It was discovered in 1896 in a 5th-century papyrus codex known as Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, and was purchased in Cairo by the German scholar Karl Reinhardt.
The full codex, which is also known as the Akhmim Codex, also contains the Apocryphon or "Secret Book" of John, the Sophia or "Wisdom" of Jesus Christ, and a summary of the Acts of Peter (the link is to the full version). All four are written in a dialect of the Coptic Sahidic language called sub-Akhmimic, whence the alternate name for the codex.
Two other fragments of "The Gospel of Mary" have been discovered since, both written in Greek. There is disagreement, of course, as to when the original was written, with views ranging from "during the time of Christ" to "late in the 2nd century".
But the major disagreement is over "which Mary?" (though it is perfectly obvious from the text that it can only have been Mary of Magdala), when it really ought to be over "why does so much of the argument reflect a distinctly anti-female bias among the disciples, almost to the point of misogyny?".
Whichever Mary it is in this gospel, she comes across as an exemplary disciple who witnessed the ministry of Jesus, followed him to the end, and argued constantly with Peter, who appears to have been extremely patronising towards her, on a good day.
The narrative opens, for example, with a post-Crucifixion Jesus engaged in dialogue with his disciples, answering their questions on the nature of matter and of sin. When he leaves, the disciples are palpably upset, but Mary provides comfort and encouragement. Peter somewhat superciliously suggests that "Sister, we know that he loved you more than any other woman. Tell us the words of the Saviour which you remember - which you know (but) we do not, nor have we heard them"; to which Mary replies:
Unfortunately the text breaks off at this point, and the next [probably] four pages are missing. When it resumes, Mary is no longer recalling her discussion with the Saviour, but recounting the revelation given to her in her vision; she describes the ascent of a soul which, as it passes on its way to its final rest, engages in dialogue with four powers that try to stop it. This vision does not exactly receive universal approval.
As noted above, "The Gospel of Mary" is generally regarded as a Gnostic text, mostly because it uses a format familiar from other Gnostic texts, which frankly is bad scholarship (actually an appalling syllogism: Hitler used the same speech format and theoretical democracy as the leaders of the free world, therefore Hitler must have been a democratic leader of the free world).
"I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, 'Lord, I saw you today in a vision.' He answered and said to me: 'Blessed are you, that you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is the treasure.' I said to him, 'So now, Lord, does a person who sees a vision see it through the soul or through the spirit?'" ¹Jesus teaches her that the inner self is composed of three elements, the first being soul, the second something between our modern concepts of spirit and mind, and the third located somewhere between these two, and this is the one that sees the vision.
Unfortunately the text breaks off at this point, and the next [probably] four pages are missing. When it resumes, Mary is no longer recalling her discussion with the Saviour, but recounting the revelation given to her in her vision; she describes the ascent of a soul which, as it passes on its way to its final rest, engages in dialogue with four powers that try to stop it. This vision does not exactly receive universal approval.
"But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, 'Say what you think concerning what she said. For I do not believe that the Saviour said this. For certainly these teachings are of other ideas.'" ²Peter adds his opposition and asks:
"Did he then speak secretly with a woman, in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?" ³O dear! (And much the same response to Judas in his gospel). Fortunately not all the disciples are sexist pigs. Levi (elsewhere known as Matthew) defends Mary, and stops Peter from attacking her. To little avail, sadly.
As noted above, "The Gospel of Mary" is generally regarded as a Gnostic text, mostly because it uses a format familiar from other Gnostic texts, which frankly is bad scholarship (actually an appalling syllogism: Hitler used the same speech format and theoretical democracy as the leaders of the free world, therefore Hitler must have been a democratic leader of the free world).
Actually, as more than hinted in my second footnote, many of the ideas conveyed in "The Gospel of Mary" are mainstream Judaism, and even orthodox Christianity, at least of the early Palestinian sort: the idea of the Messiah as a reminder to human beings of their bond with God and their true purpose on Earth, which is the perfection of creation; the belief that redemption consists in a return to God, and liberty from matter after death; the sin of adultery, and encouragement towards an ascetic lifestyle. All mainstream Judeo-Christianity of that epoch.
And no mention of the Demiurge, which is fundamental to Gnosticism; nothing that even hints at dualism; no cosmology - in fact, if anything, its view of creation is monistic. Nor is its purpose Gnostic; Mary's sole aim appears to be to get the disciples over their post-Crucifixion depression and out into the world of missionary work, by advocating his teaching as a path to inner spiritual knowledge in this life rather than a path to eternal life after death. Rather more Practical Female than Gnostic!
