The Gospel of Mary (Extremely LONG)

[The_Horned_King]

***First let me say, yes, I know this thread could/probably will turn into a mess real fast. I know the arguements could start to fly. What I am asking if for people to look at the text and honestly tell me why it should/shouldn't have been included in the bible. Or your thoughts on the different subjects represented in the gospel.***

I have always found the "missing text" of the bible interesting. The Gospel of Mary is one of my favorites that was not "voted" to be placed in the final collection of books for the bible.

To me this is a huge text to be left out of the bible.

Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 was acquired by a German scholar, Dr. Carl Reinhardt, in Cairo in 1896 (the codex is variably referenced in scholarly writings as the "Berlin Gnostic Codex", the "Akhmim Codex", PB 8502, and BG 8502). It contains Coptic editions of three very important Gnostic texts: the Apocryphon of John, the Sophia of Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of Mary.Despite the importance of the find, several misfortunes (including two world wars) delayed its publication until 1955.....Two other small fragments of the Gospel of Mary from separate Greek editions were later also unearthed in archaelogical excavations at Oxyrhynchus in Northern Egypt

Though the gospel is at least 19 pages in length, pages 1-6 and 11-14 are missing. It has been suggested in popular literature that this is a Gospel of Mary Magdalene although the central character is always named as simply "Mary" in the text.....there are Patristic references to the Gospel of Mary as early as the third century.

Now that you know some of the history of the text....here is some of what it says.

A couple passages from chapter 4...

38) Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.

39) When He said this He departed

Which makes me begin to understand why the church did not include this book....we all know how many "rules" the church has created, destroyed, changed over the years.

...Then they grieve, saying, "How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If even he was not spared, how shall we be spared?" And Mary bids them take heart: "Let us rather praise his greatness, for he prepared us and made us into men." She then delivers a vision of the Savior that she has had and reports her discourse with him, which shows Gnostic influences.

Her vision does not meet with 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 Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are of other ideas.'"
"Peter also opposed her in regard to these matters and asked them about the Savior. '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?'"
However Levi defends Mary and quells Peter's attack on her. In the text, Peter appears to be offended by the discovery that Jesus selected Mary above the other disciples to interpret his teachings. Peter sees Mary as a rival and a contender for the leadership of the group.

The above is a paraphraseing of the passages form chapter 5...I have included a few of the passages below.

Chapter 5
1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.

5) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of ________ .

6) Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.

7) Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.....

The men are obviously jealous of something but what??? Why is it that Levi stands up for her?

I bolded a statement I find curious ... "We know that the savior loved you more then the rest of ____" I left a ______ in red because no one knows exactly what word belong here!!! There is a hole in the manuscript. Some theorize it is women some say it's disciples! Others say "Us".

Is this proof that there was more to Mary an Jesus then we are lead to believe?

After Mary's long (and I mean long chapters 5-8...unfortunately we are missing much of it) talk about what Jesus told her...we get this response

Chapter 9

2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.

3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.

4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.

9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.

I have bolded some curious statements made in the passages...Do they point torward the fact that Jesus and Mary were and item?

In my gut, those lines along with passages form the other books of the bible(and others left out) lead me to believe that infact they we're indeed were husband and wife.
A little more on that subject...

Sources like the Gospel of Philip do depict Mary Magdalene as being closer to Jesus than any other disciple. However, there is no known ancient document that claims she was his wife; rather, the Gospel of Philip depicts Mary as Jesus' koinonos, a Greek term indicating a 'close friend', 'companion' or, potentially, a lover..... In the bible, Mary's presence at the Crucifixion and Jesus' tomb, while hardly conclusive, is at least consistent with the role of grieving wife and widow

.

Other then the obviously over done theory about Mary being Jesus' wife, I feel there are a few other facts that need to be addressed about this text before the discussion can begin.

The confrontation of Mary with Peter, a scenario also found in The Gospel of Thomas, Pistis Sophia, and The Gospel of the Egyptians, reflects some of the tensions in second-century Christianity. Peter and Andrew represent orthodox positions that deny the validity of esoteric revelation and reject the authority of women to teach.

Was part of the church's rejection of this book for this matter??? The fact that it places a women in a position of power?


Date of the Gospel...

The Gospel of Mary was originally written in Greek some time in the second century. Unfortunately the two extant copies of The Gospel of Mary are extremely fragmentary. The earliest text comprises only a single, fragmentary leaf written in Greek, dated to the early third century (P. Rylands 111463 [22:16,1-19,4]). A longer portion of the text is extant in an early fifth-century Coptic codex (P . Berolinensis 8502,1), though considerable portions of the text are missing there too. Of eighteen pages, only eight are extant (7-10 and 15-19,5). Though the text of the Greek fragment varies considerably from the Coptic version, it parallels the Coptic pages 17,5-21 and 18,5-19,5 and hence does not provide any new material.

Other scholars believe the following about the date of the gospel of mary...

Karen King has suggested that the original Gospel of Mary was penned in the late first or early second century in Syria or Egypt. The papyrus dates to the third century.

So just like all of the other gospels we really don't know when the gospel of Mary was written.

Professor King goes on to say that the Gospel

"...presents a radical interpretation of Jesus' teachings as a path to inner spiritual knowledge; it rejects his suffering and death as the path to eternal life; it exposes the erroneous view that Mary of Magdala was a prostitute for what it is—a piece of theological fiction; it presents the most straightforward and convincing argument in any early Christian writing for the legitimacy of women's leadership; it offers 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.

Reading the whole Gospel, it is obvious how at odds it seems to be with the church's beliefs. These challanges are surely the reasons for it's exclusion from official doctorine.

Something else to think about...

When the soul had overcome the third power, it went upwards and saw the fourth power, (which) took seven forms. The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is the excitement of death, the fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven [powers] of wrath.

Are these the 7 demons cast out of her???
Luke tells the story of an exorcism on Mary that cast out seven demons.

Lastly, here is an interesting theory that takes us just outside the "Gospel of Mary" but into another gospel....

A group of scholars have suggested that for one early group of Christians Mary Magdalene was a leader of the early Church and maybe even the unidentified Beloved Disciple, to whom the Fourth Gospel commonly called Gospel of John is ascribed. The most familiar of the scholars is Elaine Pagels.

Could this be possible???

Here are links to the quotes pulled from the internet...mostly to save time of rewriting it all.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/the_gospel_of_mary_magdalene.htm- has a great translation of the whole text.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_mary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalen-while not the most reliable, it does have some good information

While I hate to post and run, I have some pressing matters to attend to. I will check back in later to happily discuss matters with anyone. Feel free to PM me if you want to really discuss the matter in detail or private.

 

[harleyquinn]

I think you need to add "possible longest single post in DIS history" to your title.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Holy Crap that is LONG!

I will have to post and then read.
Yes, I also find the missing text interesting, but what I find even more interesting is what was going on behind the scenes.

Some cultures DO include things that are not in the English versions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a few additional books in its canon: Jubilees, Book of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Acts of Paul, and some uniquely Ethiopian books. There is a matter of some controversy as to what constitutes "canon" in this religious body. The Pe****ta excludes 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation, but Bibles of the modern Syriac Orthodox Church includes later translations of those books. Third Epistle to the Corinthians was once considered part of the Armenian Orthodox Bible.

 

[harleyquinn]

Holy Crap that is LONG!

Apparently my DH (The_Horned_King) is either very thorough or very long winded--or both!

BTW, it's my fault he's a disser. He uses a lot of other message boards that are VERY different from this one. Around here he tends to have severe foot in mouth disease, so I apologize in advance!

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Apparently my DH (The_Horned_King) is either very thorough or very long winded--or both!

BTW, it's my fault he's a disser. He uses a lot of other message boards that are VERY different from this one. Around here he tends to have severe foot in mouth disease, so I apologize in advance!

