IF MAGDALENE WROTE MARK: ON THE ORIGINS OF THE EARLY CHURCH, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION

 

By Joel Harvey, Ph.D.

                                                     

 Copyright, 2008

 

  Introductory Note

 

To my readers who are traditional, or orthodox, Christians I maintain that the discrepancies in the following article between the theology that you have been taught and that presented in the article are ones of degree and not kind, and I do not wish to minimize your beliefs, since they are a matter of conviction.  Rather, it is my intention to show that there is an alternative version of Christian theology, the original one, that was modified by later Christian followers, mostly with good intentions, and, in the end, it is for the reader to decide which version of Christian theology is preferable to him/her.  Traditional Christianity was part of our upbringing and it is hard to question it, since the readings from Luke at Christmas, for example, are part of our childhood memories, but the hierarchical system that we have inherited has become dysfunctional, so if we wish to make a better world for our children, we must question the foundations of our civilization to see how we got where we are and to figure out where to go from here. 

 

There is no doubt that Paul and “Luke” (his identity is uncertain) were great men.  In the case of Paul, he, more than any other follower, had a vision of Christianity as a universal religion and traveled throughout the ancient world in his ministry, taking risks and perhaps giving his life in the end for the cause (his execution being uncertain).  In the case of “Luke,” he was probably the most educated of the early followers, was an excellent writer, and apparently dedicated most of his life to helping Paul universalize the Christian message.   It is not the accomplishments or even the intentions of these and other later followers that we are questioning but rather the effect of the changes they made in the teachings of  the early Christian Church, which, although ones of degree, have had an important effect on Western Civilization.

 

                                            BACKGROUND AND INSPIRATION

 

Why would it be important to reveal the original Mark?  Because the Gospels are supposedly the moral basis for Western Civilization and if it can be shown that major changes have been made in the original documents and authorship, then this could perhaps be a small contribution to helping reveal the roots of the West, contrasting them to the characteristics of the modern West of greed, imperialism, and war, and suggesting a possible way towards a constructive rebuilding of society.  

 

Secondly, why would a psychoanalyst attempt such a project?  Because the history of the Gospels in general and the Gospel of Mark in particular is so fraught with mysteries and contradictions that the methodology of psychoanalysis cannot only help to disentangle this confusion but also can make a contribution to interpreting the very subtle symbolism used in Mark to reveal the original teachings and life of Jesus, which should be the basis for modern Christianity            .

 

                                      HISTORY AND CONTENT OF THE GOSPELS

 

A review of the history and content of the Gospels based on the New Oxford Annotated Bible (New Testament), a very respected, objective, and ecumenical source, reveals the following conclusions:  (1) the Two-Source Hypothesis, or that most of the Gospels came either directly or indirectly from two major sources,  Q, an inferred book of the sayings of Jesus that seems to be shared by most of the Gospels to different degrees, and the Gospel of Mark;  and (2) Markan Priority, or the conclusion that Mark was written before any of the other Gospels.  

 

With respect to Q, it has been noted that many of the sayings overlap with the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas and that some of the sayings seem to have a priority in the Gospel of Matthew.   A logical conclusion would be that there was a book of sayings that circulated among the disciples and that this was later used by a number of the evangelists in writing their Gospels. 

With respect to Markan Priority, “Mark” seems to have been a very important eyewitness to the extent that the Gospel not only came before the others but seems to provide a unique witness, especially to the events surrounding Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion.  Theologically, Mark does not rely on supernatural explanations of events, in contrast to the other Gospels.  Finally, Mark does not describe a theology based on original sin, redemption, or possible punishment in Hell but rather one based on love and acceptance, suggesting that this was the original message of Jesus and that this message was distorted mainly by Paul and Luke in their “translation” of Jesus’ ideas. 

 

                                  HISTORY AND CONTENT OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK

 

A review of modern Biblical studies on Mark shows that most scholars reject the authorship of “Mark” and credit the Gospel to an anonymous author (Oxford Bible, N.T., p. 57).   According to Horsley, in his book Hearing The Whole Story: The Politics Of Plot In Mark’s Gospel, the best copies of the Gospel date from centuries after the origin of “Mark’s” story, and there is evidence that the Gospel was modified extensively (p. 265, n28).  It is the purpose of the present article to reveal the original Mark, to use this to help reveal early Christian theology, and to advance the theory that not only the content but also the author of the Book was changed, from Mary Magdalene to “Mark,” in order to suppress the influence of James, Thomas, Magdalene, and the early Christian movement after the death of Jesus.  

