Mary Magdalene = Prostitute, revisited

[gnostic]

A thread and poll by Trey of Diamonds - Was Mary Magdalene a Prostitute? have already been covered, but I would like to revisit the topic, because, it is interesting topic. The other reason why I bringing this topic back, because I got into a debate with Kark R in another thread - Is Judas Iscariot in heaven?

In the nutshell, the Western Roman Orthodox Church (now the Roman Catholic Church) believed that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, despite there being no explicit or implied references in the gospels and early church traditions to identified her as a prostitute.

So the topic is about her identity...or mistaken identity, depending on how you look at it.

Other than the prostitute, Mary Magdalene has also being identified with Mary of Bethany and with other Marys that are found in the gospels.

The prostitute that she was linked with by the Catholics was the penitent sinner or the sinful woman, who washed Jesus' feet with her tears and wiped them with hair, before pouring perfume on his feet, in Luke 7:36-50.

37 A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. 38 As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

This took place at the house of Simon the Pharisee, mostly like in a town of Galilee, because earlier in this chapter (7), two towns of Galilee were mentioned, Capernaum and Nain. In Capernaum, Jesus healed a servant of a centurion (Luke 7:1-10. In Nain, she raised a son of an unnamed widow (Luke 7:11-17).

This woman was never named in this episode (Luke 7:36-50) of the Sinful Woman.

However, there are 3 other instances (gospels), which are similar to the Sinful Woman episode, which took place in Bethany, before the Last Supper, where a woman anointed Jesus with perfume.

ONLY, in John 12:1-11, did the woman poured perfume, on Jesus' feet, like in Luke 7:36-50. AND ONLY in John 12:1-11, did the gospel identify the woman by name - Mary. This Mary was a sister of Lazarus and Martha, so this woman was usually known as Mary of Bethany. The same Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead, in the previous chapter (John 11).

The other two gospels (Mark 14:1- and Matthew 26:3-13) also mentioned the anointing of Jesus in Bethany, that is slightly different to what happen in John 12. For one, Jesus was at the home of Simon the Leper, not Lazarus' home. Secondly, the woman who did anointing was never named. And lastly, and most important of all, the unnamed woman anointed Jesus' head, not his feet.

Given that Mark's gospel was written earlier than all other gospels (in the bible), and Matthew's version pretty much back up Mark's version, I would have to say the gospel of John (being the last one written) either got it wrong or deliberately change it.

This is quite understandable, considering the gospel of John had written many things that were either slightly different in details, or completely unique and found in John's. The contradictions of what happen in Bethany.

For example, no other gospels told about the death of Lazarus and being risen from the dead. Something as important as raising one from the dead, would be considered astonishing, but Mark, Matthew and Luke say absolutely nothing about it.

Anyway getting back to the point. Only John's version mentioned a woman by name, in which Jesus' feet was anointed with perfume. However, Mary of Bethany was never called a prostitute too, because it was generally accepted that what happen in Luke 7, was at a different time and different place.

In any case, Mary Magdalene have been a labelled as a prostitute for about 1400 years, because someone had identified Mary Magdalene with both Mary of Bethany and the Sinful Woman in the Western Roman Church. Before that identification, the Roman Orthodox Church had accepted that the 3 characters were 3 different women.

There are no textual evidences that state Mary Magdalene was the same person as the Sinful Woman (prostitute) or even that of Mary of Bethany. None of the early traditions of the saints had identified her (MM) with the prostitute.

So where did identification with the prostitute originate from?

It came from Pope Gregory I, in homily XXXIII to the gospel of Luke, in 591 CE. It is because of this Pope Gregory that Catholics have accepted his assumption for about 1400 years.

"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. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?"

It is only in the last 40 years did the Vatican have reviewed Gregory's claim, and rejected it.

The Eastern Orthodox Church had always maintain that there were 3 different women, and have never accepted the Western Church acceptance of Gregory's claim.

There are only a couple of things known about Mary Magdalene's background in the gospels apart from her being witness one of the women to Jesus' death and the 1st to see the risen Jesus. These are:

1. She came from Galilee, and followed Jesus with other women also from Galilee.
2. Like these other women who had exorcise demons from them, but she had 7 demons ejected.

55 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph,[f] and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph,[d] and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.

And only 2 gospels speak about the 7 demons:

9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.

2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.

But still some people persisted that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, because of Gregory's claim.

Gregory linked the identification of prostitute on the basis that the 7 demons, were of 7 vices (for example, 7 deadly sins), which is completely unsupported.

If demon referred to vice, like lust or prostitution, then couldn't you say that the other women who followed Jesus, like Joanna and Susanna, be considered to be prostitutes as well?

 

[gnostic]

I also think that Mary Magdalene is a distinct person from Mary of Bethany.

Mary Magdalene was always linked to Galilee, while Mary sister of Martha and Lazarus with Bethany. Not once is the name Mary Magdalene linked to Bethany.

Second, whenever Mary Magdalene is named in the gospels, not once did her name link her to Lazarus and Martha. The gospels never linked her with the names to any father, mother or siblings.

There is also link to Mary Magdalene being married in the gospels. So I find any claim to Mary Magdalene being the husband of Jesus to be doubtful.

 

[gnostic]

Here are the following exchanges I had with Karl R in the thread Is Judas Iscariot in heaven? with regards to Mary Magdalene.

The below quote, I was referring to the church can make mistake, false assumption/interpretation about certain events in the gospels or bible.

They [the Church] have also been wrong about the world being flat. Or that Mary Magdalene being the prostitute.

Speaking of statements made with a complete lack of evidence, how do you know what Mary Magdalene's profession was (or wasn't)? The evidence to say she was a prostitute was tenuous. The evidence to say she wasn't a prostitute doesn't exist.

Furthermore, it was never church doctrine that the world was flat. It was church doctrine that the earth was the center of all creation (and the notion that people lived on the other side was ridiculed as "fable"). There was no scriptural basis for that belief, but it predated the existence of the christian church.

However, I appreciate the irony of you making erroneous statements in giving examples of the the church being wrong.

Then you should do more research then.

There are no textual evidences in the 4 gospels that Mary Magdalene was a prostitution. Apart from the roles she played as witness to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, the only background we have of her in the gospels is that she was one of the women who followed Jesus into Judaea from Galilee and to her having 7 demons exorcised from her. Even the later, but early Church tradition about saints did not link her to prostitution.

The origin that she was (a prostitute) comes from Pope Gregory I (late 6th century). So it is speculation on the Pope's part, and it is a myth that persisted to this day.

Hence, there is no evidence to say that she was a prostitute that originate earlier than Pope Gregory.

Is that evidence enough for you?

Also Pope Gregory linked Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany, as being the same person. Mary of Bethany who was sister to Lazarus and Martha. But the gospels never link the name of Mary Magdalene to Lazarus and Martha, nor to Bethany. And because of his "scholarship", people believe all sort of things that weren't (literary) true.

Let's face it, the Church makes mistakes, including popes or saints. It is not just mistakes, they have the tendency to exaggerate and lie, and distort whatever historical information with their "Church's traditions".

You've demonstrated the tenuous evidence people rely upon when they say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.

You've pointed out that there's insufficient evidence to prove that she was a prostitute, or that she was Mary of Bethany. (And I agree that there's not enough evidence to prove whether Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.) But insufficient evidence is insufficient evidence. It doesn't prove that the claim is wrong.

Like Pope Gregory I, you're making a claim based on too little evidence. (And it's possible that he had access to information that has been lost since.) If it's a mistake when the church does it, why isn't it be a mistake when you do it?

.....

The church is made up of people. As a group of people, it's subject to all the same failings that people (like you) are.

Tradition serves a purpose. Without tradition, each person would have to reinvent the wheel.

