Another Viewing of “Something About Mary Magdalene”
posted May 21st, 2007 at 10:58 am by Betty
I was able to catch another viewing of the documentary Something About Mary Magdalene. This time I caught the exact words of the film’s remark about “the obsession for Mary Magdalene” that we blogged about earlier. The actual text goes this way: “Ever since the Da Vinci Code and the film The Lost Tomb of Jesus people have had an obsession for Mary Magdalene and her role in the life of Jesus.” Then the film goes on mentioning the belief that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were a couple. The rest of the film, however, focuses on Mary Magdalene’s legacy for the Christian faith. The implication is that the obsession has to do with her role in the life of Jesus, but this ignores her role as a person in her own right.
It is over against the obsession with Mary Magdalene and Jesus as a couple that the documentary stresses the role Mary Magdalene played in the birth of Christianity. One scholar, Esther de Boer, put it movingly this way: “With her, after the death of Jesus and all the grief, she was the one who was saying, I believe that he is still alive, that he is talking to us and he is in us and we can follow him though he is not physically around anymore.” For de Boer The Da Vinci Code covers up the real meaning of Mary Magdalene: what is important to see is that she belongs at Jesus’ side as the founder of Christianity.
Other scholars in the documentary stressed the Magdalene’s importance to the Christian movement: Susan Haskins referred to her as “the centerpiece of Christianity” and Pheme Perkins said that without Mary Magdalene and her message of the risen Christ, there would not have been Christianity; she is given the message because she is worthy. Marvin Meyers points out that in the extracanonical texts we find a more dynamic and intelligent image of Mary Magdalene; she was Jesus’ closest confidant — they were soul-mates. One Catholic scholar disagreed with these assessments calling them “revisionist.”
In our Monday Group, we also discussed DeBoer’s thesis that Mary Magdalene is to be identified with the beloved disciple in the Gospel of John. In our discussion we found it to be a very attractive theory. I would like to hear from you about this, as well as the point made above. If you are interested in the beloved disciple theory, take a look at John 19: 25-26. Notice how in 25 we have a list of women, the exact number however unclear. Then notice that 26 refers to “the beloved disciple.” Isn’t it logical to think that Jesus is referring to one of the women in 25? Then follow this line of thought into Chapter 20 at the tomb and the reference to “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” There are several difficulties with the theory and a central one is that the beloved disciple is referred to as “him” in various places. But DeBoer has an answer for that: She suggests that there was an intentional obscuration through the reference to her as “him.” At the time when the testimony of women was not recognized, the obscuration was needed. At the time it was probably already established that Mary Magdalene was at the crucifixion and resurrection and the Gospel wanted to establish her as a credible witness without giving it away that she was the beloved disciple. Let me hear from you about this.
