christ. Each of these passages identifies helps the reader to identify the focus of the Gospel in itself, but is telling for the position of women in the writing process.

Magdalene and Authority in the Gnostics

In the Gnostic Gospels, Magdalene appears to some degree as “more enlightened” (Jacobovici and Pellegrino, 2008:136) than Philip, suggesting a degree of apostleship seen in no other female. As Haag notes, “Magdalene is at the crucifixion, she is at the burial, and she is at the resurrection, and before that she is with Jesus throughout his ministry in Galilee. As a woman and companion of Jesus she is the only person close to him at the critical moments that define his purpose, that describe his fate, and that will give rise to a new religion” (Haag, 2017:3). It is true that this interpretation of Magdalene as a prominent early Church leader is not a new one, for “Hippolytus and Augustine saw Magdalene as acting as an apostle in spreading the news of the resurrection” (Edwards, 1989:100) and it does seem to be reflected in multiple Gospels. Yet there seems never to have been a ‘matriarchal paganism’ within the Christian sphere apart from the Gnostics, considered as dissenters from ‘true’ Christianity which became more formalised and dogmatic from the 2nd Century. As Ehrman writes the Gnostics were attacked “on the grounds that women were allowed to exercise prominent, leadership roles in their communities. Even from the surviving Gnostic writings themselves we occasionally get glimpses of the importance of the feminine principle” (Ehrman, 2005:223).

The Gospel of Mary presents a radically different view of the saint than that presented in the Bible and in other Gnostic Scriptures, where gender tensions are reflected, and she is shown as superior, in a sense, to the other apostles. King notes that “her superiority is based on vision and private revelation and is demonstrated in her capacity to strengthen the wavering disciples and turn them toward the Good” (King, 2003). King remarks that the Gospel provides “an intriguing glimpse into a kind of Christianity lost for almost fifteen hundred years… it exposes the erroneous view that Mary of Magdala was a prostitute for what it is - a piece of theological fiction; it presents the most straightforward and convincing argument in any early Christian writing for the legitimacy of women’s leadership… and it asks us to rethink the basis for church authority” (King, 2003). Even in the Pistis Sophia, Magdalene’s unwavering ability to uncover the truth is highlighted: “When Mary finished saying these things, the saviour marvelled greatly at the answers she gave, for she had become entirely pure spirit. Jesus answered and said to her ‘Well done, Mary, pure spiritual woman. This is the interpretation of the world” (Pagels, 1979). The prominent focus on the equality of women and men seems to have been rejected by the later Church, neglected through the abandonment of the Gnostic traditions.

Magdalene and Marriage in the Gnostics

The Gnostic Gospels have been interpreted in a variety of lights, one of which does suggest that Magdalene and Jesus were in a relationship, and consequently many argue their marriage. In the Gospel of Philip it is written that “The companion of the [gap in the manuscript] Mary Magdalene [gap] more than [gap] the disciples [gap] kiss her [gap] on her [gap]” (Robinson, 1988:PGN). Whilst it is clear that Magdalene is kissed by Jesus, it is unclear as to where, and thus no romantic conclusions should be drawn. Not only this, but there is a commonality to kiss in blessing within Christianity, thus again, no romantic connotations should be drawn: de Boer observes traditional though that “receiving grace makes her born again” (1997), a transmission of divine knowledge. This is furthered later in the Gospel, where the disciples ask Jesus “Why do you love her more than all of us?” (Robinson, 1988), again the interpretations of this have been vast, assuming a passionate relationship. However, the use of the term ‘more’ is suggestive, not of a different type of love, for example claiming Jesus loves them with phileo love, and Magdalene with eros love, but instead to a different extent, to a different degree. Lahr’s commentary on the Greek language corroborates with this, claiming that “she is specifically referred to as ‘companion’ from a Greek word meaning ‘partner’ and ‘consort’”(2006:110). Unfortunately, as Ehrman points out, the Gospel of Philip is in Coptic, not Aramaic or Greek. In Coptic, the word ‘companion’ means, very literally, friend (2005:183)