No sweat!

 

[Chuck S]

Truthfully, I think books for the Bible were chosen less by what they thought was true than by what would maintain the status quo and allow the church and political leader to maintain power.

 

[The_Horned_King]

Apparently my DH (The_Horned_King) is either very thorough or very long winded--or both!

BTW, it's my fault he's a disser. He uses a lot of other message boards that are VERY different from this one. Around here he tends to have severe foot in mouth disease, so I apologize in advance!

Yes, I am both long winded..through...and do put my foot in mouth often.

Holy Crap that is LONG!

I will have to post and then read.
Yes, I also find the missing text interesting, but what I find even more interesting is what was going on behind the scenes.

Some cultures DO include things that are not in the English versions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a few additional books in its canon: Jubilees, Book of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Acts of Paul, and some uniquely Ethiopian books. There is a matter of some controversy as to what constitutes "canon" in this religious body. The Pe****ta excludes 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation, but Bibles of the modern Syriac Orthodox Church includes later translations of those books. Third Epistle to the Corinthians was once considered part of the Armenian Orthodox Bible.

Yeah the stuff going on behind the scenes is extremely interesting.

Truthfully, I think books for the Bible were chosen less by what they thought was true than by what would maintain the status quo and allow the church and political leader to maintain power.

I'm with you there Chuck it was/is definately about keeping the Status Quo.

 

[Bbgrizzle]

Due to my ignorance, I don't really have an opinion on this topic. Just wanted to say hi to my old pals Harley Quinn and the Horned King! Howdy!

 

[DISUNC]

I think you need to add "possible longest single post in DIS history" to your title.

We are Short Attention Span Disers!

 

[DISUNC]

I have always found the "missing text" of the bible interesting. The Gospel of Mary is one of my favorites that was not "voted" to be placed in the final collection of books for the bible.

To me this is a huge text to be left out of the bible.

Im with ya HK! I too like all the Bible mysteries.

There was MANY books left out of "The Bible"; many many many many translations (sorta like a xerox copy of a copy of a copy), and various versions floating around today!

This is why I take with a grain of salt when people quote "The Bible"...as if there is ONE FULL TEXT that is the same all over.

Someone once told me that if Gone with the Wind went through the all the same editing and deletions and versions that the Bible did it would be about....Prissy, the Chicago Mid Wife, her love for Ashley and how it produced a child called Tara! Rhett would have been a minor character and Scarlett would be no more than the color dress Prissy wore to the Cotillion!

 

[Cass]

Holy Crap that is LONG!

A smilie for posts that are too long

 

[GeorgeG]

There seems to be a lot that was left out of the bible by design. While it's difficult to know for sure why certain writings were chosen and why others were not, the fact that those not chosen were ordered destroyed does raise a lot of questions. Then, we must also consider why a significant number of those ordered destroyed were not destroyed, but hidden away. It's also curious how we are expected to swear on this book to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

 

[JoyG]

Horned King,

I think it's great that you have such an interest about Christianity. I read your post and although I haven't read the Gospel of Mary, I have read up on the gnostic gopels in general and why they weren't included in the Bible.

It seems like you have read the Gospel of Mary and I would like to know if you have also studied the Gospels that are in the Bible. I ask because although I haven't read Mary, from the summary you posted...there are clear red flags that lead me to believe it is not the inspired word of God.

This really pops out:

Professor King goes on to say that the Gospel

"...presents a radical interpretation of Jesus' teachings as a path to inner spiritual knowledge; it rejects his suffering and death as the path to eternal life; it exposes the erroneous view that Mary of Magdala was a prostitute for what it is—a piece of theological fiction; it presents the most straightforward and convincing argument in any early Christian writing for the legitimacy of women's leadership; it offers 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.



If that is what the Gospel of Mary is really saying it is very clear why it was rejected as inspired. Jesus was abudently clear about him being the way to eternal life.