 

Papias, the early Church Father, listed the classic criteria for determining the author of Mark (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, XXXIX).  These criteria were as follows:  a native speaker of Aramaic, a speaker of Greek as a second language, a Palestinian Jew, an eyewitness or associate of such a person, a person identified with the theology of Peter, a person who could have written the Gospel around the time of the Great Uprising in Palestine (66-70 CE), someone whose audience was oral, and someone who had simplicity of style.  A summary of Papias’ criteria applied to the authorship of “Mark” versus Magdalene results in seven possible criteria fulfilled by Magdalene and only one for certain in the case of “Mark.” However, the only criteria fulfilled by “Mark” is that of being consistent with the theology of Peter, which has been rejected as a criteria by most modern scholars, since the theology of the book contrasts greatly to that of Peter. 

 

                                        HISTORY OF “MARK” AND MAGDALENE

 

A review of encyclopedias and modern references on “Mark” quickly results in contradictions and mysteries, ending in legends and more questions than answers.   Some sources claim that he accompanied Peter in his preaching in the Middle East and then to Rome, where “Mark” supposedly wrote his gospel.   However, other sources speculate that he was the first Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt and that he was eventually martyred there.   Even the references to “John Mark” in the Bible, mostly by Paul, are contradictory and nebulous, resulting in our conclusion, with which Eisenman in his book James, The Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls implicitly agrees, that not only was “Mark” not an eyewitness to the events of the life of Jesus but that he was some overwrite to cover up the real source of the Gospel (p. 120-121).

 

A review of the history of Magdalene, although full of different theories as to her origin, role, and destiny, does at least provide evidence of a real historical person, not only by other works either written by her or her followers, such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene (Leloup and Meyer), but by numerous and vital references to her by the other evangelists as a key witness, especially to the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus and as an important missionary after the death of Jesus (Oxford Bible, N.T., Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Acts of Philip).   Also, with respect to her role, modern sources are increasingly emphasizing its importance, some to the extent of calling her an apostle to the apostles and even a disciple during Jesus’ ministry.  

 

As for the destiny of Magdalene, the information here is uncertain.  Some sources say that she accompanied John and Mother Mary to Ephesus whereas others say that she went to France, where she lived the last part of her life in caves, but the most authoritative sources are the writings of Philip and his followers.  The reference in the Acts of Philip to “Mariamne” is most likely referring to Magdalene according to the Harvard theologist Francois Bovon, who discovered the most complete copy of the manuscript (“Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Philip,” in Jones), and the Acts states that “Mariamne,” after accompanying Philip in his ministry and upon his death, emigrated across the Jordon to fulfill her own ministry.  

 

Since the theories of Ephesus and France are the stuff of legends, we should take the lead about her emigrating across the Jordan in the Acts of Philip and look to other early sources for a clue. Hippolytus, in his book Refutation of All Heresies (Book V, Chap. 1-3), describes the beliefs of the “Naasseni,” whom Eisenman says referred to a combination of Essenes (the fundamentalist Jewish sect a branch of which had sought refuge in Qumran on the Dead Sea and from which John the Baptist had possibly come), Nazoraeans (the name applied to the early Christians), and possibly Nasoraeans (followers of John the Baptist in Perea, some of whom had emigrated to Northern Syria after the beheading of John) (Eisenman, p. 471). Hippolytus says that the “Naasseni” attributed their beliefs to James and that these were supposedly handed down to “Mariamne” (Magdalene).  Although he says he wants to protect the image of James and Magdalene from the association with heresy, his description of the beliefs of this group, with the exception of a certain amount of embellishment on the part of the author, actually coincide to a great degree with those of the early Christian Church.

 

Also, Origen, a contemporary of Hippolytus, in his book Against Celsus mentions a number of early Christian groups, and he says that one of them followed the teachings of “Mariamme” (Magdalene), but he did not know very much about this group (5:61-62).  However, we should note that both Hippolytus and Origen imply that these groups were located East of the Jordon.