The Magdalene Scandal

591ce marks the most significant turning point in the reception history of Mary Magdalene, whereby the third Homily of Pope Gregory the Great crystallised an image of Magdalene previously undocumented. This account of Mary correlates ‘Magdalene’ with Luke’s “sinful woman”, and reaffirms the “seven devils” (Gregory the Great in Haskins, 1993:96) which Jesus casts out of Mary (Luke 8:2). Not only are these persons conflated, but the Pope goes further, to assert that these “devils” are the vices, as previously discussed, and he speaks of her performing “forbidden acts” (Gregory the Great in Haskins, 1993:96). Magdalene is thus firmly cast as a sinner whom Jesus forgives and heals. In such a way, the acts of Jesus are understood to be the prime undoing of this woman’s sin: a sin not prescribed to her in the Bible. On the contrary, in the Biblical text, Magdalene is only explicitly referred to in reference to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, in her providing of resources and in the casting out of her demons. Whilst the exorcism type event does bring with it necessary questions related to the nature of these demons, very little can be concluded as to Magdalene’s sinfulness. It is thus that, as Ehrman correctly notes, the images of Magdalene in popular culture are “not simply the products of modern imaginations” (2006:183), but have their root in ideas constructed in order to further the patriarchal headship of the Church. For instance, Pope Clement 1 writes in First Clement 21:7 “let them [women] demonstrate by their [women’s] silence the moderation of their [women’s] tongue” (Clement in Holmes, 2006:53). The teaching of the Apostolic Father indicates the dominant ideologies of the Early Church with regard to the issues of women and gender. It is also telling as to the status of Magdalene. Throughout the defamation of her character by Gregory the Great, Magdalene is merely a voiceless figure of history. Her person is defined by men and for men and their ends: namely these female figures of power posed a great threat to the patriarchal church structure. It is clear also that in Gregory’s homily, it is not the Magdalene’s character itself that poses a threat to the church, indeed his manipulation of her character is what ensures that she is not viewed appealingly. Instead, her body is viewed as the threat, its sensuality demonised - Magdalene, through the patriarchal lens is a seductress, ensuring men turn towards sin and away from the virtues of the Church. Contrastingly, these men present the commanding ideology of Magdalene’s submissiveness post-exorcism and forgiveness by Jesus in Luke, whereby she falls at the feet of Jesus.

Jacobus de Voragine’s ‘The Golden Legend’, published in 1260, presents a view which is both complementary to that of Pope Gregory the Great, and which allows for a degree of revival of Magdalene’s original person as seen in the Gospels and later Gnostic scriptures. Indeed, the tale tells that “Mary is called Magdalene, which is understood to mean ‘remaining guily’” (de Vorangine, 1993:375). Interestingly, this view of Magdalene, whilst still tainted by Gregory’s homily, does present what seems to be a more accurate view of the Saint as she appears in the Bible. Not least because female church and synagogue leadership was not prohibited, and there appears to be a number of female leaders in the very early Christian period. Indeed, van der Horst’s study of Ancient Jewish Epitaphs and Brooten’s examination of the position of women in the space of the early Synagogues both demonstrate through empirical and archaeological evidence that “women served as leaders in a number of synagogues during the Roman and Byzantine periods'' (Brooten, 1982:1). It thus does seem likely that Mary’s devotion to Christ, vehemently demonstrated at the crucifixion, burial and resurrection sites would have led to her further proselytizing on the message of Jesus. What appears to have occurred is the writing-out of women from early Judeo-Christian history, whereby titles such as “‘head of the synagogue’, ‘mother of the synagogue’, ‘elder’ or ‘leader’” (van der Horst, 1991:105), were prescribed to women and found in “some 20 inscriptions'' (van der Horst, 1991:105), but the titles in these cases were interpreted as non-functional and merely honorific. As Thompson lays out, there are three reasons for this highly androcentric interpretation of very explicit evidence which acts contrarily to the evidence. They result from “deciding that titles were honorific for women but not for men, deciding that women only received titles as reflected glory from their husbands, deciding that the titles cannot mean what they say because it is known that women could not hold such offices (Thompson, 2006:100). 

