Did Mary Magdalene author the Gospel of John?

[rfgdxm]

First, this thread is sincere and not a troll. And I have no interest in blasphemy. I’m not a Christian, and it really doesn’t mean much to me which follower(s) of Jesus wrote the fourth the gospel. Besides, Mary Magdalene according to other texts in the Bible was following Jesus around, and as a first hand witness to what happened would have been in a position to write a gospel.

What motivated this post:

http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html

Yeah, I know that sites on Tripod aren’t exactly the most promising place to find serious Biblical scholarship. However, the author seems sincere, and at:

http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene3.html

even has someone at Temple University with a Ph.D. saying he finds this thesis interesting. That beats my credentials, and thus seems at least worth considering.

First, as is pointed out in this thesis, there is no convincing Biblical authority Mary Magdalene was a penitent hooker or an adultress. Some have argued this, but they could very well be confusing multiple different charaters in the Bible as the same person. All that is clear from the Bible is that Jesus was said to have driven demons out of Mary Magdalene. Typically in the Bible prostitutes and adultresses are characterized as just sinners, while those demon possessed either acted as if they were mentally ill, or were epileptics. This is fair argument that Mary Magdalene was a different person than the penitent adultress of the prostitute that washed Jesus’ feet with her hair. A much more plausible assumption is that Mary Magdalene either was “cured” by Jesus (if you are a Christian), or her condition improved after encountering Jesus, she attributed this to a miracle, and thus became a devout follower.

Basically, the thesis is that Mary Magdalene was the “Beloved Disciple” mentioned in the gospels. Superficially, not implausible. Mary unquestionably was a disciple. She was there at the crucifixion, and the first to see Jesus risen from the grave. The argument made is that because of sexism 2 millenia ago, Mary’s gospel was said to have been authored by John.

I do realize that this is getting into controversial territory in that it is said in non-cannonical scripture there was some sort of attraction between Jesus and Mary. From the Gospel of Philip:

** And the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended] by it [and expressed disapproval]. They said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Savior answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness” (NHC II.3.63.32ff) (Robinson 1977: 138).**

Unless I missed something in the Old Testament, I am unaware of any prophecy that says the Messiah MUST NOT have a girlfriend. (Any devout Jew care to comment?) Mere kissing AFAIK is not a sin. No mention there of anything more sexual.

I concede that this is all speculation. I merely ask that those more knowledgeable shoot down this hypothesis.

[Loopydude]

Find some independent reference to Mary first, and then get back to us about John’s authorship, as we will have resolved with some confidence the question of whether she ever existed in the first place.

[jimmmy]

I won’t touch the Magdalene stuff – let others do it and they will do it well.

I’ll put forward something on your subject line topic: No one really knows who wrote the gospel of John. “Someone” wrote it prior to 125AD. There is tradition dating to the mid to late 2nd Century when Christian writers (Justin Martyr, Eubesius and Tertillian) go to great lengths to explain how, when and where the Apostle John wrote his Gospel. It is not rock solid evidence – but it is the only evidence for an author. No one, not Magdalene or anyone else, is put forward as another possible author for over 1000 years.

Mainly though here is where it seems the Magdalene and the Beloved Disciple are mutually exclusive and the Disciple is male (my emphasis bolded):

John 20

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. 9snip) 8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed

[rfgdxm]

@jimmmy

I won’t touch the Magdalene stuff – let others do it and they will do it well.

I’ll put forward something on your subject line topic: No one really knows who wrote the gospel of John. “Someone” wrote it prior to 125AD. There is tradition dating to the mid to late 2nd Century when Christian writers (Justin Martyr, Eubesius and Tertillian) go to great lengths to explain how, when and where the Apostle John wrote his Gospel. It is not rock solid evidence – but it is the only evidence for an author. No one, not Magdalene or anyone else, is put forward as another possible author for over 1000 years.