It is also very clear from this text that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, that the accusation was a theological fiction, and probably politically motivated, by those men who wished to retain the patriarchalism they had learned from Judaism, and for whom any woman who does not stay locked in the home, bringing up babies and supervising the cooking, must either be a lesbian or a whore.
"The Gospel of Mary" could, in this sense, be regarded as the first feminist tract within Christianity (does that also make it "the only feminist tract within Christianity?), and it is only amazing that the work undertaken on this by Karen King and Elaine Pagels and others has not been picked up by the Germaine Greers and Susan Sontags, who probably haven't read it, but need to. It argues the case for women as leaders, and presents what Karen King, in "The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the first woman apostle" has called
One last note: In 2009 San Francisco Opera commissioned, and in June 2013 performed, "The Gospel of Mary Magdalene", words and score by Mark Adamo (is that an Italian rendition of the Latin Adamas - lovely coincidence either way) in collaboration with whoever it was that papyrused the original. It picked up the enthusiasm for the fashionable book of the moment, Dan Brown's completely worthless except as entertainment "The Da Vinci Code", in which Mary Magdalene is not just Jesus' loving companion and probable bedmate, but actually his wife. Not terribly successful, judging from the reviews, but worth a further look anyway - which you can do from this link.
A complete reconstruction of the text can be found here.
_______________
¹ If it was indeed Mary the mother of Jesus, then mediaeval Christian tradition requires this text to be set in lapis lazuli blue, which is known as Marian Blue. My blogger colour-chart does not enable me to do that to absolute perfection, but hopefully the point is well-made anyway. There is a splendid essay on the subject here. Because I am certain that the Mary here is Mary Magdalene, I have set the next footnote in Argaman purple, which happens to be her purple - click here.
² Given that this is essentially a Gnostic document, we can probably best understand this triple-construct by exploring its contemporary Jewish equivalents, findable in almost any fragment of the Talmud Yeru-Shalmi of the period: the concepts of Ru'ach, Neshamah and Nephesh, all of which may be described as the component parts of the Lev. Search for these words across TheBibleNet and you will find them frequently explained.
³ This time in red, the favoured colour for paintings of the disciples and apostles, though it is not as clear-cut as the Marian Blue: scarlet, crimson, cherry, various shades were commonplace; see more illustrations at the links in footnote 1. And what is the footnote for? Nothing, just an excuse to complete this colour-trinity.
"a sharp critique of illegitimate power and a utopian vision of spiritual perfection; it challenges our rather romantic views about the harmony and unanimity of the first Christians; and it asks us to rethink the basis for church authority... both the content and the text's structure lead the reader inward toward the identity, power and freedom of the true self, the soul set free from the Powers of Matter and the fear of death... the Gospel of Mary is about inter-Christian controversies, the reliability of the disciples' witness, the validity of teachings given to the disciples through post-resurrection revelation and vision, and the leadership of women."Incidentally, the little touch of jealousy that Peter has for Mary is not confined to this gospel; it can be found as well in "The Gospel of Thomas", in the "Pistis Sophia", and in "The Greek Gospel of the Egyptians". On each occasion it is Peter, though on some occasions Andrew as well, who represents the orthodox position, which denies the validity of esoteric revelation to women, and rejects the authority of women to teach. In case you had not made the connection, Peter was made Pope.
A complete reconstruction of the text can be found here.
_______________
¹ If it was indeed Mary the mother of Jesus, then mediaeval Christian tradition requires this text to be set in lapis lazuli blue, which is known as Marian Blue. My blogger colour-chart does not enable me to do that to absolute perfection, but hopefully the point is well-made anyway. There is a splendid essay on the subject here. Because I am certain that the Mary here is Mary Magdalene, I have set the next footnote in Argaman purple, which happens to be her purple - click here.
² Given that this is essentially a Gnostic document, we can probably best understand this triple-construct by exploring its contemporary Jewish equivalents, findable in almost any fragment of the Talmud Yeru-Shalmi of the period: the concepts of Ru'ach, Neshamah and Nephesh, all of which may be described as the component parts of the Lev. Search for these words across TheBibleNet and you will find them frequently explained.
³ This time in red, the favoured colour for paintings of the disciples and apostles, though it is not as clear-cut as the Marian Blue: scarlet, crimson, cherry, various shades were commonplace; see more illustrations at the links in footnote 1. And what is the footnote for? Nothing, just an excuse to complete this colour-trinity.
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment