The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene

About a year ago I read a movie review of Mary Magdalene, directed by Garth Davis (Lion). I was busy that weekend but thought I’d check it out the following weekend. After a one-week run at theaters in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, the closest theater still showing it was in San Antonio. A five-hour road trip was not in cards, so I resolved to catch it on cable and finally had that opportunity when it recently appeared on Showtime.

My impressions were that it is an amazingly quiet movie, hushed tones, very understated. As would be expected of a movie focused on a female character, it is a feminist movie in that Mary defies cultural rules imposed on women and is treated as an equal to the male disciples. The movie is a little revisionist because Mary is not presented as a reformed prostitute (how she is typically portrayed in popular media) or the wife of Jesus (a major theme of Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code). But mostly the movie is a re-envisioning of the gospel story as seen through the eyes of one of Jesus’ female disciples.

What do we know about Mary Magdalene?

The NT sources don’t tell us a whole lot about Mary Magdalene:

• Had seven demons driven from her (Lk 8:2)
• Among the women who travelled with Jesus and financially supported his ministry (Lk 8:1-3)
• Among the women who witnessed the crucifixion (Mt 27:55f; Mk 15:40f; Jn 19:25)
• Went to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body and found the tomb empty (Mt 28:1-8; Mk 16:1-8; Lk 24:1-11; Jn 20:1-3)
• Witnessed the risen Jesus and told the apostles about it (Mt 28:9-10; Jn 20:14-18) 

Obviously, filling out a 2-hour movie will require some creative license.

While implied in her name, the NT does not explicitly state Mary comes from the city of Magdala in Galilee. This was a fairly large city of some 40,000 people, most of them Gentile, and was a main fishing and export center in the region.

Also, you will note that nowhere in the gospels is Mary referred to as a prostitute. That was a later invention of Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604), conflating stories of the sinful woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears (Lk 7:36-50) and Mary of Bethany who anointed his feet with perfume (Jn 12:1-8).

Outside the NT, Mary appears prominently in some Gnostic gospels. In these, she symbolizes the Gnostic church and is opposed by Peter who represents the apostolic church. As one whom Jesus loved more than any other, she was given secret knowledge directly by Jesus that was not handed down through the apostles.

Poster from the 2018 UK release of Mary Magdalene

The portrait of Mary in Mary Magdalene

The movie begins with Mary (Rooney Mara) working hard in the family’s fishing business and unhappy with the idea of an arranged marriage to a local widower. Her strong opposition to the union convinces her family she has a demon. After traditional exorcisms almost kill her, one of her brothers calls in Jesus (Joaquin Phoenix), who happens to be passing through town, to heal her. After a brief chat with Mary, Jesus declares, “There are no demons here.”

Mary is captivated by Jesus’ preaching and healings. She abandons her family to be baptized by him and becomes his first female disciple. When she tells Jesus that the women of Magdala were too afraid to be baptized by the male disciples, Jesus begins to preach to women as well and Mary baptizes the women who come forward to follow Jesus.

When Mary hears Jesus speak of the kingdom of God, she instinctively understands it is something we bring about through our actions while the male disciples believe that Jesus will overthrow Roman domination in order to bring about a new world. Jesus pairs up Mary with Simon Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and sends them out to preach. They arrive in a village in Samaria where the Romans have massacred most of the populace. Peter is ready to leave the starving survivors to their fate but Mary cares for them in their dying moments and Peter realizes the power of mercy.

After Jesus initiates a riot in the Temple, all the male disciples expect Jesus will inaugurate a revolt against the Romans. But when Jesus fails to carry forward the expected revolution, Judas (Tahar Rahm) tries to force his hand with disastrous consequences.

Mary holds a lonely vigil outside Jesus’ tomb and, in the morning speaks to the risen Jesus. She tells the male disciples that Jesus appeared to her and told her the kingdom they all worked for is here already, within us. While Peter believes she had an experience of the risen Lord, he sees it as a sign that Jesus will return some day, bringing the true kingdom. Peter cannot accept that Jesus chose her as the recipient of a “special message” when all the men were chosen to build the one church, with one message. Rejected by the men, Mary will not remain and stay silent, so she goes off on her own.

How does the movie compare to what we know about Mary?