I don't really know you, and I'm not trying to offend you or insinuate anything. But I want to challenge you as you continue on your journey of research to spend as much time researching what's in the Bible as what has been left out of it.

 

[harleyquinn]

I don't really know you, and I'm not trying to offend you or insinuate anything. But I want to challenge you as you continue on your journey of research to spend as much time researching what's in the Bible as what has been left out of it.

I've been harping on that to him for years. It's my opinion that you can't have any intelligent conversation without having read and studied it all.

We have both taken college courses on the subject (both what's in and out) as well as further study on our own.

I thought that you're post was very respectful! Thanks!

And with that, I'm outta here. DH comes here to talk to you guys, because I'm sick of having the same discussion with him all the time! lol

(Hi Bonnie!!

 

[6TimeMomma]

Holy Crap that is LONG!

I will have to post and then read.
Yes, I also find the missing text interesting, but what I find even more interesting is what was going on behind the scenes.

Some cultures DO include things that are not in the English versions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a few additional books in its canon: Jubilees, Book of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Acts of Paul, and some uniquely Ethiopian books. There is a matter of some controversy as to what constitutes "canon" in this religious body. The Pe****ta excludes 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation, but Bibles of the modern Syriac Orthodox Church includes later translations of those books. Third Epistle to the Corinthians was once considered part of the Armenian Orthodox Bible.

The Bible used by most Catholics also has books that have been excluded from the one more commonly used by other Christian denominations. These were originally included and then "voted out" of the "newer" version.

 

[Saxsoon]

I am guessing when you are talking about the voting, you are talking about the Council of Nicea, would I be correct in that statement? Or is there another instance. Because if that were true, it is questionable on whether books of the Bible were decided there, or if it was where the teachings of Arius had any merit. (Jesus was not God actually, there was a time when he didn't exist)

I believe most of the books of what we would consider today's modern Bible were actually commonplace before the end of the first century A.D., chosen by the people. Let me get back to you on that.

 

[The_Horned_King]

Horned King,

I think it's great that you have such an interest about Christianity. I read your post and although I haven't read the Gospel of Mary, I have read up on the gnostic gopels in general and why they weren't included in the Bible.

It seems like you have read the Gospel of Mary and I would like to know if you have also studied the Gospels that are in the Bible. I ask because although I haven't read Mary, from the summary you posted...there are clear red flags that lead me to believe it is not the inspired word of God.

This really pops out:

Professor King goes on to say that the Gospel

"...presents a radical interpretation of Jesus' teachings as a path to inner spiritual knowledge; it rejects his suffering and death as the path to eternal life; it exposes the erroneous view that Mary of Magdala was a prostitute for what it is—a piece of theological fiction; it presents the most straightforward and convincing argument in any early Christian writing for the legitimacy of women's leadership; it offers 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.



If that is what the Gospel of Mary is really saying it is very clear why it was rejected as inspired. Jesus was abudently clear about him being the way to eternal life.

I don't really know you, and I'm not trying to offend you or insinuate anything. But I want to challenge you as you continue on your journey of research to spend as much time researching what's in the Bible as what has been left out of it.

No offense taken at all Joy...
Yep, as the Dw said I have taken some college courses on what is both in and out of the bible .
I have done much personal searching, reading, and looking into the texts.

The part you bolded...
Professor King goes on to say that the Gospel

"...presents a radical interpretation of Jesus' teachings as a path to inner spiritual knowledge; it rejects his suffering and death as the path to eternal life;

Is for sure a BIG reason why it was left out the bible as we know it. This text is Gnostic. A little about what the Gnostic is can be found at this linkhttp://www.gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm....for those to lazy to click link's let me cut and paste a little.

