Discussion about this post

User's avatar
D. Luscinius's avatar

There is no reason to think the Gospel of Mary is "real" in any meaningful sense. It postdates the Gospels by centuries and the texts you cite as in agreement with it are also from centuries later. The Gospel of Thomas may be from earlier but it was always universally rejected as spurious.

"Ever noticed how the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) read like slightly reworded copies of each other, as if someone was tweaking the script?" Yes, literally every person who has ever read the Gospels has noticed this.

Perhaps St. Gregory conflates too many figures in his depiction of Mary Magdalene, but this is not to deprecate her at all. He identifies her not just with the repentant woman of Luke 7 (and by the way, this description immediately precedes the identification of Mary Magdalene as the one from whom seven demons were expelled; and so this has been read as a subtle identification), but also with the Mary, the sister of Martha. In this, he praises her as the icon of the contemplative life, the one who "has chosen the better part, which shall not be taken from her," and the one who "has done an excellent thing for me" and which will be told "in memory of her." She is called "Apostle of the Apostles" by the greatest teachers of the Middle Ages. This is not a concession to some Gnostic forgery.

Sorry, but I hate this sort of fiction that pretends to uncover the "true meaning" of the Gospel, when it's really just pandering to personal biases. "Oh wow, what if really it's okay to sin, and the Church covered it up." Please. Just go sin if you must, but do not justify it by recounting false stories about the Lord and his saints.

Furthermore, the points you make that are actually true are not earth-shattering. Peter acting like a buffoon?! That happens every other page in the canonical Gospels. Women having a better grasp of the Gospel than the disciples? Of course. They were the ones that remained at the Cross. While the disciples get uncomfortable at any mention of death, Martha gets a wonderful profession of faith in John 12: "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world." These are important themes of the actual Gospels.

Dangerous freedom? Please. Yes, it is very interesting as a document showing what a 3rd century sect may have believed. There are indeed echoes of an authentic tradition. But to claim such writings as equal or superior to the Gospels as records of fact is embarrassing at best.

Expand full comment
Emma Steel's avatar

That's a good piece!

I was lucky enough to go see the Gospel of Thomas years ago, either in 2005 or 2006, when it was on display at the National Geography facility in Washington, D.C. While I am not a religious person, the woman I was dating at the time was, and I thought it would be significant enough to take her to, while there was the opportunity.

There was some debate at the time because of what was recorded related to Mary's place in the congregation of Jesus, and this article explores that debate very well.

I guess being middle-aged does carry some benefits after all (along with all the disadvantages) in that I've seen and done some things!

Thank you, Olga, for putting this together. It's an interesting read, and you did a great job.

I would encourage everyone to learn history and its context because deliberate omissions can have devastating impacts on context.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts