Due to a few interesting comments generated by that post, I felt it might warrant a new post in response, since the original post was actually cut short by time constraints.
Firstly, a clarification. If you are wondering where in the Bible, the Gospel of Philip was, well… you won’t find it. The Gospel of Philip is one the few recovered books of the Gnostic Gospel.
The Gnostic Gospels, written by Christians during the early years after Jesus' death, includes among others the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip; the Gnostics, a significant force in the early years of Christianity, stressed salvation through study and self-knowledge rather than simply through faith. Much of the Gnostic gospels were hidden in the sands by monks during the 4th century when the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity to protect themselves from persecution.
One particular text, the Gospel of Mary was only recently recovered found in fragments by a collector in Cairo in 1896. In it, Mary is described as a leader of Jesus’ followers in the days after his resurrection. In another book, the Gospel of Thomas, Mary and another woman Salome are two among six (not twelve apparently) disciples of Jesus.
One thing that the Gnostic Gospels seems clear about was that Mary Magdalene was instead of a wallflower to Jesus’ retinue, was probably a favored or favorite disciple of Christ. “the Savior loved… more than all other women.”
The Da Vinci Code, suggests that this may be because she was his wife, or his woman if they were unmarried. It uses as evidence a few lines like the one above as well the texts from the Gospel of Philip;“And the companion of the [gap] Mary Magdalene. [gap] her more than [gap] the disciples [gap] kiss her [gap] on her [gap].”
There was also the hint that Da Vinci knew this and painted Mary Magdalene into “The Last Supper”. This can be discounted as pure fiction because of three reasons. One, scholars overwhelmingly agree that the person is Saint John, the any notion otherwise seems to have originated from the Da Vinci Code. Two, Leonardo has been known to hint an even greater controversy, intimacy between men that was more likely the case here. Three, it assumes that Leonardo had proof or knew what he was talking about. A case that only occurs in the book.
As for the Gnostic Gospels themselves, much is open interpretation. Is there any evidence to proof that Mary wasn’t his wife? Probably not. If Mary wasn’t the bride of Christ, there is unlikely to be mentions of her NOT being his wife. On the flipside, the texts never mentioned her being his wife either.
This is important because during those times a woman’s role is defined by her relationship to men. Being even an unofficial spouse of Christ would definitely have deserved a mention. But even the Gnostic Gospel never stated clearly that she was his consort in anyway. All, it offered was vague statements that can be misread.
That’s not to say that the Da Vinci Code can’t be right. After all, there are still whole sections of the Gnostic Gospels still missing, but its safer to say his theory doesn’t hold that much merit aside from its romantic notions.
Dan Brown took the easy way out, he explained Mary’s importance to Jesus in the most attractive and juicy way. Its way more interesting than saying that Mary was referred to “as the woman who understood all things” and that Gnostic Gospels had radical ideas about gender and how Mary and Jesus saw the difference in male and female as one of the body, which will dissolve.
Of course, this is all mostly a historical interest. Since believers will believe what they will anyway.
P.S. Yes, Jesus isn’t a Gnostic or Christian. But the point isn’t Gnostic or Christian values, but that the statement taken in context with the rest of the Gospel of Philip, suggests that the kiss was non-erotic. Jesus did many un-Jewlike things.
|