Magdalene's Ambiguity in Early Christianity

Finally, it is evident from the contrasting images of Magdalene in the Early and Medieval period of Christianity that her character is no less ambiguous than that set out in the Biblical texts. Her image is further elucidated and yet simultaneously dirtied, by accounts such as Pope Gregory the Great’s which had a clear intention of marring her image so as to placate the threat posed by such a prominent figure during Jesus’ ministry. This is, of course, testament to the ages under discussion. Indeed, this period saw the formulation, reformation and dissolution of various cults and sects. Perhaps most notable during this period, particularly in their recognition of women, are the Cathars and Waldensians, and the accompanying images presented by the Dominicans. The Cathars believed in two gods, and as a result two Christs: “one celestial and the other terrestrial, the one good and the other evil” (Haag, 2017:252). Further to this they understand “The Christ born in Bethlehem and crucified in Jerusalem [to be] an evil Christ and Mary Magdalene of the gospels was his concubine. The good Christ was born in celestial Jerusalem and Mary Magdalene was his wife” (Haag, 2017:252). In such a way, Magdalene in the Cathar view is given a great status as the companion and wife of Jesus, “in opposition to the institutionalized church, its whole apparatus a delusion and evil” (Haag, 2017:261). Similarly, the Waldensians, around the time of 1170-1180 in France, echoed the Catharian sentiment of a desire for radical equality, whereby the appetite for a purer and earlier form of Christianity necessitated women in public, religious spaces. Of course, however, it is clear that the dominant patriarchal and misogynistic ideology of the time, which had ensured Magdalene’s character would be tempered and destroyed, would likewise dismantle this movement: “The Waldensians were excommunicated in 1184/85 and in 1215 were finally condemned as heretics at the Fourth Lateran Council” (Baumann in Kung, 2005:48). Contrary to this were the Dominicans, who provided yet another interpretation of Magdalene who upheld the ideals of womanhood of the period, that of the feminised and submissive, and who, as a result, maintained in her image the patriarchal structure of the Church.

The Lutheran Magdalene

It is necessary to understand the Reformation as a set of changing priorities, which in turn influence how saints and women are understood, and consequently Magdalene. Luther’s Protestantism was placed in direct contrast to the traditional emphasis on the Popes and Saints. He asserted in the 95 Theses the centrality of the Bible alone, and as a result of his rejection of indulgence payments, likewise rejected the jurisdiction of papal authority. Margaret Arnold, expert in Magdalene within the Reformation period, asserts that, during this time

            "People… tried to separate out the composite Mary Magdalene into three different women and Luther saw that and he said well she might be three different women or she might have been all these women. That doesn’t matter, what really matters is the lessons that all these figures carry for us as believers right now: faithfulness to Christ, gratitude for salvation and of being told we are all empowered to share the gospel with our neighbours. (Soden and Arnold, 2018: 24m49s-25m13s)"

It is interesting, therefore, that despite his view that the Bible is the prime method of knowing God and the truth of the Christian faith, he did consider a possibility of the Composite Mary, despite this view being questioned in texts such as that by Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples. It is thus that individuals were starting to understand the Composite Mary as a construction of an earlier Pope, Gregory the Great. It must be speculated that despite Luther’s rejection of papal authority, he retained somewhat of a belief in the composite Magdalene as it ensured the continual subjugation of women and sequestration of the reality of her Biblical figure, thus maintaining reformation views on women which, as Kung notes, were not favourable to their equality, particularly within the religious sphere. Whilst in theory, “since all baptised women are spiritual sisters of all baptised men, as they have the same sacrament, spirit, faith, spiritual gifts and possessions, they will be much closer friends in the spirit than through outward kinship” (Luther, 1522:263-6:266), in practice within the protestant churches this was not the case. In reality, “women by no means had the same share” in these ideals, nor in “state, education and the church”, they were “excluded from all important church offices”, and women’s preaching was “normally forbidden” (Kung, 2001:66). Also greatly fascinating is the possibility that Magdalene could’ve been viewed as a witch within the world-view of the witch craze. In this case, the Composite Magdalene fits many of the ideals: she is overwhelmed by demons, and is a symbol of overt sexuality and the dark feminine principle, as contrasted to the Virgin Mary. Within this worldview too, Magdalene must be necessarily repressed in order to maintain the strict hierarchy of the church space. 