Portrayed as a poor fisher woman, Mary is not a woman of means capable of providing for Jesus and his disciples out of her own resources. Wealthy women did exist in that time. For an example of this, I think of Paul’s first known Christian convert in Europe, Lydia of Thyatira (Acts 16:11-15), a financially independent woman with a business, house, servants, and so on. A large cosmopolitan city like Magdala would have provided more opportunities for a Jewish businesswoman than the small village depicted in the film.

The movie gives short shrift to Mary’s role in Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Knocked out at Jesus’ arrest, she arrives in time to see him carrying his cross, but is too overwhelmed with grief to follow. She eventually makes it to the foot of the cross as Jesus breathes his last and helps with the burial. Given these are the moments when Mary first appears in the gospels, this choice of the writers or director here is rather surprising. Perhaps they felt this was well-trod ground quite sufficiently covered in other movies about Jesus?

There is a Gnostic flavor to Mary’s claim to the male disciples that she received a special revelation from the risen Jesus, but the message she presents in the movie is a completely orthodox one. We, the audience, should know that in time Peter and the others will receive their own vision of the risen Lord and will eventually come around to understand the gospel as Mary presents it to them. But for the less biblically literate among us, the movie’s presentation could be seen as elevating Mary at the expense of the male disciples.

The movie ends with a postscript stating that in 2016, the Vatican formally identified Mary of Magdala as “apostle of the apostles”. This is a reference to a proclamation that elevated her July 22 memorial day to that of feast day, the same as the other apostles in the Church calendar.

In closing, I offer the opening prayer for the Feast Day of St. Mary Magdalene:

In the garden He appeared to Mary Magdalene, who loved him in life, who witnessed his death on the cross, who sought him as he lay in the tomb, who was the first to adore him when he rose from the dead, and whose apostolic duty was honored by the apostles so that the good news of life might reach the ends of the earth.

Competitive Christianity

If you want to buy a personal computer today, you have a choice between Apple and Windows-based systems. But almost 40 years ago you could have chosen from models by Commodore, Apple, Tandy, Atari, Sinclair, and a variety of other vendors, all incompatible with each other’s software. Only with the creation of IBM’s original PC and the multitude of PC-clones that offered the same functioning hardware at a cheaper price point did some semblance of standardization take hold, eventually leading to the binary choices in personal computers we have today.

Similarly, it would be wrong to think that the Christianity we know today was the only brand of Christianity operative in the 1st century. A close reading of the NT literature indicates there were a variety of preachers and prophets all trying to spread their own version of Christianity. Paul regarded his opponents as “false prophets” and, in all likelihood, they would have said the same of him. The average Gentile convert had no idea which of these competing gospels were authentic.

The Baptism of John

Acts 18:24-28 and 19:1-7 present us with some Christian odd-fellows in the form of Apollos and a dozen believers who were unfamiliar with the Holy Spirit and only knew the baptism of John. Previously, I wrote about how John’s baptism of Jesus and Jesus’ continuation of John’s ministry were suppressed in the NT. In his time, the Baptist was very popular but Jesus eventually came to supplant him and the Baptist was re-cast as a precursor of Jesus. So it is not impossible that some of the Baptist’s disciples would have spread outside of Judea alongside traditional Christian missionaries.

Apollos, a Jewish convert from Alexandria, is introduced upon his arrival in Ephesus in Acts 18:24-28. Although he was described as eloquent, well-versed in Scripture, and “taught accurately the things concerning Jesus,” he “knew only the baptism of John.” Fortunately, Prisca and Aquila were able to explain Christianity to him “more accurately.” Luke does not describe how one could both “teach accurately” yet still need instruction to be “more accurate.”

The next episode (19:1-7) presents a similar scene in Ephesus. Paul found some dozen disciples who, like Apollos, had only received John’s baptism of repentance and knew nothing of the Holy Spirit. After being baptized in the name of Jesus, Paul laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues and prophesying. (In the previous episode, no mention was made of Apollos being re-baptized.) There is insufficient information to be sure but my impression is that Apollos and the other twelve were early disciples of Jesus – and not the Baptist’s disciples – who did not possess the charismatic gifts associated with the Holy Spirit.

We know from Paul’s correspondence that Apollos was a popular teacher in Corinth. Indeed, divisions developed in Corinth among those who considered Apollos their spiritual leader (1 Cor 3:4-6). Factionalism was an apparent problem not only in Corinth but Philippi as well. This seems to be a logical outgrowth of Paul’s missionary program: he would establish a church, provide some basic instructions on how to live according to the Spirit, and then move on. Without any explicit rules to follow, it was only natural that individual Christians would disagree as to how a Christian was to behave.

