Re: [XTalk] Gospel of Mary Magdalene
- Bob Schacht wrote:
Saturday, November 22, 2003":
> But how about Karen King's The Gospel of Mary of Magdala?original
> The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, by Karen
> L. King , published this month by Polebridge Press.
> Although the document itself has been known for a while and was first
> published in 1955, King here publishes two versions of the fragmentary
> document, apparently revealing only about 50% of the original. The
> document was reportedly written in the second century, indicating that itthe
> belongs in the class of early Christian writings. King has published on
> Gnostics before (e.g., _What Is Gnosticism?_), and this seems to be an[snip]
> early gnostic text. But does it preserve the memory of some important
> historical issues?
> For example, was Mary of Magdala actually one of the apostles?
> Also, the manuscript apparently touches on the issue of who was consideredBob, I have the book and have read it. It is a very important book and well
> authoritative about the message of Jesus in the decades following the
> crucifixion. Peter? James? Paul? or was perhaps even Mary an important
> witness to the message of Jesus?
> Does anyone have the book? Anything in it of interest to us?
worth discussing here, though due to publishing commitments I now have with
respect to my "Two Jesuses" thesis, unfortunately, I do not have time to
engage in such a discussion.
Suffice it to say, Karen makes a very good case for Mary Magdalene having
been a disciple of Jesus and having had the first resurrection experience of
Jesus, and thus being an original "apostle." Subsequently, she and Peter
are pitted against each other in the earky Jesus movement as authorities for
diverse Jesus traditions. Matthew and Luke are pro-Peter (John, also, to
a certain extent) and try to undermine Mary's authority and put her "in her
place," namely, as an informer (or as Dom Crossan characterized her at the
SBL in Atlanta, as a "secretary" to the male apostles) of the resurrection,
via the empty-tomb episode, but not an apostolic authority for the Jesus
Based upon Karen's work, I am working on the thesis that the Gospel of Mark
is anti-Peter and Mark uses the Mary tradition as the coup de grace in his
vendetta against Peter and the disciples from 15:40-16:8, with 16:8 as the
final blow to the apostolic authority of Peter, i.e., Mary (and her two
cohorts) narratively never reported out the message of the young man in the
tomb to anyone, a narrative defrocking clincher that Matthew and Luke
"correct" by reporting a Petrine resurrection experience, thereby restoring
Peter to apostolic status.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: [XTalk] Gospel of Mary Magdalene -- > Peter vs. Mary
> --- Karel Hanhart wrote:
> > [Mark] wrote for first century Jews ...
> Then why was it necessary to explain to the reader that:
> "The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully
> wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and
> when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they
> cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have
> received in order to observe ..." (Mk7:3-4)
> Since Steve alludes to such passages as this in his assertion that
> GMk was written for Gentiles, the ball seems to be in your court
> to explain the presence of such passages, rather than merely
> contradicting Steve's position without explanation. Should one
> assume that your position is that canonical GMk was redacted or
> edited for Gentiles? If so, do you have any guess as to when this
> happened, or how extensive a revision it might have been?
> Mike Grondin
> Mt. Clemens, MI
> Dear Mike,
You are right, of course. The ball is in my court with a brief comment like
that. The question of the addressees of Mark's Gospel is shrouded in mist
and our knowledge of such introductory questions is therefore limited. My
comment was based on the fact that Mark never cites non-Jewish authors but
frequently refers to Tenach. His subject matter is a first century Jewish
Passover story with rather complicated midrashim. Evidently, Gentile
readers were included in the community for which Mark wrote, traditionally
Rome. And Mark added his comment for that reason.
Since it has been recognized that canonical Mark was the result of redaction
and since in his epilogue he refers to LXX Isa 22,16, I take it that the
redaction took place after the destruction of the temple. The number of
Gentiles joining the
ecclesia apparently warranted this explanatory note, because the Gospel was
read out loud in the worship service.
These remarks are admittedly too brief. But the type of scholarly exchange
through doesn't permit lengthy argumentation.
> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: email@example.com
> List managers may be contacted directly at:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/