As a result of these shifting priorities about Church authority and the status of women, there are, as a result, shifting ideas about the Magdalene herself. Indeed, she is viewed, both within the composite and biblical forms, as a symbol of the religious. Luther himself touches upon Magdalene within his sermons, thus highlighting her status. Within his March 28th 1535, sermon on John 20:11-18, Luther asserts that “she [Magdalene] is still in the old skin of Eve, which will never be able to send her forth into a future life and the company of the angels. But nevertheless she is awakened and believes that Christ is raised from the death” (Luther, 1535). It is thus that Luther highlights Magdalene as a disciple of Christ, despite her sin, and as an individual who embodies the ideals of faith: belief in Jesus and the following of scripture. Even within the scripture which is that of the Composite Magdalene, Luke 7:36-50, Luther emphasises the faith and righteousness of this woman who acts more faithfully and lovingly to Jesus than Simon the Pharisee.

Magdalene in the Reformation

These shifting priorities of the Reformation have evidently not resulted in a clearer image of the Magdalene, but perhaps one further clouded by interpretation. Indeed, ideas were circulating regarding Magdalene’s original biblical figure, and yet simultaneously institutions were set up which endorsed the idea of Magdalene as a prostitute. Most protestant literature espoused the Composite Magdalene, and believed it a better method to emphasise her faith by doing so - she had been forgiven of her sin due to her love for Jesus: it was the message they wished to sell. One such institution was the Magdalene House for the Reception of Penitent Prostitutes, founded in 1758 in Whitechapel, London. This was an institution which took in prostitutes who were “sincere in their desire to given up prostitution” (Haag, 2017:286). It was named after Mary Magdalene as she herself was deemed a sinner who had been ‘sincere’ in her desire to move towards a place of faith and penitence. Even within the Catholic Church, Magdalene’s figure was continually belittled. The Council of Trent saw Magdalene’s role as apostle to the apostles removed, and the “entire focus” was instead “put on her penance” (Haag, 2017:284). These ambiguities are understood with regards to the composite and biblical figures, but new ideas about the Magdalene which also further the ambiguities surrounding her are also enhanced. For instance, it is claimed that Luther believes Magdalene and Jesus to be married. Not only this, but Luther supposedly goes even further, claiming

              “Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died” (Luther, 1532:33).

Evidently, great hesitation must be taken when reading these sources and trying to understand their motives, however it does provide an interesting perspective on Luther and his beliefs. Ideas regarding Luther’s belief in the marriage of Christ and Magdalene have been rejected on the basis of the belief that to be ‘married to Christ’ is to be fully devoted to him in faith. In such a way it seems somewhat unlikely that Luther believed this, and the idea of Magdalene’s full devotion is in line with Luther’s thought regarding her religiosity. Regardless, these ideas further the ambiguities surrounding Magdalene’s already hazy character.

Magdalene within the Reformation is characterised as a result of the rapidly changing ideas about faith, papal authority and the place of the Bible. She remains, thus, in a state of continual change, in line with the changing ideas about women, witches and wedlock. Luther discusses Magdalene explicitly, although his ideas regarding her are inconclusive. It seems highly plausible that this is as a result of his wish to maintain the hierarchical structure of the church and its androcentric approach to church life.

A Holy Marriage

An initial claim made by Brown is that “Jesus and Magdalene were a pair”, with Jesus’ status as “a married man” making “infinitely more sense than our standard Biblical view of Jesus as a bachelor” due to his Jewish culture, which “condemned” celibacy (Brown, 2013:327). The character of Robert Langdon goes onto claim that “If Jesus were not married, at least one of the Bible’s Gospels would have mentioned it and offered some explanation for his unnatural state of bachelorhood” (Brown, 2013:327). Picknett too writes that “Priests and rabbis in the Holy Land were supposed to be married, for to abstain from procreation was seen as an insult to God” (2003). On this, Ehrman writes that it “appears to be in the realm of sensationalised fictional claims instead of the realm of historical reality” (2005:195), going on to comment that in none of the Christian texts is Magdalene mentioned as his wife, let alone is there any allusion to Jesus’ being married. Not only this, but Ehrman writes of “Jewish men at the time and place of Jesus who were single, and it is quite clear they were not ‘condemned’ for it” (2005:195). Ehrman goes on to comment on the Essenes, a group of “predominantly single, celibate men”, with Philo of Alexandria, the 1st Century philosopher, claiming “no Essene takes a wife” (2005:198). It’s also suggested that celibacy was found in precisely the same ideological circles as Jesus himself, among Jewish apocalypticists. It does seem clear that Jesus’ apocryphal philosophy tends to agree that marriage is not an ideal for society. In Mark, Jesus claims that in the age to come, people “neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25), and as Jesus believed that the values of the Kingdom of Heaven should be realised in the present, the act of celibacy should be emulated in worldly, mundane affairs.