You seem offended that the bible and church writing do not meet the standards you would expect from journalism or academia. Those journalistic standards are less than 200 years old, and the sholastic standards are only a few hundred years older. The bible (and early church writings) predates them by over 1,000 years.

You're offended that the church distorts historical information?
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill

Everyone who writes historical information distorts it.

You'll get a lot more out of things you read (religious writings, the newspaper, textbooks, fiction novels) if you stop expecting them to be true. Look for the true information that's hidden within them (even within the fiction novels).

It won't help you answer trivia questions (like whether Judas got sent to hell), but it might bring you closer to gnosis.

If you actually study history, then you would know that you need to rely on more than just 1 source. The more independent sources you rely on, the chance that you could verify if what is true and what is not.

Not only that, it is possible to use archaeological evidences to verify the historical accounts.

Of course, not all historians will attempt to verify what they investigate, read or know.

I am sure you have played a game where you have dozen or so people in line, and you whisper a message or something to one person's ear, who will attempt to pass on your message to the next person. Your original message will either get lost in the passing or change dramatically by the time it get to the end of the line.

That's how traditions work. Tradition can be even more unreliable than history, because exaggeration is more pervasive than relying on historical accounts when the following generation(s) write about it. Also tradition will lose something in successive tellings over time or even generations, until the original story is lost. Often when tradition is written, it doesn't rely on the eyewitnesses or sources that have been verified.

 

[Tellurian]

For a more objective perspective it helps to look what is written outside the bible regarding Mary Magdalene, AKA Miriam the Megadela. Those records tell how she was kicked out of her home by her husband because she had an affair with a Roman soldier by whom she had gotten pregnant. She lived on the streets working as a women's hairdresser, which was called a megadela. She gave birth to a son and called him Jesus (Yeshu). So the story outside of the bible has Mary Magdalene as the mother of the historical Jesus. The gospel writers thought the actual mother wasn't "pure enough" to be the mother of their biblical Jesus, so they invented a "virgin Mary" to be the supposed mother of the son of the alleged Jewish god. That virgin Mary story, however, was too unbelievable to be included in the gospels called Mark and John.

 

[gnostic]

For a more objective perspective it helps to look what is written outside the bible regarding Mary Magdalene, AKA Miriam the Megadela. Those records tell how she was kicked out of her home by her husband because she had an affair with a Roman soldier by whom she had gotten pregnant. She lived on the streets working as a women's hairdresser, which was called a megadela. She gave birth to a son and called him Jesus (Yeshu). So the story outside of the bible has Mary Magdalene as the mother of the historical Jesus. The gospel writers thought the actual mother wasn't "pure enough" to be the mother of their biblical Jesus, so they invented a "virgin Mary" to be the supposed mother of the son of the alleged Jewish god. That virgin Mary story, however, was too unbelievable to be included in the gospels called Mark and John.

Of course, it would be great to look beyond what it say in the bible, however, these records that you have shown, does not indicate why Pope Gregory and for about 1400 years of (Catholic) church history believe that Mary Magdalene was a "prostitute".

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Of course, it would be great to look beyond what it say in the bible, however, these records that you have shown, does not indicate why Pope Gregory and for about 1400 years of (Catholic) church history believe that Mary Magdalene was a "prostitute".

Because Gregory the Great said so.

Why he assumed they were all the same women and why they specifically assumed 'prostitute' is another mystery.

I've read in a few Gnostic books (I forget which exactly) that the 'seven devils' of the Magdalene were actually the Archons of the Seven Planetary Spheres. So, when she became a follower of Christ, he bid them away from her.

 

[BruceDLimber]

I don't see why wasting time on this is needed given that the Roman Catholic Church itself (and doubtless many others as well) has already formally pronounced the "prostitute" doctrine incorrect and repudiated it YEARS AGO!!

And BTW, when you speak of your other thread, you need to give the full name: there was more than one Judas involved.