Church Divisions

While Corinth and Philippi faced divisions from within, the churches of Galatia were confronted with outsiders who undermined Paul’s work. After the Council of Jerusalem, we saw how Paul had a falling out with Peter and Barnabas over whether Jewish Christians would be allowed to have table fellowship with Gentile Christians. Paul lost that battle and it may have also led him to cut his ties with the Antiochene church. He therefore missed the subsequent letter from the Jerusalem authorities that required Gentile Christians to follow Jewish restrictions on diet and sexual unions.

The opponents Paul attacks in his letter to the Galatians went beyond the requirements of the Jerusalem decree. A linchpin of their teaching was strongly encouraging – if not compelling – Gentile Christians to become circumcised. They also wanted the Galatians to observe Jewish feasts and festivals. To win over the Galatians, they had to discredit Paul as an apostle and explain why the Mosaic Law was the foundation on which Christians could ground their new life in Christ.

Paul spends the first two chapters of Galatians defending himself as an apostle commissioned by the risen Lord and accepted by recognized authorities in Jerusalem like Peter and James. After establishing his bona fides, Paul spends the rest of the letter elaborating on how it is faith in Jesus Christ and not obedience to the Law which justifies a person before God. The Law was the disciplinarian until Christ came, but after one has received the Spirit, that person is no longer subject to the disciplinarian. He pleads with the Galatians to reclaim the freedom of the gospel and not turn to the slavery of the Law, which is what accepting circumcision would entail.

There were other flavors of Christianity in the air. Notable among them is the version seen in the Gospel of John and the three Johannine epistles. The Johannine Christians seem to have evolved from Hellenist Christians like Stephen who taught that Jesus replaced the essentials of Judaism like Temple worship and festivals. They had an elevated view of Jesus, almost to the point of denying his humanity. Over the decades, without a church authority structure to combat false teaching, the Johannine churches were torn apart by divisions. Some finally accepted the authority of the greater church, while the rest spun off into Gnosticism, the belief that one is saved by a secret knowledge (gnosis).

All of these Christianities competed in the marketplace of ideas. The more extreme elements – Judaizers on one side and Gnostics on the other – fell by the wayside. The Petrine, Pauline, and Johannine elements combined together to give us the church that we see emerging in the 2nd century writings of the early Church Fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp and Justin Martyr. This is the brand of Christianity that was refined in the crucible.

The Adventures of Philip

Most of what we know about Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven, comes from two incidents in Acts 8. In the first (8:4-25), Philip preaches in Samaria and encounters Simon the magician. In the second story (8:26-40), Philip baptizes an Ethiopian eunuch he meets on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza.

Appointment in Samaria

According to Luke in Acts of the Apostles, Saul led a wave of persecution in Jerusalem that caused the Christian community to scatter to the winds. As a result, Philip relocated to Samaria and followed the model of Jesus with a ministry of preaching combined with exorcisms and healings.

Samaria was the area we know today as the West Bank. Once part of the heartland of Israel, it was resettled by various peoples after Israel’s defeat at the hands of the Assyrians and Babylonians. The Samaritans accepted only the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, and did not acknowledge the Temple in Jerusalem as the only place of worship. Upon the return of the exiles from Babylon, the Jews considered the Samaritans as heretics and worse than pagans. For the Jews of Jesus’ day, there was no such thing as a “good” Samaritan, such was the hostility between the two.

Therefore it is with some surprise that (1) Philip traveled to Samaria and (2) was accepted there. At the time, the Samaritans were enamored of a certain magician named Simon who they referred to as “the Great Power of God.” Better known in later Christian tradition as Simon Magus (“magician”), he was converted by Philip’s message, submitted to baptism, and became a follower of Philip.

The success of Philip’s mission drew the attention of the apostles in Jerusalem, so Peter and John were sent to investigate. Since the Samaritans had only been baptized, Peter and John laid hands on them to confer the Holy Spirit. Presumably, at this point the Samaritans began to demonstrate charismatic gifts such as speaking in tongues. Seeing this, Simon Magus offered the apostles money to give him a share of their power. Peter berated him, essentially saying, “To hell with you and your money!” (v. 20). Unlike the story of Ananias and Sapphira, however, Peter gave Simon the opportunity to repent and Simon asked Peter to pray for him.

Who was Simon Magus?