21st Century Archeological evidence can, however, be drawn upon. The ancient burial tombs are paramount to the discovery of Jesus’ life, and his potential relation to Mary Magdalene. Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino’s book ‘The Jesus Family Tomb’, uncovers some of the myths through an archaeological journey to the supposed burial tomb of the Holy Family. Inside a tomb, where five individuals are buried, lies inscriptions of “Joseph, the father of Jesus”, and of “Judah, son of Jesus”, which I will return to later. These were strictly familial tombs, be that through blood or marital status. Among this tomb lies two women, two men, and a male child. Jacobovici and Pellegrino conducted DNA research on the two individuals believed to be Jesus and Magdalene: it was noted that if their DNA was relational, it couldn’t have been the pair, however if it was not, then their familial status would have been through marriage. After conducting the tests, the DNA expert Matheson says that “This man and woman do not share the same mother, they cannot be mother and child. They cannot, maternally, be brother and sister. And so, for these particular samples, because they come from the same tomb - and we suspect it to be a familial tomb - these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely have been husband and wife” (Jacobovici and Pellegrino, 2008:243). Archaeological evidence does seem to suggest that Jesus and Mary were married, however this interpretation has been the result of the production of a widely publicised television programme, aired in America and on Channel 4 - there was an intent to sensationalise the life of Jesus, and so the validity of the claim must be questioned. The producers provide evidence of non-relational status alone, partnered with inscriptions - in order to conclude a holy marriage.

A Holy Birth

Another claim made by Brown is that Magdalene was carrying the child of Jesus, with the priory claiming that “Magdalene was pregnant at the time of the crucifixion” (Brown, 2013:339), Teabing claiming the “greatest cover-up in human history. Not only was Jesus Christ married, but He was a father. My dear, Mary Magdalene was the Holy Vessel” (Brown, 2013:332). Lahr notes that the intertwining of the stories of the Grail and that of Magdalene are “rooted with the Cathars of the Languedoc. There are numerous legends that link the Grail to the Cathars. It has been maintained that the Grail romances… are interpolations of Cathari philosophy” (Lahr, 2006:189), beginning with Troye’s Conte del Graal - origins are found again, not in early Christian sources, but in heretical Southern France during the 11th and 12th centuries. However the assertion is again without verifiable or empirical backing, yet is perpetuated in both fiction, such as Brown’s, and in ostensible non-fiction. Browne highlights that “though everyone was looking for the Holy Grail, it was the Holy Family that carried it… Magdalene carried the bloodline of Jesus” (Browne, 2007:139), writing that “we don’t have any information about their children other than the theorists who say they went on to found the bloodline of the Merovingian kings” (Browne, 2007:201). However, Sylvia Browne’s book is not corroborated with empirical evidence, nor does she cite any other works, her appendix including merely the tenets of the Church which she founded. As a Christian who does not believe Jesus died at the crucifixion, she undermines the Christian principle of the miracle, and is willing to renounce this, despite her supposedly ‘unwavering’ faith. She claims that “The Da Vinci Code and many other books have tried and done an excellent job of surmising information on Magdalene” (Browne, 2007:33), yet references not one of these other books nor provides any evidence of her own, except that of her ‘spirit guide Francine’. The claims she makes thus are unfounded and seem to be purely based on fiction, such as ‘The Da Vinci Code’. Other evidence suggests that this supposed bloodline then streamed into that of the Merovingian monarchs of France. Margaret Starbird observes that “the word Merovingian breaks down phonetically into syllables that we can easily recognise: mer and vin, Mary and the Vine” (Starbird, 1993). It does seem however, that there is too much ingenuity involved in crowbarring Magdalene into this history.