 

Indeed, we know of the Pella/Perea flight tradition according to which the early Christian followers of James in Jerusalem fled before the Great Uprising of 66 CE to Pella, a city across the Jordon, or more probably, because of security, to Perea, the rural area south of Pella where John the Baptist had evangelized before he was beheaded.  This flight tradition of the early Christians was first documented as James’ vision in the Apocalypses of James, in which Jesus warned James that he also would be executed and that his followers should flee Jerusalem.   Since scholars agree that Magdalene, along withThomas, served James as a scribe for these writings, she was an active part of the flight tradition. 

 

Next, the best scholars believe that Mark was composed for an audience which had an Aramaic dialect as a native language, Greek as a second spoken language, and a partial familiarity with the geography and customs of Jewish Palestine, which would be consistent with the linguistic characteristics and history of the Nasoraeans of Perea.  Thus, it is possible that Magdalene, after accompanying Philip in his ministry and consistent with the Acts of Philip above, accompanied Simon of Jersalem, the brother of Jesus and the next bishop after James’ death, on the flight from Jerusalem, stopping temporarily in Qumran (the Dead Sea) for refuge on the way to Perea across the Jordon, which could explain the modern finding of a fragment of the Gospel of Mark at Qumran.

 

Indeed, the papyrologist Carsten Thiede, in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity, has described the process of interpretation of the fragment of Mark found at Qumran as follows:

         

          In Mark 6:53, after the feeding of the 5,000 and Jesus

          stilling the storm, the boat reaches Gennesaret….  

          The inhabited place called ‘Gennesaret’ existed

          until the first revolt against the Romans, who  

          destroyed it in c. Ad 68….  Thus, the original text of      

          Mark was based on first-hand knowledge of the

          area.  (pp. 174,178)

         

Thus, the author of Mark could not have been someone who merely accompanied Peter in his ministry after the death of Jesus but rather had to have been someone who was an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus.  Since a parallel movement of protest against the priestly establishment had originally sought refuge at Qumran, it would not be inconceivable that this movement of disaffected priests and scribes could have given temporary refuge to the fleeing early Christians, as Thiede maintains.  

 

It could even have been possible that the Qumranians helped Magdalene with the translation of her native Aramaic to Greek and with biblical references, since evidence of extensive libraries have since been found at Qumran.  Be that as it may, it is possible that Magdalene, being temporarily in Qumran next to Perea, established contact with the Nasoraeans, the followers of the Baptist who had remained in Perea after other followers had emigrated to Northern Syria, and evangelized them with the teachings of Jesus and James, since Acts (Luke and Paul) says that John’s disciples eventually merged into the followers of Jesus but the Gospels (eyewitnesses except for Luke) do not report this.

 

Thus, Magdalene’s possible role as an evangelizer amongst the Nasoraeans of Perea could help to explain how she may have come to have an important place in the religious literature of the Nasoraeans of Northern Syria and Mesopotamia, who included in their prophets a figure named “Miryai,” who bears a close resemblance to the historical Magdalena. Indeed, the Mandaeans, the modern descendents of the Nasoraeans of Northern Syria and Mesopotamia, have in their folklore, in contrast to their written literature, a tradition by which some of them came to accept Jesus as a “Messiah of the Book,” referring to a book of the Gospels (“Mandaeism,” p. 3), and possibly Mark, which, along with other Christian literature, could have been transported over the caravan trade routes to the East.

 

Although the modern Mandaeans deny that the “Miryai” of their Book of John the Baptizer is Magdalene (Buckley, The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People), a section of this book entitled “The Story Of The Breach With Judaism” speaks of Miryai being “expelled from Jewry” and follows very closely the life of Magdalene,  from having been brought up in Judaism in Palestine, having followed a discrepant prophet, having had to flee from persecution in Jerusalem, and emigrating across the Jordon to finally settle amongst the followers of the Baptist. The section even refers to Miryai not having been comfortable with alternative brands of Judaism (implying that of Paul according to the translator and editor, G.R.S. Mead (pp. 62-70, plus notes; Mandaean Website)).  But how would the Nasoraeans in Northern Syria have known of the controversy with Paul if they had not been evangelized at least by a gospel of one of the followers of James, and which Gospel would it have been if it had not been Mark, which, as scholars agree, was written for an audience with their characteristics?  