For such a minor character, the amount of legends surrounding Simon Magus are quite surprising. The term “Great Power” (v. 10) used to refer to Simon is found among later gnostic texts. Gnosticism was a popular movement in the 2nd century that believed in a strong dichotomy between spiritual (= good) and material (= evil) existence and salvation relied on a special knowledge (gnosis) that was only granted to a select few. The early church considered Gnosticism a heresy and identified Simon Magus as the first gnostic. In other church traditions, Simon was considered a charlatan and opponent of the apostles.

Fall of Simon Magus (1461-62) by Benozzo Gozzoli. The apocryphal Acts of Peter tells the story of a contest between St. Peter and Simon Magus in Rome. Simon uses his magic to levitate (seen in the background) and Peter (on right) prays to God that he be struck down (where he lays at Peter’s feet).

Certainly Luke’s intent is to subordinate the person of Simon Magus to apostolic authority. Since Simon is described as a sorcerer with a substantial Samaritan following, there could be a polemical purpose to the story, especially if Simonians were still active at the time Luke wrote Acts (80-85 CE). In a similar fashion, the NT sought to subordinate John the Baptist to Jesus to the point of trying to obscure Jesus’ baptism by John.

As a side note, the term “simony” (buying an ecclesiastical office or grace) comes from this episode.

The Ethiopian Eunuch

After Peter and John arrive in Samaria, we hear nothing more of Philip and his ministry there. We’re told in v. 25 that Peter and John eventually returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to the Samaritans as they went along. Apparently Philip went along with them, because when he is next mentioned in v. 26, he is told by an angel of the Lord to go down the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, one of the five ancient Philistine cities.

Along the road, he encountered a eunuch who was treasurer to the Candace (the queen of the Ethiopians). Luke tells us that the eunuch was returning to his country after worshipping in Jerusalem. Running alongside the eunuch’s carriage, Philip heard him reading Isaiah 53:7-8 and offered to explain it to him. Believing in the message of Jesus, the eunuch stopped his carriage beside some water and asked to be baptized. Immediately after the baptism, Philip was snatched away by the Spirit of the Lord and he found himself in Azotus (Ashdod), another of the five ancient Philistine cities. He continued travelling north along the Mediterranean coast until he arrived in Caesarea where Paul later finds him in Acts 21:8.

Many have seen correspondences between this story and the Emmaus narrative. Both have as their core the narrative of travelers (two disciples; eunuch) overtaken by a stranger (risen Christ; Philip) who interprets Scripture for them. A request from the traveler leads to a sacramental outcome (Eucharist; baptism). Upon conclusion of the sacrament, the stranger disappears from the traveler’s presence.

Another side note: v. 37 is missing in the oldest texts and appears to be a baptismal formula that was incorporated into the text within a hundred years or so of the writing of Acts.

Evangelizing Beyond Jews

In both the episode of the Ethiopian eunuch and the preceding passage, we see the good news of Jesus being preached for the first time to people other than mainstream Jews. While not considered Jews, the Samaritans weren’t Gentiles, either. They did accept the Torah and some traditional Jewish practices like circumcision. Baptizing Samaritans into the Christian community didn’t run into the same objections that would come with Peter’s baptism of Cornelius and his family in Acts 10.

The Ethiopian eunuch is either a Jew or a convert to Judaism. Deuteronomy 23:2 (23:1 in some English versions) seems to preclude the possibility of a eunuch entering “the assembly of the Lord” but in the later understanding reflected in Isaiah 56:3-5, “eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths…and hold fast to my covenant” will be given an everlasting name. Luke portrays the Ethiopian treasurer as that kind of eunuch.

In these two stories, Luke is showing how the first Christian evangelists are quick to welcome those who would be considered on the outskirts of mainstream Judaism or who would be rejected altogether. He is setting the stage for the next big leap in Acts 10 when Peter baptizes Gentiles for the first time. But, before we can get to that momentous event, we have to backtrack a bit in Acts 9 and report the story of Saul’s conversion.

Review of Darren Aronofsky's "Noah"

Noah, a major motion picture directed by Darren Aronofsky, was released in 2014. I only recently watched the film and, for the most part, I enjoyed it. Starring Russell Crowe as Noah, it isn’t a typical biblical epic of the Cecil B. DeMille variety with cheesy effects, melodramatic acting, and overwrought dialogue. Just like DeMille’s epics, it embellishes the source material, but it is true to the spirit, if not the letter, of the biblical text. It follows in the tradition of Jewish midrash, which sought to fill in gaps in the biblical narrative, sometimes in fanciful ways. (Warning: Spoilers ahead!)