Those who conducted DNA research on the ‘Tomb’ of Jesus, whilst concluding that it was the married pair of Magdalene and Jesus buried, however “despite repeated efforts, his path to a sample… appeared to be irreversibly blocked” to recover DNA from the child” (Jacobovici and Pellegrino, 2008:245). In the face of this lack of verification however, they still conclude that “taken together, the Gospels, the noncanonical texts, oral traditions, the DNA tests, and the archaeology all seem to be telling the same story. There was a son, and he found his final resting place beside his father, mother, uncle, and grandmother in a family tomb halfway between their family home in Bethlehem and Jerusalem where they had hoped to establish their dynastic throne” (Jacobovici and Pellegrino, 2008:300). Some of the evidence they cite is that of Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, who drawn on the linguistic evidence for the bloodline, which Brown also references in his novel. In early manuscripts, the grail is called the Sangraal, which they claim was “subsequently broken in the wrong place” (Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, 1983), and thus should have been split into “Sang Raal, Royal Blood” (ibid), which does seem alluring, but it is hardly conclusive.

Magdalene the Apostle

Whilst perhaps less overt than other statements about Magdalene in Brown’s ‘The Da Vinci Code’, he does seem to suggest that Magdalene was, in fact, an apostle. This is where there is a greater discrepancy between truth and fiction. Brown writes that Jesus “gives Mary Magdalene instructions on how to carry on His church after he is gone… According to these unaltered gospels, it was not Peter to whom Christ gave directions with which to establish the Christian Church. It was Mary Magdalene” (Brown, 2013:330). The Oxford English Dictionary definition of ‘apostle’ is one whom is one of the “twelve disciples of Jesus” yet this definition has been contended, and a further addition of “an important early Christian teacher or pioneering missionary” (Oxford English Dictionary, ‘Apostle’) has been added, thus ‘dirtying the waters’, so to speak, as to the extent to which those outside the named twelve disciples can be named ‘apostles’. Of course, Jesus appeared first, as we are told, to Magdalene after his resurrection. She clearly held a prominent place among his followers, and is the second most common female name in the Gospels, after the Virgin Mary. 

Kung, on the other hand, argues that history shouldn’t place Mary Magdalene in a context fitting for the present, and instead note the constraints on women, even within Jesus’ ministry, supposedly radical for the age. She writes that “we should be very restrained in concluding ‘historical leadership roles’ or even ‘leading positions for women’ from individual texts. This also applies to Magdalene, who might have been the most significant female figure from Jesus’ immediate circle” (Kung, 2001:5). In addition to this, Ehrman suggests that “Women in the first century were typically under the authority of the men in their lives and would not have been allowed, for the most part, to be traipsing around the countryside after an itinerant teacher when there was so much work to be done in the home” (Ehrman, 2005:186). Despite this, it is clear that they were present through the Gospels, following Jesus and his ministry - in contempt of what historical knowledge regarding women at the time may seem to suggest.

Baker suggests naming her as an apostle is also misplaced, as “the impact of the story lies in its ‘shock value’: Mary is not herself one of the Apostles, but is apostola apostolorum, the ‘apostle of the apostles’. In Jewish tradition a lone woman could not be a witness in a court of law, which required three male witnesses. The ironic point is that she who cannot witness is made to do so to those who have been called as witnesses. The whole force of this, of course, is quite lost if Mary is simply counted, in the usual feminist way, as an Apostle like all the rest” (Baker, 2004:14). This is debated, however, as can be seen in 1QSa, where the text seems to translate to suggest that women could testify against their husbands and on do so matters which require female knowledge (Schiffman, 1994:127-43). Whilst the former argument is a compelling one, the definition lies not within the impact it supposes, but with the role it assumes - that of a close follower of Jesus, whom played a vital role in the teachings of the first ministry. It is this definition that we must employ - does Magdalene deserve the title of Apostle, or even ‘Apostle of the Apostles’. The conflation of ‘apostle’ with the ‘original’ twelve disciples is not necessarily a strong one. Apostle can refer to one whom carries on the teaching, and in essence, Magdalene’s crucial role in the resurrection allows her to fulfil this title, by definition alone. Originally, it seems that the title of ‘apostles’ was not restricted to the ‘original twelve’, as the twelve disciples changed, from Judas to Matthias: and thus included those close to Jesus within his ministry - this could have also included women. 

A Patriarchal Plot

A final and apparent statement made by Brown is that Magdalene was manipulated into the image of a sinner, in order that the patriarchal church could gain power, being recast as a ‘whore’ in order to erase evidence of her relation to Jesus, and as Brown writes “the woman to whom Jesus has assigned the task of founding the church” (Brown, 2013:337). Brown goes onto claim that “The power of the female and her ability to produce life was once very sacred, but it posed a threat to the rise of the predominantly male church” (Brown, 2013:318). The bloodline Brown claims she produced with Jesus was a mortal one, which needed to be diffused in order that he wasn’t viewed as a “mortal prophet” (Brown, 2013:337), ruinous to both the new Church’s message, and equally to the patriarchal structures they imposed. 