Bruce

 

[gnostic]

I don't see why wasting time on this is needed given that the Roman Catholic Church itself (and doubtless many others as well) has already formally pronounced the "prostitute" doctrine incorrect and repudiated it YEARS AGO!!

Yes, but there are still people who persist in following the myth invented by Pope Gregory.

For example, Karl R stated that it is possible that Pope Gregory may have used materials or sources not found in gospels or existing traditions. There are many traditions of Mary Magdalene, as well as Mary of Bethany. None of them indicated, either woman being prostitute.

It is possible that such source may have existed, but I think and believe Karl's claim to purely conjecture or speculation, especially when you considered a number of great Church Fathers prior to Gregory make no such connection between the 3 women. Speculation that are just as baseless as Gregory's claim in the homily to the Gospel of Luke.

And BTW, when you speak of your other thread, you need to give the full name: there was more than one Judas involved.

Indeed. I did give the right full name in the thread itself, but not here. I can still amend my link. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[gnostic]

Because Gregory the Great said so.

Why he assumed they were all the same women and why they specifically assumed 'prostitute' is another mystery.

Intelligence and wisdom are not prerequisite of being elected to papacy. It just required piety and previous clergy offices (I am not sure which).

But yes, when a pope say so, then it must be so, even it defy reason and reality.

 

[gnostic]

I've read in a few Gnostic books (I forget which exactly) that the 'seven devils' of the Magdalene were actually the Archons of the Seven Planetary Spheres. So, when she became a follower of Christ, he bid them away from her.

I don't know of this story. So let me know if you ever do remember the books.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

I don't know of this story. So let me know if you ever do remember the books.

I do believe it's Forbidden Faith by Richard Smoley.

 

[fallingblood]

For a more objective perspective it helps to look what is written outside the bible regarding Mary Magdalene, AKA Miriam the Megadela. Those records tell how she was kicked out of her home by her husband because she had an affair with a Roman soldier by whom she had gotten pregnant. She lived on the streets working as a women's hairdresser, which was called a megadela. She gave birth to a son and called him Jesus (Yeshu). So the story outside of the bible has Mary Magdalene as the mother of the historical Jesus. The gospel writers thought the actual mother wasn't "pure enough" to be the mother of their biblical Jesus, so they invented a "virgin Mary" to be the supposed mother of the son of the alleged Jewish god. That virgin Mary story, however, was too unbelievable to be included in the gospels called Mark and John.

Do you have any source at all? Because as far as I can recall, nothing in the first few centuries would attest to such an idea. In fact, having studied Maryfor quite some time, I can not remember hearing anything like what you are saying, as it does not appear in any scholarship or manuscripts for the first handful of centuries surrounding Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

Gnostic- I think your work here is great, as is usual with your posts.

 

[JacobEzra.]

In the nutshell, the Western Roman Orthodox Church (now the Roman Catholic Church) believed that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, despite there being no explicit or implied references in the gospels and early church traditions to identified her as a prostitute.

When was it known as the 'Roman Orthodox"?

And I hear according to tradition, Mary Magdalene was a repentant- prostitue

 

[Tonymai]

She was not. It was a mistake of identity.

 

[gnostic]

When was it known as the 'Roman Orthodox"?

Historically, the whole Pauline church were the Orthodox Church, from late 1st century to the time of Constantine. When Constantine set up Byzantium (Constantinople) as a new capital for the Roman Empire.

But well before Constantinople, the main centres in the East were Antioch in the northern Syrian province and Alexandria in Egypt.


By the time of Theodosius I, he divided the empire between his sons - Arcadius in the East and Honorius in the West; only then was the Roman Empire permanently split. Both East and West were Orthodox Church that began with Early Church Fathers, but a true split between the Western and Eastern Roman Churches didn't occur until 11st century, what is known as the Great Schism.

But I think you already know this, JacobEzra. You should know Church history better than I. Why in the hell am I even telling you this?

And I hear according to tradition, Mary Magdalene was a repentant- prostitue

This is nonsense stereotype.