Russell Crowe stars as Noah

For example, one of the more interesting novelties in the movie is that of the Watchers. To provide manpower for ark construction, Noah enlists the aid of fallen angels whose bodies of light have become trapped within rock. Not surprisingly, Noah’s construction project and the mass migrations of thousands of animals have attracted the attention of Noah’s ruthless contemporaries and when the rain starts to fall and the mob tries to take the ark, the Watchers are instrumental in repelling the invaders.

"Noah" is sort of a mashup of "The Lord of the Rings" and "Mad Max"

I’m sure for many in the audience, this seems to be taking great liberties with the Bible, but the myth of the Watchers is well-known to those who have studied the inter-testamental literature – that is, the various non-biblical books written between the time of the OT and the NT – especially, the Book of Enoch. The Watchers were the “sons of God” who both taught humans the arts of mining and metallurgy and also mated with the “daughters of men” to give birth to the “giants” (or Nephilim). 

Fundamentalists, of course, have problems with the movie not being true to the letter of Scripture. One creationist review complains that the movie wasn’t historically accurate because it didn’t show Noah bringing dinosaurs on board the Ark. Seriously. Others have problems with the symbolism used in the movie. Christian theologian Brian Mattson calls it a pagan retelling of the flood story based on teachings from Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) and Gnosticism (a heretic form of Christianity), two incompatible philosophies that he seems to conflate. Peter Chattaway at patheos.com wrote an article clarifying that “No, Noah is not Gnostic” (the actual title of his article). 

Another complaint of evangelical critics is that God did not speak to Noah in a clear and unambiguous fashion as he does in the Bible. “The Creator” (never called “God” in the movie) only revealed his plan to Noah in the form of a dream of a drowned world. But after coming in close contact with the brutal humans who overrun the antediluvian world, Noah decides that the Creator only wants to preserve the innocent animals and accepts that humanity is fated to die with him and his family after they live out their natural lives. Clearly, if the Creator had laid it out for Noah as God does in the Bible, the last part of the movie would have been less suspenseful.

But in real life, we’re not always sure what God’s will is. The Noah portrayed in the movie certainly wanted to follow the will of “the Creator” and thought he understood that will. But when Shem’s previously barren wife becomes pregnant with twin girls aboard ship, Noah decides that carrying out the Creator’s wishes will require him to slay the babies because they will grow up to bear children of their own. When Noah’s love for his family prevents him from doing that, he sees himself as a failure. It falls to his daughter-in-law to explain that the Creator chose him because Noah could see the good and evil in people and know if there was enough good left in humanity to make it worth saving.

Part of the reason evangelicals do not like the movie is that Noah is considered something of a saint in Christian theology. The Bible points out on multiple occasions (Gen 6:22; 7:5, 9, 16) that Noah did all that God commanded him, God established a covenant with him, Noah was considered a “righteous man” and so on. In the NT the flood was seen as a sort of extreme baptism (see 1 Peter 3:20-21), destroying the old world of sin out of which a new world would be born, and Noah was the instrument for salvation.

But Jews don’t see Noah the same way. One of the new insights that I discovered in preparing this review was in an interview by The Times of Israel with “America’s rabbi” Shmuley Boteach. Rabbi Boteach points out why the biblical Noah is not considered a hero in Jewish tradition:

He [Noah] failed in the greatest mission of all. He failed to protect human life. And failed to fight with God when he wanted to take human life. He refuses to wrestle with God. Noah is a fundamentalist. He’s a religious extremist. God says “everyone will die” and Noah says nothing. But this is not what God wants. God wants people with moxie! God wants people with spiritual audacity! He does not want the obedient man of belief. He wants the defiant man of faith.

The rabbi points out, by way of contrast, that when Abraham was told that YHWH planned to destroy Sodom, Abraham didn’t just nod his head and say, “Thy will be done.” Instead, he interceded on behalf of Sodom (Gen 18-22-33), forcing YHWH to agree to spare the city if only 10 righteous people could be found in it. “This made him the first Jew. A Jew does not just accept a divine decree, he does not just bow his head in silent obedience.”

In the final analysis, Noah portrays a religious man who will go to extremes to follow what he believes is the Creator’s will. His obsession will either guarantee the salvation of life on earth or result in the extermination of the human race. The outcome rests on his humanity.