...Only twenty-five years ago, when one used the word "Gnostic," it was very likely to be misunderstood as "agnostic," and thus have one's statement turned into its exact opposite.
..Another sometimes confusing voice comes from writers who are bent on proving that within the existing major religions a secret tradition of gnosis may be found which is not identical to the "heretical" Gnosticism of the early Christian centuries.
....In 1966, a distinguished assembly of scholars convened in Messina, Italy, for the purpose of arriving at some useful definitions of Gnosticism. The results of this gathering were not encouraging. The scholars proposed restricting the use of the term "Gnosticism" to certain second-century "heretical" movements, while the broader term "gnosis" was to be used to refer to "knowledge of the divine mysteries for an elite." While a useful attempt, it did not manage to clear up the confusion.
....The difficulties in pinning down a definition of Gnosticism are intimately connected with the controversy about its origins. Was it indeed no more than a heretical offshoot, an eccentric and aberrant branch of Christianity, or was it the latest expression of a long, mostly hidden tradition that had existed for centuries before the Christian era? No one has answered these questions with final authority.

GNOSTICISM IS THE TEACHING based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions. It is nearer the truth to say that Gnosticism expresses a specific religious experience, an experience that does not lend itself to the language of theology or philosophy, but which is instead closely affinitized to, and expresses itself through, the medium of myth. Indeed, one finds that most Gnostic scriptures take the forms of myths. The term “myth” should not here be taken to mean “stories that are not true”, but rather, that the truths embodied in these myths are of a different order from the dogmas of theology or the statements of philosophy.http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

As you can see....Many people espically the hardcore religious have always looked at the Gnostic's as little more then heritics. However they are far from that!
but rather, that the truths embodied in these myths are of a different order from the dogmas of theology or the statements of philosophy
In other words they took the teachings at a much more aligorical level.

Could these words still (espically if written by Mary) still not be words inspired by god??

Look into the actual text and you will see that although they talk about enlightenment through the spirt and knowledge they never go against the theory that jesus was the way to god. Infact they believe that his teachings allow the spirit to achive enlightenment needed to reach God.

I am guessing when you are talking about the voting, you are talking about the Council of Nicea, would I be correct in that statement? Or is there another instance. Because if that were true, it is questionable on whether books of the Bible were decided there, or if it was where the teachings of Arius had any merit. (Jesus was not God actually, there was a time when he didn't exist)

I believe most of the books of what we would consider today's modern Bible were actually commonplace before the end of the first century A.D., chosen by the people. Let me get back to you on that.

Nicea is the place that I was talking about the vote. Although It is widely believed, and in some case known, that later "revisions" (adding deleting of text) and translation errors have taken place.

Before the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., the New Testament was divided into paragraphs where the divisions were different from the modern Bible.

An important canon of the New Testament was proclaimed by Pope Damasus I in the Roman synod of 374.

Arius (AD ca250/256 - 336, of Alexandria) was an early Christian theologian, who taught that the Son of God was not eternal, and was subordinate to God the Father (a view known generally as Arianism). Although he attracted considerable support at the time (and since), Arius's views were declared heretical at the Council of Nicaea, leading to the formation of the Nicene Creed.(From Wiki)

 

[Saxsoon]

Sorry to go off topic, but is Arius where Hitler got the name for his race of Arians?

 

[CRB#33]

He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

If Jesus and Mary were an item or married, why would they be surprised that Jesus spoke privately with his own wife?

Were they jealous of Jesus' wife? Doubtful. I would imagine that after their savior died, they would do everything they could to care for the woman he loved.

There is nothing that is for sure because crucial pieces of the text are missing.

I believe it's unwise to play an assumption, guessing game about missing pieces.

 

[Saxsoon]

If Jesus and Mary were an item or married, why would they be surprised that Jesus spoke privately with his own wife?

Were they jealous of Jesus' wife? Doubtful. I would imagine that after their savior died, they would do everything they could to care for the woman he loved.

There is nothing that is for sure because crucial pieces of the text are missing.

I believe it's unwise to play an assumption, guessing game about missing pieces.

Besides, the word that many people interpret to mean his wife is not even certain because of the translation and meaning of the original is ambiguous to say the least.