Mainly though here is where it seems the Magdalene and the Beloved Disciple are mutually exclusive and the Disciple is male (my emphasis bolded):

John 20

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. 9snip) 8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed

Note your citation is from the Gospel of John, which I suggest may have been originally written by the Magdalene. This could be due to a later editor. If you wish to challenge the thesis I have offered, you need to cite some independent writing.

[jimmmy]

@rfgdxm

If you wish to challenge the thesis I have offered, you need to cite some independent writing.

I did: Justin Martyr, Eubesius and Tertillian go on and on about how, when and where the Apostle John wrote this Gospel. From your own cite: the Gnostic Heracleon (d. 180). The Valentinian Gnostics appropriated the Fourth Gospel to such an extent that Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202) had to refute their exegesis of it. Guess what point they aren’t arguing: They all agree John is the Beloved Disciple. Guess what they aren’t saying: That Mary Magdalene is the author. I am not saying their view should be taken as - uh, gospel- - I am just saying they are what evidence there is on the gospel’s authorship until the 1700’s when the first doubts arise.

It is not rock solid evidence – but where is the evidence for Magdalene – right there isn’t any but a WAG, or if you prefer, “a thesis”

I don’t want to be harsh but it is you who have offered nothing even remotely close to evidence. I have put people writing within 100 years of the authorship - universally ascribing it to John – you have a “thesis” but have provided absolutely no evidence to support it except a man posting on the internet in a: “it seems to me”, “it could be that” “I’d sure be willing to bet that…”-style.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

My first thought going into this thread is “What evidence do we have that Jewish women of that era could read and write?”

[Marley23]

@rfgdxm

Note your citation is from the Gospel of John, which I suggest may have been originally written by the Magdalene. This could be due to a later editor. If you wish to challenge the thesis I have offered, you need to cite some independent writing.

No, that doesn’t work. You can’t prove that she wrote it, and the question of a later editor changing it - which you also can’t prove - doesn’t even come into play unless you assume she did write it. He doesn’t need to cite anything, you do.

[rfgdxm]

@grienspace

My first thought going into this thread is “What evidence do we have that Jewish women of that era could read and write?”

I had already considered that matter, and it would be irrelevant. Independent of the Gospel of John, the Magdalene was acknowledged to have been present during the ministry of Jesus, and a witness to the crucifixion and resurrection. She is said to be the first person to find Christ had risen. Surely amongst the early Christian community if she had said to them “I would like one of you who can read and write to transcribe from my oral account what I have witnessed”, someone who could have done so would have eagerly volunteered. On the Internet today what I have written about getting high on dextromethorphan has been translated without me even asking into Russian and Polish!? If today my humble words on an obscure drug could be translated into 2 different European languages (interpreted is the better word, as I had nothing to do with this, and have no idea how well they did it), surely the Magdalene could have found someone to jot down an account about what the son of God did and said. Lack of literacy in a language doesn’t mean what you have to say won’t appear in it.

[rfgdxm]

@jimmmy

I did: Justin Martyr, Eubesius and Tertillian go on and on about how, when and where the Apostle John wrote this Gospel. From your own cite: the Gnostic Heracleon (d. 180). The Valentinian Gnostics appropriated the Fourth Gospel to such an extent that Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202) had to refute their exegesis of it. Guess what point they aren’t arguing: They all agree John is the Beloved Disciple. Guess what they aren’t saying: That Mary Magdalene is the author. I am not saying their view should be taken as - uh, gospel- - I am just saying they are what evidence there is on the gospel’s authorship until the 1700’s when the first doubts arise.

It is not rock solid evidence – but where is the evidence for Magdalene – right there isn’t any but a WAG, or if you prefer, “a thesis”

I don’t want to be harsh but it is you who have offered nothing even remotely close to evidence. I have put people writing within 100 years of the authorship - universally ascribing it to John – you have a “thesis” but have provided absolutely no evidence to support it except a man posting on the internet in a: “it seems to me”, “it could be that” “I’d sure be willing to bet that…”-style.