 

Finally, the Mandaeans claim that Miryai is an abstract person and indeed the figure seems to include even characteristics of Mother Mary (Buckley), but the coincidences between the story above of a Mary who followed a discrepant prophet and the leads we have about Magdalene’s life would be consistent with the possibility that Magdalene could have provided a partial historical basis, from evangelical work in Perea, for the tradition of “Miryai. ”  Also, the references in the Mandaean literature to Miryai as Mother Mary are more fanciful and legendary, but the references to a Miryai as being similar to Magdalene could be historical, since many of them follow more or less the known history of  Magdalene, as shown above.  Furthermore, because of group pride among the Mandaeans there seems to have been a tendency to avoid crediting outside sources too heavily for their theology, which could have been operating not only in the case of the historical Magdalene but of Jesus himself.   

 

                                 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK

 

For my critical analysis of Mark I have been influenced both in the structure and content by Horsley’s The Politics Of Plot In Mark’s Gospel, one of the best books in Biblical studies and on Mark in particular, the author having opened up a new chapter on Markan studies with his postcolonial analysis of Mark as the story of Jesus as a prophet-messiah trying to liberate his people from Roman oppression.  Secondarily,  Horsley feels that Mark is a story of conflicted discipleship and faith.

 

However, our analysis differs in that we will give more emphasis to showing how the stories of the struggle for liberation and of conflicted discipleship reveal, symbolically and subliminally, the history and theology of the early Christian movement after the death of Jesus, as personified by James, Thomas, Magdalene, and the Nasoraeans, the followers of the Baptist whom Magdalene later evangelized.  Also, although we do not agree with Eisenman’s thesis about James being the Righteous Teacher of the Dead Sea Scrolls nor with his dramatization of the conflict between James and Paul, his skills related to word derivation and tracing the changes of words from Aramaic to Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic are unsurpassed and proved useful in tracing the emigration of the early Christians from Palestine across the Jordan and beyond.   Finally, since I am both psychoanalyst and filmmaker, I would divide Mark into three acts:  Jesus as Prophet (his Galilean ministry), Jesus as Messiah (his journey to Jerusalem, confrontation with the priestly establishment, and demonstration in the Temple), and Jesus as Martyr (his arrest, trial and crucifixion). 

 

                                                        JESUS AS PROPHET

 

Jesus’ ministry in Galilee includes his healings, sea crossings, wilderness feedings, and the Transfiguration, where he “becomes” Moses and Elijah.  The author of Mark opens the Gospel with Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist in the Jordan and if the audience of Mark was the followers of John in Perea, and indirectly those of Northern Syria, this would have had a special appeal to them.  

 

The baptismal scene about “the Spirit descending like a dove” upon Jesus is of special importance, since it reveals the “adoptionist” position of early Christianity, which was that Jesus was not born with the Spirit of God within him but received it through baptism after reaching a sufficient level of perfection as a human being (Oxford Bible, N.T., p. 58n).  Thus, in contrast to the position of Pauline Christianity that Jesus was born with the Spirit of God within him and was thus the Son of God from the beginning, the early Christians believed that Jesus was adopted as a Son of God.   

 

After his testing as a prophet in the desert, Jesus recruits his disciples. The latter subject is a matter of considerable controversy and Eisenman makes a good case, based on the derivation of the names of the disciples and other evidence, that the brothers of Jesus were among his original disciples and that James in particular was a member of the inner ring of male disciples that included Peter and John as well (Chap. 22). This is important in that Eisenman later uses it to argue that it was James and not Peter who was designated to follow Jesus as head of the movement, implying that the original theology of Jesus was closer to that of James in his Epistle than that of Peter or Paul, with a consequent balance of good works and faith (Chap. 19).

 

With respect to the healings of Jesus in his Galilean ministry, a disproportionate emphasis is given to demons.  Horsley interprets the demons as representing the Roman oppressors and gives the case of the demon ‘Legion’ as being prototypical, since many scholars believe that ‘Legion’ represented a Roman legion (p.140-148).  He goes on to mention the work of Franz Fanon in curing psychiatric illnesses in modern French-occupied Algeria and Fanon’s theory that the patient comes to represent the colonizer as a demon, which he then internalizes as a way to avoid the danger of open rebellion (The Wretched Of The Earth).  Finally, Horsley explains the request of the people after Jesus cast out the demon “Legion’ for Jesus to leave the area as representing their being anxious over having lost the advantage of keeping the protest against the Romans in their unconscious.  