In 1969 the Church realised it had been mistaken, and put forward a more ‘holy’ position on her. Edwards notes that “Hebrew and Jewish society was patriarchal in structure and outlook, with men exercising political, religious and social leadership” (Edwards, 1989:23), evidenced in, for example, the Old Testament story of Lot, whom offers his daughters to be raped in order to protect the angels from homosexual abuse. Women were substantially circumscribed, spiritually and devotionally restrained, and “female leadership, whether political or religious, was generally considered unnatural and undesirable” (Edwards, 1989:27). Jesus does appear to have turned this society on its head, which seems to have been reverted where women, by the 4th century, had “become an anathema to the orthodoxy” (Lahr, 2006:18), the sins of Eve having castigated women’s status to ‘second-class citizens’. Despite this, Brown writes that “the Priory believes that Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity by waging a campaign of propaganda that demonised the sacred feminine, obliterating the goddess from modern religion forever” (Brown, 2013:169). 

Jesus’ apocalyptic beliefs do come into play here, as he believes the powerless and oppressed will inherit the kingdom of God, thus echoed in the Gospel is this equality he pronounces. Lahr notes the three potential reasons why Pope Gregory linked the Mary’s together, thus transforming “the Magdalene from the loyal, courageous disciple and herald of the resurrection into a redeemed sinner - a repentant sinner” as “a wilful form of identity theft, a political act. It may also have simply been the need to make things tidy - tie up loose, bothersome ends. Or perhaps it was simply a misunderstanding” (Lahr, 2006:55). In fact, as Magdalene did have seven demons cast out of her, the likening of her to a viceful women truly may have been a mistake, despite the accepted knowledge that demons of this sort were likened to physical ills. Furthermore, in addition to Magdalene and the Virgin Mary, there are five other women named Mary mentioned in the Gospels, creating sufficient reason for a blurring of the various figures, and it is right to note that “It would be a gross misrepresentation of history to view it as a conspiracy or an act of maliciousness on his part. One has to see Gregory in his own context, a period beset by intense dislocation” (Jansen, 2004).

Other evidence suggests that Magdalene wasn’t as ‘powerful’ as she is assumed to be in the 21st century. Some feminist thinkers consider classical theology to be so patriarchal that it is incapable of being sympathetic to women. Consequently they reject every aspect of traditional theology. “Even Jesus is considered to be part of the anti-women power structures of his day and must be rejected” (Schussler Fiorenza, 1938), Fiorenza noting that “the women’s prophetic sign-action did not become part of the gospel knowledge of Christians. Even… the name of the faithful disciple is forgotten because she was a women” (Schussler Fiorenza, 1938). This however seems unfair, to a degree, to Mark, as many early traditions regard anonymous people. Not only this, but the feminist perspective looks through lens that firmly rejects androcentrism, an ideal on which society was based, and thus it seems unlikely that it would have been any other way. As Kung notes, “The history of theology and the church, too, was predominantly written by the victors at the expense of the losers - along dogmatic or church-political lines” (Kung, 2001:15), it thus seems incredibly likely that Pope St Gregory the Great at least maintained the image of Magdalene as a sinner in order to further the Church’s foundation as one which revered the male and condemned the female.

Brown’s book, ‘The Da Vinci Code’,  brings into question the traditional image of the Magdalene, claiming it as a factual representation of the figure - married to Jesus and with a bloodline, an apostle of Christ, silenced in Christian history through the actions of Pope Gregory the Great and only reversed in 1969. Fundamentally, Brown has written a fictional novel which remains unsupported by the historical record, and thus the portrayal of Mary Magdalene in Brown’s ‘The Da Vinci Code’, whilst it sheds light on the essential lies of Pope St Gregory the Great, is far from an accurate depiction of the Saint, despite its valuable focus on a woman of the Bible. And yet, this image of her within pop-culture, rather than in academia or ecclesiastia is a highly enlightening one and does display the tenets of post-modernity, whereby traditional gender roles are re-examined and women, necessarily, rewritten into history.