My sincere thanks to Jennifer Campaniolo at Shambhala Publishing for sending me a copy of The Meaning of Mary Magdalene: Discovering the Woman at the Heart of Christianity.
First let me start out by saying, that this was not quite what I expected. I assumed it would be a scholarly biography of one of Christianity’s most enigmatic women. It certainly is that. But I expected it to be along the lines of a general work using the accepted tools of hermeneutics in examining the texts of the Gospel accounts of the New Testament.
That it was not quite, though it certainly examined all the pertinent texts thoroughly. However, much of Cynthia Bourgeault’s work delves into the so-called “Gnostic Gospels” of Mary, Thomas, Peter and Philip. These were more or less known to the powers that decided the canon, but were omitted largely because they spoke of a more transcendent and ephemeral Jesus and his teachings. They were “gnostic” and heretical, having lost the battle to the growing “orthodoxy” of the Roman Church.
Rev. Bourgeault crafts with great care and precision her hypothesis that Jesus and Mary were “soul mates,” certainly lovers, although she doesn’t claim they were physical lovers, although she finds no reason why they may not have been.
She finds in Jesus a Nazarite, much like John the Baptist, but one who gave up the ascetic life, the life of denial, to move to the path of “singleness” where kenotic love became the center of his being. This self-giving or self-emptying attitude was one that he taught Mary and it is what allowed them to transcend his death on the cross. Their unitive love, whether physical or celibate, enabled them to reach the fullness of being human. It is this towards what his teachings point.
It is this message that Jesus sought to teach his disciples. It is what Mary learned, making her the foremost of all the disciples.
It is Bourgeault’s contention that the Gospel of John in the canon is perhaps the most clear about understanding Jesus truest teaching. She argues that the Mary of Bethany is in fact Mary Magdalene, or at least created to expouse upon some of her qualities. She would claim that many of the Marys in the Gospel accounts, or I should say many of the women (the woman at the well for instance) are also created composites of Magdalene qualities.
The reason why the Magdalene is so “hidden” in this way is simply because it became increasingly impossible for a patriarchial and male dominated church to accept that a woman had been the closed companion of Christ. It was unseemly to a church that slowly but surely hide sex behind a heavy door, and made chastity the only possible “pure” expression of “the Way.”
If you have ever read the gnostics, as I have, you undoubtedly were quite puzzled. They read more like Eastern mystical works. We are unfamiliar with the words and their meanings.
Cynthia Bourgeault, with patience and deep care, unravels the intracacies of these passages, explaining their meaning, joining them to the Semitic eastern mysticism of the time of Jesus. She has devoted more than forty years to Mary, and has traveled to parts of France where there is a very old tradition of the Magdalene’s later years there and the mystical veils that surround her.
It will, no doubt be hard for a first time reader, to digest all this “new thinking” about this mysterious woman that we know so little about, yet are still so utterly fascinated with. Bourgeault is both Episcopal priest and part-time hermit. She has studied with many who have lived their lives in these traditions of mysticism. So, her claims are not to be dismissed easily, yet, they remain, reasonable conclusions based on often quite slim evidence.
Even if you are not prepared to “buy” all the conclusions, you will I promise you come away with a vision of both Mary and Jesus that are profoundly different than before. As never before, they become fully human to us, who so desperately need human models to emulate. Bourgeault brings the scriptures alive, and quite frankly, through her interpretation, once difficult or puzzling passages suddenly ring with clarity.
All the Gospels recall Mary as the first to receive the “good news” of the resurrection. Her voice, since stifled, was so powerful to the infant church that this truth could not be denied. Although each writer in some way minimized her importance, she could not be denied her place in the narratives. It is she, Bourgeault contends, who was the source of the “annointing” ministry that she may well have shared with Jesus, and which comes down to us today as a sacrament.
What I came away with, is a deeper appreciation of Mary Magdalene. I have for some time considered her to be an ignored apostle, but I believe now she was much more than that. She was the only one who truly “got it.” As such, she does so much for us as women in the church. She restores us to our rightful place, as integral to the church. She gives us something that a virgin mother never can. She gives us a model of real humanness, fully expressed, fully embodied.
I can’t wait to read more of Bourgeault’s work. I believe she has much to teach me about my journey. After reading this book, I believe you will feel the same way.