 

In my dissertation at Texas and Oxford, I developed a concept of the “imperialist character” that included three sub-types, all of which involved the introjection of strict Victorian parental upbringing and the projection onto native peoples of the negative side of this introjection, and I also found that when the imperialists no longer had the native peoples on which to project, they suffered breakdowns (“The Character Of British Imperialism In The Middle East Of WWI”).  Also, later as a psychoanalyst, I was familiar with an incident in Mexico City where an exploited security guard had a breakdown, ran naked to the Statue of the Heroic Children (a statue in honor of adolescent soldiers who threw themselves off a cliff rather than surrender to foreign invaders), and then later came to himself and marveled to me about how a demon had possessed him and made him carry out this act of defiance, so we have observed in person cases which could be consistent with the above interpretations.

 

The next healings which are important are those of the two women involving the number “twelve.”  A woman has had abnormal menstruation for 12 years and a young girl of 12 years old is possessed.   Horsley, along with a number of other scholars, interprets the number “12” to represent the Twelve Tribes of Israel, in which case the healings would represent the liberation of Israel from the Roman demons (p. 208-212). 

 

The next important event for the purposes of our analysis is the healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter. There is unanimous agreement among scholars that this represents Jesus’ wish to include foreign countries and peoples in his liberation movement but we will add that since this first occurred in Syria, it provided a precedent which the followers of the early Church, such as James, Thomas, and Magdalene, continued by universalizing the Church in the East in contrast to the mission of Peter and Paul to evangelize in the West.  Also, the method of universalization of James, Thomas, and Magdalene, in contrast to Peter and especially Paul, was to try to preserve the teachings of Jesus in their original form as opposed to making them palatable to a Greco-Roman world.

 

After the healing of the deaf mute, symbolic not only of the deafness of the Pharisees but of his own disciples, Jesus becomes frustrated with both and seems to seek refuge in a harbor of the Sea of Galilee named “Magdala.” Due to the fact that the name of this harbor was changed in later copies to “Dalmanutha” (Oxford Bible, N.T, p. 72n), Magdalene may have been giving her signature to the work, since the use of geography by the author of the Gospel is often descriptive or symbolic instead of following the details of objective reality, which could explain the so-called “mistakes’ on Galilean geography often commented on by scholars of Mark.  

 

The next important event for our analysis is the Transfiguration, in which Jesus symbolically “becomes” Moses and Elijah.  The clothes of the prophets are described as being radiatingly white, which Eisenman and others interpret as representing martyrdom based on the tradition of the Old Testament.  Eisenman associates this with the tombs of the ancestors turning white near Jericho in The Clementines, a work ascribed to the early followers of Jesus but in reality more characteristic of the theology of Peter than that of James, Thomas, or Magdalene (Eisenman, pp. 680-688; The Clementines, Recognitions, I.71).

 

If we add to the white clothes of the prophets and the white tombs of the ancestors in Jericho the use of linen by the young man who fled from Gethsemane and the use of a white robe by the young man in Jesus’ tomb, we can hypothesize that white linen represented the clothes used in “daily bathing” (or re-baptizing) by the early Christians, the Essenes of Qumran, the followers of John the Baptist in Perea and Northern Syria, and the Mandaeans of Southern Iraq even today. Thus, white linen for the author of Mark not only represented martyrdom but also ritual purity and, combined with the nakedness of the young man who fled from Gethsemane, the “pure” or unadulterated teachings of the early Christian Church.   

 

Next comes the part of the Gospel dedicated to Jesus’ teachings on family life and economic relations, one of the great mysteries of Mark. This part of the Gospel seems to serve also as a program for the author’s community to follow. Thus, the author reviews Jesus’ questioning of unequal rights in marriage and economic relations between classes.  Although Jesus ends up supporting the enforcement of the Mosaic laws on marriage, he insists that women should have the same rights in marriage and divorce as men and criticizes economic relations between the classes based on exploitation.  Horsley points out that this was a criticism of the Herodian custom of arbitrary divorce and re-marriage for the purpose of accumulating wealth (p. 221).  However, it is also a general criticism of the use of extreme hierarchy in family and economic relations, which would have been very unusual for a male author of ancient times to relate, leading us to the belief that this section reflects the authorship of a woman.