Repentant could be any "sinner", not just prostitute. Basically, and by definition and Christian teaching, you are both a sinner and a repentant too, but I would not go about calling you a "prostitute".

And if what you say is true about her being a prostitute, then please provide earlier sources of these traditions, which say she was a prostitute. The 1st time, she was even considered to be a prostitute, originated with Pope Gregory's claim. And it is through his invention/claim that a new tradition about Mary Magdalene began.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Historically, the whole Pauline church were the Orthodox Church, from late 1st century to the time of Constantine. When Constantine set up Byzantium (Constantinople) as a new capital for the Roman Empire.

But well before Constantinople, the main centres in the East were Antioch in the northern Syrian province and Alexandria in Egypt.


By the time of Theodosius I, he divided the empire between his sons - Arcadius in the East and Honorius in the West; only then was the Roman Empire permanently split. Both East and West were Orthodox Church that began with Early Church Fathers, but a true split between the Western and Eastern Roman Churches didn't occur until 11st century, what is known as the Great Schism.

But I think you already know this, JacobEzra. Why in the hell am I even telling you this?

Everything I read about the schism, never said RC was RO.

This is nonsense stereotype.

Repentant could be any "sinner", not just prostitute. Basically, and by definition and Christian teaching, you are both a sinner and a repentant too, but I would not go about calling you a "prostitute".

And if what you say is true about her being a prostitute, then please provide sources of these traditions, which say she was a prostitute. The 1st time, she was even considered to be a prostitute, originated with Pope Gregory's claim.

I really do not care. Being called a repentant-Prostitute is not bad. Just like St. Dismas was supposedly the Repentant-Thief who was crucified with Christ. St. Dismas - Saints & Angels - Catholic Online

Mary Magdalen was so called either from Magdala near Tiberias, on the west shore of Galilee, or possibly from a Talmudic expression meaning "curling women's hair," which the Talmud explains as of an adulteress.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Mary Magdalen

 

[Skwim]

i think it's more likely that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus.

 

[gnostic]

Mary Magdalen was so called either from Magdala near Tiberias, on the west shore of Galilee, or possibly from a Talmudic expression meaning "curling women's hair," which the Talmud explains as of an adulteress.

That's hardly conclusive.

Of the two Marys, Mary of Bethany (John 14) is far closer to the sinner at Luke 7 than Mary Magdalene. But what in Luke 7, there are also contradiction to what happen in John 14. I am not just referring to the locations and whose homes Jesus was dining in.

Other than Mary of Bethany and the Sinner anointing Jesus' feet. In Luke 7, Jesus rebuked his host (Simon the Pharisee) for being a poor host for not giving him anything to wash, and told his host a very short parable about the money lender.

However, in John 12, on the other hand, Jesus did not rebuke his host, who is Lazarus, but to Judas Iscariot. And what's more, Jesus referred to the anointing as preparation for his death and burial. Nothing in Luke 7 say anything about Jesus' death and burial. Both gospels were about anointing Jesus' feet, but.

That's (anointing of Jesus' feet) the only link between the 2 gospels (and hence Mary B & sinner), but a lot of details are different. With all this, the logical conclusion would be to distinguish Mary of Bethany from the repentant sinner (of Luke 7) and that they took place in different places and circumstances.

The other conclusion is that either one or the other, or even both of them, got the story wrong. Which lead me to the following:

John's version of event about Bethany is completely different to 2 other gospels (Matthew and Mark), where the woman is never named, and Simon the Leper is the host, and it was Jesus' head that got anointed, not his feet. That's 3 contradictions on this alone.

Another contradiction between the 2 versions is that in Mark and Matthew, Jesus didn't single out just Judas; no, he rebuked all (in Matthew) or some (in Mark) of his disciples. So which version is true. They all can't be right.

 

[JacobEzra.]

lol I really do not care.

Your acting as if Mary Magdalene is your mother.