thursday in bright week is the day the church takes special notice of s. mary magdalene. in the gregorian lectionary of the west, today's gospel is from john (20:11-18). although the orthodox gospel for today is from the third chapter of john, it is nevertheless the traditional day for easter eggs, which are first attributed to mary magdalene's missionary trip to rome, much before peter and paul.
i have long been fascinated by mary magdalene; in fact i made a small contribution to the writing of the icon above, by robert lentz, which is not in grace cathedral (episcopal), san francisco. i had some knowledge of the importance of the role of mary magdalene, at least in the eastern church, when that icon was installed, around 1990, but i did not begin to understand how widespread her importance was. so i was excited when a friend who worked for bear publishing gave me a preview copy of starbird's the woman with the alabaster jar . i was however, horrified when i read the book and found her history so hokey. more horrified was i when i found so many people accepting her mis-history as it was presented in the da vinci code. there is so much more that is available about mary magdalene than seems to be known by the princeton pharisees (by whom i mean the self-appointed "scholars," not all of whom are at princeton, who claim to know far more about scripture than the church. hereafter i shall refer to them simply as pp"s.)
consider, for instance, the contrast so often drawn between s. gregory's description of s. mary m. as a reformed prostitute and the supposed supreme role of mary in what is called "the gospel of mary magdalene." again and again i have heard or read the pp's telling us that the connection between the woman from who was a known sinner--the woman with the alabaster jar who starbird claims to be not only mary madgalene but mrs. jesus of nazareth--is not assumed because the first naming of mary magdalene comes in the eighth chapter of luke right after the woman with the jar is described by simon, the host, as "a sinner." but then the pp's never seem to tell us that indeed the document they call "the gospel according to mary magdalene" is not really a gospel at all, nor is the mary of the document identified as mary magdalene.
it is therefore, i think, interesting to look at some of the things s. gregory wrote about s. mary magdalene which are included in the readings for this day in the benedictine lectionary:
"mary magdalene, (if we may be permitted to identify her as) the woman of the city who was a sinner, through love of the truth, washed away by her tears the befoulment of her sin; and thereby the word of the truth was fulfilled which he spake: her sins, which are many, are forgiven: for she loved much. . . .
"in connection with this matter, we ought to ponder on this, namely, the great store of love which was in that woman's heart. for she, when even his disciples were gone away, could not tear herself from the grave of the lord. she south him whom she had not found there, and as she sought, she wept. and the fire of love in her heart yearned after him, who (as she believed) had been taken away. and so it came to pass that she, who had lingered to seek him, was the only one who then saw him. for . . . the voice of the truth himself hath said: he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (as found in the anglican breviary (mount sinai, long island, new york: the frank gavin liturgical foundation, inc., a. d. mcmlv), pp. c333-34)
now, i want to cut the pp's some slack. they are victims, not of the catholic church, or of orthodoxy, but of the sort of confusion that inhabits so much of this post-human era. i was struck by this on easter sunday night, watching "jesus christ superstar" on turner classic movies. it seemed to me to capture the essence of both the popularity and frustration of the "historical jesus project." mary magdalene is the first one in the movie to sing "i don't know how to love him", but it is really judas iscariot who captures the real problem, who sings " i don't know how to love him," and then < "only want to know." we fail to understand what real love is, or what real knowledge is. it struck me that really all of the questions raised by the "historical jesus project" are pretty well contained in the movie. in a time when love means sex and sex means, mostly, rape, then it is easy to understand how we cannot understand how mary can be said to love jesus without having sex with him. we only want to know. we're gnostics of the most materialistic sort. (and i want to add a disclaimer here about one of the princeton scholars, elaine pagels, whose work has consistently exhibited an intellectual and emotional honesty despite her ignorance of the real traditions of the church.)
so i was very happpy to find that this link" to "love is come again" is illustrated by mary speaking to peter. but i am also reminded that in the gospel according to john the most important question jesus will ask peter is not "do you know me?" or "do you think i am who they say i am? but "do you love me?"
consider, for instance, the contrast so often drawn between s. gregory's description of s. mary m. as a reformed prostitute and the supposed supreme role of mary in what is called "the gospel of mary magdalene." again and again i have heard or read the pp's telling us that the connection between the woman from who was a known sinner--the woman with the alabaster jar who starbird claims to be not only mary madgalene but mrs. jesus of nazareth--is not assumed because the first naming of mary magdalene comes in the eighth chapter of luke right after the woman with the jar is described by simon, the host, as "a sinner." but then the pp's never seem to tell us that indeed the document they call "the gospel according to mary magdalene" is not really a gospel at all, nor is the mary of the document identified as mary magdalene.
it is therefore, i think, interesting to look at some of the things s. gregory wrote about s. mary magdalene which are included in the readings for this day in the benedictine lectionary:
"mary magdalene, (if we may be permitted to identify her as) the woman of the city who was a sinner, through love of the truth, washed away by her tears the befoulment of her sin; and thereby the word of the truth was fulfilled which he spake: her sins, which are many, are forgiven: for she loved much. . . .
"in connection with this matter, we ought to ponder on this, namely, the great store of love which was in that woman's heart. for she, when even his disciples were gone away, could not tear herself from the grave of the lord. she south him whom she had not found there, and as she sought, she wept. and the fire of love in her heart yearned after him, who (as she believed) had been taken away. and so it came to pass that she, who had lingered to seek him, was the only one who then saw him. for . . . the voice of the truth himself hath said: he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (as found in the anglican breviary (mount sinai, long island, new york: the frank gavin liturgical foundation, inc., a. d. mcmlv), pp. c333-34)
now, i want to cut the pp's some slack. they are victims, not of the catholic church, or of orthodoxy, but of the sort of confusion that inhabits so much of this post-human era. i was struck by this on easter sunday night, watching "jesus christ superstar" on turner classic movies. it seemed to me to capture the essence of both the popularity and frustration of the "historical jesus project." mary magdalene is the first one in the movie to sing "i don't know how to love him", but it is really judas iscariot who captures the real problem, who sings " i don't know how to love him," and then < "only want to know." we fail to understand what real love is, or what real knowledge is. it struck me that really all of the questions raised by the "historical jesus project" are pretty well contained in the movie. in a time when love means sex and sex means, mostly, rape, then it is easy to understand how we cannot understand how mary can be said to love jesus without having sex with him. we only want to know. we're gnostics of the most materialistic sort. (and i want to add a disclaimer here about one of the princeton scholars, elaine pagels, whose work has consistently exhibited an intellectual and emotional honesty despite her ignorance of the real traditions of the church.)
so i was very happpy to find that this link" to "love is come again" is illustrated by mary speaking to peter. but i am also reminded that in the gospel according to john the most important question jesus will ask peter is not "do you know me?" or "do you think i am who they say i am? but "do you love me?"
No comments:
Post a Comment