 

                                                        JESUS AS MESSIAH

 

At this point in the author’s narrative, Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem and the signs of him as The Messiah begin to multiply.  First, in Jericho the blind Bartimaeus declares Jesus to be the messianic “Son of David” (Oxford Bible, N.T., p. 78n), which Jesus later modifies, implying that he is a spiritual and not a temporal messiah.  In Bethany he sends for a colt on which to enter Jerusalem, realizing another element of prophetic messiahship.  Also, as he enters Jerusalem, the crowd anticipates “the coming kingdom of our ancestor David.” Afterwards, his demonstration against the Temple in Jerusalem is reminiscent of the messianic prophecies of Jeremiah, for which the priests and scribes develop a plot to kill him. 

 

In his confrontation with the priests and scribes Jesus next cites the Parable of the Vineyard, in which, through a reversal to disguise somewhat the radical nature of the parable, he has the owner of the vineyard throw out the tenants to symbolize God throwing out the absentee landlords (Oxford Bible, N.T., p. 80n).   This parable, perhaps more than any other, represents the key conflict in the agrarian struggle against Rome since many peasants had lost their land due to exploitative tax schemes and had become sharecroppers, so this parable not only goes to the heart of the struggle in rural Galilee but would also get the attention of rural audiences in Perea and Northern Syria, which, although more remote from the influence of Rome, were also affected by imperialism.  

 

Next comes the incident involving the famous quotation, “give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  The interpretation of traditional Christianity of this, following Paul, is that one should cooperate even with exploitative governments and pay the taxes those governments levy, respecting thus a separation between religion and state.  But this separation did not exist in ancient Palestine and it is clear that it was Jesus’ intention to say, according to covenental law, that everything belonged to God because of the exploitation of Rome (Oxford Bible, N.T., p. 81n).

 

In the next exchange comes the essence of Jesus’ theology, in which he cites the most important commandments as being love of God and love of neighbor and then equates the two (Oxford Bible, N.T, p. 82n), thus anticipating the famous debate between James and Paul on works and faith, which is at the heart of the controversy between early Christianity and later Pauline Christianity that was eventually adopted by the Roman Empire. The author of Mark is here confirming the discrepancy between the early Church and later Christianity and comes down squarely on the side of the early Church. 

 

The next incident of importance to our analysis is where Jesus in his teaching in the Temple further clarifies his messianic role.   When he says, “David himself calls him lord; so how can [The Messiah] be his son?,” he is criticizing David’s abuse of Israel by concentrating power in himself after he defeated Israel’s foreign enemies (Oxford Bible, N.T., p. 82n).  Thus, the author of Mark is clarifying that Jesus emphatically rejected the role of temporal messiah-king, parallel to the author’s criticism of the disciples for their worldly ambitions. 

 

Later, the “Little Apocalypse,” where Jesus prophesies the destruction of the Temple, warns his followers of coming wars, dangers, and persecutions, and encourages them to stand firm, has been debated amongst scholars as to its context.  Some have taken this section of Mark to mean that “Mark” is writing after the Roman War of 66-70 CE, but I agree with Horsley and others who argue that the references are too vague to refer to a concrete war of such catastrophic proportions.  

 

Rather, the author seems to be referring to the Pella/Perea flight tradition, which seems to have occurred sometime after the stoning of James in 62 CE but before the beginning of the Great Uprising of 66 CE.   Indeed, Magdalene, who has been identified by scholars as the scribe who took down James’ last words in the Second Apocalypse Of James, in that same source describes the death of James by stoning and the later flight of the early Christians from Jerusalem (p. 3-4).  In Mark she is describing the same phenomenon in the “Little Apocalypse,” which would, by the way, give us a date for the first draft of Mark of between 63 and 65 CE. 

 

Next we have the incident of the woman with the alabaster jar of ointment in Bethany, an incident of utmost importance not only for confirming the identity of Jesus as The Messiah but for tracing the authorship of Mark. There has been much controversy between scholars over the identity of this woman, and the Gospels themselves are contradictory over this, but some of the best authorities equate this woman with Magdalene, and if it is indeed her, it would be a very creative way of providing another signature for her gospel.  