Conceded. However, if no one really knows who wrote the gospel of John, the shouldn’t authorship be best said to be anonymous?

[Polycarp]

Without being a smartalec here, the Magdalene-authorship idea is an interesting hypothesis. It’s not a theory in any constructive sense of that word – the evidence that might tend to support it is so highly speculative and founded in so tenuous a logic train that it can only be said not to be totally ruled out by the available evidence.

However, attribution of the Fourth Gospel to John bar Zebedee, brother of James and the probable Beloved Disciple, in his old age, has a great deal of early and clear support, as noted by jimmmy. If and when Diogenes puts in an appearance, he can explain more fully than I the arguments for initial-draft authorship by the mysterious “John the Elder,” evidently a separate person than the Beloved Disciple, and the prevailing theory of an early-Second Century rescension of the original to produce the Fourth Gospel we have today.

[FriarTed]

I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Magdalene contributed to the Fourth Gospel, along with the Bethany Sisters (Mary & Martha) and their brother Lazarus (who has also been named as a “Beloved Disciple” candidate). I also believe that Luke 1-3, while transcribed by Luke, is essentially the personal account of Mother Mary.

[Marley23]

@rfgdxm

Surely amongst the early Christian community if she had said to them “I would like one of you who can read and write to transcribe from my oral account what I have witnessed”, someone who could have done so would have eagerly volunteered.

This is still more speculation without evidence. As you’ve probably seen in the “Jesus’s writings” thread, these people probably lacked a reason to write anything down to begin with.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I’ll just start by saying that John could not have been written by a contemporary of Jesus but I’ll come back to that in a second.

The patristic attributions for John all stem from a single source, Irenaeus. Actually it’s Eusebius quoting Irenaeus citing his own childhood memory of Papias.

Irenaeus says (via Eusebius) that Papias knew a certain “John the Presbyter” who Iranaeus identified as John the Apsotle. However, Eusebius says that Iranaeus had his Johns mixed up, Papias himself never claimed to have known any apostles and in Papias’ own writings he talks about the apostle and the Presbyter as being different people.

Irenaeus knew Papias when he (Iraneaeus) was a child and heard him speak. Papias spoke of 'John the Presbyter" and Irenaeus writing about his childhood memories as an adult, confused the Presbyter with the Apostle. Both Eusebius and Papias himself make it clear that these were different individuals.

The Gospel of John does not claim to be an eyewitness account, does not name its own author and does not identify the “beloved disciple” as being either the author of the Gospel or as being named John.

The dating of John is quite late (c. 100 CE) and it knows about events that occurred at the end of the first century. It also features a glaring anachronism in which the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues (a mid 80’s event at the earliest) are depicted as having occurred during Jesus’ lifetime. Neither an apostle nor the Magdalene would have gotten that wrong.

GJohn is written in Koine Greek and shows no artfacts of translation from Aramaic. It shows at least three distinct literary styles which means it had at least three different authors and was written in a series of layers and redactions, not as a contiguous work by one author.

It contains elements of Alexandrian influence as well as an intense anti-Jewish polemic which mark it as a Gentile work, not a Jewish one.

It contains other characteristics which paint it as fiction. In particular, the long speeches given to Jesus cannot have been derived from oral tradition and do not match the style or theology of the synpotic sayings. They were composed.

Traditional authorship for John is currently rejected by virtually all Biblical scholarship except for a handful of Christian conservatives.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Polycarp

However, attribution of the Fourth Gospel to John bar Zebedee, brother of James and the probable Beloved Disciple, in his old age, has a great deal of early and clear support, as noted by jimmmy. If and when Diogenes puts in an appearance, he can explain more fully than I the arguments for initial-draft authorship by the mysterious “John the Elder,” evidently a separate person than the Beloved Disciple, and the prevailing theory of an early-Second Century rescension of the original to produce the Fourth Gospel we have today.

The theory is that GJohn was produced (or at least completed) by a community of Christians who followed a “John the Elder” (or John the Presbyter), that Papias had some connection with this John and that Ireneaus confused this John and his community with the apostle.