Existential Ennui 
There are a few problems with ‘new ideas’ about Mary Magdalene: (1) The ‘Gnostic gospels’ were wriiten LONG after Christ’s Time: 2nd to 4th centuries. They were recognized as new ideas/inventions, like the ‘gospel of Judas’ picturing a great hero, instead of Betrayer. (2) Anything is possible if one rejects Christ as God, the Saviour. (3) I won’t say that Mary, the Motgher of Jesus, has been recognized as The Woman of History. But 2000 years were wrong? Mary Magdalene was The Disciple/Apostle, maybe lover of Christ? (4) It was Not Male Chauvinist Church Fathers, the Apostles who twisted history; Later writers did, like the Gnostics.
Tony, I understand your feelings, but really, one or more of these was written close in time to the Gospel of John which was as late as early 2nd century. So the time lines are not so far off. The book makes a good point in arguing that the gnostics have been lumped into a “heretical” group that really occurred much later, and frankly the writings are not necessarily attached to what we commonly think of as “the gnostics” This is not a hate the world kind of thinking that the gnostics were most noted for.
I do think its accurate to conclude that MM had a much more important role that has been downplayed as the years went by, and as the gospels were finally written. It was just not seemly for a woman to be so important. Yet more and more, the suggestion is that she was, and the facts are there in the gospels themselves. They could not exclude her frankly, though they did try to minimize her.
I see nothing at all wrong in the idea that she and Jesus loved one another. Whether that ended up in a sexual relationship matters not at all. In either case, it was a unitive event brought on by their full merging into a singleness. This approach is a non-duality, eastern and utterly Semitic way of thinking. Think of Rumi and some of the mystics as examples of this way of meeting Christ.
It’s not my feelings, Sherery, but the Known, documented Facts (The Catholic Church has been The Record keeper in it’s 2980 years). I Researched online: (1) the Gospel of John is Best thought written about AD 90, not by any remotest stretch 140 or even early second century. (2) One early Written Copy of John (Word for Word) was wriien early 2nd Century. I forgot the name of the copy) (3) John was the Only Apostle to not be Martyred, and lived a Very long life. (4) The Catholic Bible experts, Including Church father St Ireneaus, felt not all The Gospel of John was written by John, or One person. (5) From the Earliest Years, earliest Church, MARY, Mother of Jesus was The Woman in all History, as today. Eastern, Latin Churches all picture her as The Queen, So described In the Bible, Old and New, And Muslims, Hindus (Our Legion of Mary door-to-door vistied an Indian Hindu Home, in which the lady showed us a woven shawl of Mary, as pone of their ‘gods’. (6) The Earliest Christian painting was Of Mary, thought to have been by Apostle John Himself; universally known: Alpha/Omega upper corners. (7) Different phony religious ‘writings’ began in earliest years, as The Original Church Spread rapidly. Many were Recognized as phony by Early Church experts; St Ireneaus Condemned the “gospel of Judas’ as false, immediatelly. (8) 3 Church Councils of best Experts, like St Augustine, were finally held in 4th Century to finally Select Which of HUNDREDS of gospels/epistles were Most Authentic/Accurate. a few gnostic readings used by the early Church first centuries were removed, as not Authentic. The Gospel of John was questioned, because of more than one author apparent, but was Approved. St John is Recognized as the main, Principal Author of almost all. (9) Few know the last home of Mry, on a hilltop overlooking Ehesus; Thought to have been Built by Apostle John. It is a World Respected by Muslims as well as Christians as Mary’s Home. I’ve seen several detailed documentaries on it. Mary apparently Began the Rosary, from earliest markes around her home, discovered during the last 200 Hundred Years. Very most Anciient Markers. And only Mary was Witness to all Christ’s life. And the Rosary is All Bible, all Directed to Jesus, not herself. The Hail Mary begining is the Historic Bible verses of her Agreement to be mother of The Christ.
What I meant was that it is your opinion that the Church’s official position is accurate. I meant no more than that. I respect that, but I think that many Catholic biblical experts think there was more to MM than meets the eye, and that frankly the gnostic gospels were declared heretical because they “lost the war” of orthodoxy. The winner, the Church defines orthodoxy and all others are by definition heretical. I don’t know at the Church officially thinks of them now as heretical, but I think they may be closer to the mark of the early church than what we now preach is. Just my opinion Tony.
1980 or so year History, since the Last Supper. Vast Number of Records were destroyed in the sacking of Jerusalem and of Rome. The Curch recognizes Mary Magdalene as the lady only after Mary, as the Woman of Christianity. But writing a new ideas, selected reference viewpoints that Christ was in Love, The Teacher of Mary Magdalene, perhaps a physical lover, is an extreme net Stretch of reality to Slant viewpoints, disagree with historic Church, in which MARY was everything Ideal.
Pingback: Is Rodney a Gnostic Heretic? | Unsettled Christianity