Mary Magdalene: A Biography

The author is noted as a Biblical scholar. He is that but I don't think his scholarship includes one in logic. There are a number of times in this book that statements are made as if they are fact, yet they aren't. These include:

'What she (Mary Magdalene) has are demons.' (page 4).

Excuse me but there is no scientific proof than demons actually exist. Also, some forms of mental illness in those days fell into the 'demon' category since psychology as we know it today didn't yet exist.

'She (Mary Magdalene) had no doubt been ostracized in Magdala in view of her many demons.' (also on page 4)..

Again, no proof that demons exist. Also, no proof she had been ostracized. She might have been but she might not have been.

'Jesus could not read or write.' (page 12).

Just because nothing has been found in his writing does not mean he couldn't read or write. Again, this is presented as a fact yet there is no proof. Maybe he wrote things and they have been lost to time. Another book I read noted that around 85% of written material from that time period no longer exists.

'The multiple exorcisms that Mary underwent took over a year...' (Page 26)

What multiple exorcisms? Where does he get the figure of a year? Further, the author writes that Mary was taught had to do exorcisms by Jesus and that she did a lot of them. Again, where does this come from?

'...theories that Jesus somehow physically survived the cross represent a combination of fantasy, revisionism and half-baked science.' (page 75).

This is not the only time the author used the term 'revisionism.' He also misses the point. To have revisionism you must have a historical certainty that is being altered. Yet there is no absolute historical certainty to what happened to Jesus and those around him at that time. The Gospels were written after his death and sometimes decades after his death.

This means that those writing the gospels were using their memories to write about what happened and memories cannot always be depended upon. Consider crime trials and how often people's memories are called into question. Also, the men who wrote the Bible had an agenda in doing so. That means that the 'truths' they were writing about were carefully picked to support their religious position. The things they are saying might have been true but again they might have done their own 'revisionism' of what actually happened.

If there were historical certainty then there would be no writings in the Bible about Jesus that contradicted other writings about Jesus yet those contradictions exist. What happened then is speculation based on what 'evidence' can be found yet, again, the vast majority of writings from those times have been lost (sometimes literally lost and sometimes destroyed on purpose.)

Further, he used the term 'half-baked science' in referring to the 'theory' that Jesus survived the cross. (I personally have no set position on whether he did or not.) It would be nice if he got his scientific terms correct.

It is a hypothesis that Jesus survived. That's the lowest level of scientific knowledge. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on what the person knows overall. A theory is the next step up in scientific knowledge and to have a theory you have to have substantial proof backing you up. This proof does not exist about Jesus surviving the cross so the people who hold that position have a hypothesis and not a theory. He should get his terms straight.

(The top level is a scientific law which is basically a theory that has so much evidence supporting it that it becomes a law such as the law of gravity. Pick up a book and let it go and what happens to it? It falls to the ground (or table or wherever.) Do that one million times and how many times does it fall (assuming you don't interfere with it)? One million times.

He refers to Mary reaching the age of seventy (page 91) and probably dying in her homeland. Since the Bible basically writes off Mary Magdalene after the tomb incident then who knows how long she lived? There are people who believe she and others went to France and lived out their lives there. Granted, there is no 'proof' she did but there is no proof she stayed in her homeland, either.

There are some good things in the book, especially the relationship between the Jewish people and the Roman occupiers and how the Jewish people had to be very, very careful in what they said and did. Otherwise they could very well end up dead. (As very many of then actually did.)

Another good thing: he discusses the Gospel of Mary.

Overall, though, I don't like the book since the author presents so many things as factual yet they do not actually fall into the 'fact' category. We will never (baring the invention of some kind of time-travel device) know what really happened back then. We have some archaeology to support certain assumptions but there is even controversy about just what has been found that way and what it means exactly. (For example; has the tomb of Jesus' brother actually been found or not?) We can make what may be reasonable speculation about those times but we can't been absolutely sure. Did Mary, for example, die during a Roman attack or did she die somewhere in France of old age? Did Jesus die on the cross? Probably, but again we can never be absolutely sure.

There is just too much that is not known and may never be known to come out saying a lot of things are facts when they aren't and that's why I don't really care that much for this book.


Back to start of Spirituality section

My Index Page