Some of the more daring speculation is that the Presbyter was respected because he was a first generation disciple of an Apostle. IOW, he wasn’t an apostle himself but he had known an apostle or apostles (not necessarily John) and that some of the preicopes in GJohn stem from the Elder’s memories of authentic anecdotes from Apostles which don’t appear in the synoptics or are slightly different from the synoptics.

[Thudlow_Boink]

I just thought it wouldn’t hurt to have a link in this thread to the Straight Dope Staff Report on Who Wrote the Bible.

[rfgdxm]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I’ll just start by saying that John could not have been written by a contemporary of Jesus but I’ll come back to that in a second.

The patristic attributions for John all stem from a single source, Irenaeus. Actually it’s Eusebius quoting Irenaeus citing his own childhood memory of Papias.

Irenaeus says (via Eusebius) that Papias knew a certain “John the Presbyter” who Iranaeus identified as John the Apsotle. However, Eusebius says that Iranaeus had his Johns mixed up, Papias himself never claimed to have known any apostles and in Papias’ own writings he talks about the apostle and the Presbyter as being different people.

Irenaeus knew Papias when he (Iraneaeus) was a child and heard him speak. Papias spoke of 'John the Presbyter" and Irenaeus writing about his childhood memories as an adult, confused the Presbyter with the Apostle. Both Eusebius and Papias himself make it clear that these were different individuals.

The Gospel of John does not claim to be an eyewitness account, does not name its own author and does not identify the “beloved disciple” as being either the author of the Gospel or as being named John.

The dating of John is quite late (c. 100 CE) and it knows about events that occurred at the end of the first century. It also features a glaring anachronism in which the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues (a mid 80’s event at the earliest) are depicted as having occurred during Jesus’ lifetime. Neither an apostle nor the Magdalene would have gotten that wrong.

GJohn is written in Koine Greek and shows no artfacts of translation from Aramaic. It shows at least three distinct literary styles which means it had at least three different authors and was written in a series of layers and redactions, not as a contiguous work by one author.

It contains elements of Alexandrian influence as well as an intense anti-Jewish polemic which mark it as a Gentile work, not a Jewish one.

It contains other characteristics which paint it as fiction. In particular, the long speeches given to Jesus cannot have been derived from oral tradition and do not match the style or theology of the synpotic sayings. They were composed.

Traditional authorship for John is currently rejected by virtually all Biblical scholarship except for a handful of Christian conservatives.

Oh dear. If GJ was written by 3 different editors, no way of knowing what their source(s) was/were. It could be the Apostle John, the Madgalene, or many different eyewitness accounts. And if these editors weren’t above forging speeches by Jesus, I can easily see them intentionally leaving out who there true source was.

[Marley23]

@rfgdxm

Oh dear. If GJ was written by 3 different editors, no way of knowing what their source(s) was/were. It could be the Apostle John, the Madgalene, or many different eyewitness accounts. And if these editors weren’t above forging speeches by Jesus, I can easily see them intentionally leaving out who there true source was.

Why are you so uncomfortable ascribing these action and motivations to people when you don’t know anything about them?

[Marley23]

Damn it, that was supposed to be “comfortable.”

[grimpixie]

@Diogenes the Cynic

It also features a glaring anachronism in which the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues (a mid 80’s event at the earliest) are depicted as having occurred during Jesus’ lifetime. Neither an apostle nor the Magdalene would have gotten that wrong.

Where is this mentioned in John - I don’t remember it and a quick search comes up empty?

Thanks
Grim

[rfgdxm]

@Marley23

Damn it, that was supposed to be “comfortable.”

Note I did add in there “if”. Dio does have a point that the long speeches of Jesus are hard to explain as coming from oral tradition. For these to be genuine, someone would have had to have been taking them down as he said them via shorthand or such. This seems all kinds of unlikely. And if someone was transcribing the sermons of Jesus, how come only the author of John had access?