 

Not only have some authors entitled whole books in honor of this woman, such as Schussler-Fiorenza’s In Memory Of Her, but others have even used this incident to speculate that the author of Mark is indeed a woman, without going so far as to name Magdalene.  For example, Crossan, in Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, states the following:

 

          Earlier commentators often discussed whether

          the unnamed young man fleeing naked into the

          night from the Garden of Gethsemane…might be

          Mark himself….   It is just as possible, even more

          credible…, to suggest that the unnamed woman

          in Mark 14:3-9 is ‘Mark’ herself….  We cannot ever

          be sure whether Mark was a woman or a man, [but]

          we can, however, be absolutely sure that the

          author of this gospel chose an unnamed woman

          for the supreme model of Christian faith (p.192). 

 

The evidence suggests that it was Luke in his gospel who first led us astray as to the role of the woman.  He not only turns the woman into a sinner, in contrast to Markan Priority, but mentions Magdalene curiously in the following paragraph, adding that Jesus had cast out seven demons from her.   Finally, before leaving this incident, it is important to note that the incident precedes the continual lack of discipline and eventual abandonment of Jesus by his male disciples in Jerusalem and thus provides a contrast between his male and female followers.

 

Next we come to the incident of the young man in linen fleeing naked from Gethsemane. This incident, although seemingly parenthetical, is an important key to one of the themes of the sub-text, which is the dilemma and flight of the early followers of  James after his stoning in Jerusalem.  Thus, since James was famous for the exclusive use of linen clothing and many of his early followers, especially in the transformed version of the Nasoraeans of Perea and Northern Syria, took his example, the young man in linen represents the early Christian Church after the death of Jesus and his flight from Gethsemane the flight of James’ followers from Jerusalem, as if the author knew that the Gospel would be censored and changed later and is getting this message through to us subliminally.  

 

This interpretation is confirmed by the use of similar symbolism by James and Magdalene in the Second Apocalypse of James in which Magdalene writes what James is dictating to her: 

 

          [Jesus to James] For just as you are first having

clothed yourself,

          you are also the first who will strip himself,

          and you shall become as you were… (p.2).

 

Thus, this passage seems to confirm the use of the symbol of nakedness in early Christian theology as meaning a return to a natural state or the conservation of original beliefs, entirely consistent with its use in the case of the young man fleeing Gethsemane in Mark.

 

                                                       JESUS AS MARTYR

 

In the designation of the last phase of Mark as “Jesus as Martyr” I am somewhat discrepant from other scholars, such as Horsley, since I feel that it was his martyrdom in this last phase that was the key to the fulfillment of his particular role as The Messiah, since we have examples of others in the messianic tradition who were not martyred, such as Moses. Thus, the section in Mark on Jesus as Martyr includes his arrest, trial, and crucifixion, the climax of the author’s story. 

 

Next we need to note Jesus’ response to the chief priest during his trial when the latter asks him if he is The Messiah.  According to the version of Mark that has been handed down to us, Jesus answers, “I am.”   However, the Oxford Bible states that this response was very uncharacteristic of Jesus, since Matthew and Luke have him saying “You say that I am” and in Mark he answers Pilate’s question about whether he is “king of the Jews’ by “You say so.”

 

Thus, the editors of the Oxford Bible conclude that the response to the chief priest in Mark must have been similar to that in Matthew and Luke and to the response to Pilate in Mark and that the first part of the response was later deleted (N.T., p. 87n.)  This is important, since the original wording is consistent with Jesus’ ambivalence toward the messiahship and his rejection of any role implying a temporal messiahship or kingship.   However, when he later announces that “You will see the Son of Man (his preferred title according to the Oxford Bible) coming with the clouds of heaven,’ Jesus was clearly accepting the role of spiritual messiah, which caused the council of priests to find him guilty.  

 

Next we come to Pilate’s sentencing of Jesus and we must note that “Mark” is unique amongst the evangelists in not painting the Roman officials as sympathetic to Jesus and on placing the blame for his crucifixion squarely on Pilate and the chief priests, who “stirred up the crowd to have [Pilate] release Barabbas” (Oxford Bible, N.T., p. 88n).  Thus, the author of Mark does not blame the Jewish people and the Gospel was not anti-semitic in its original version, in contrast to the opinion of some scholars.  

 

The next important incident for our analysis is when the Roman centurion declares, upon seeing the sky darken after Jesus’ death, that ‘Truly this man was God’s Son ”(originally “a Son of God”) (Oxford Bible, N.T., p. 90, note b).  This correction is important, since it confirms the adoptionist position of Mark and the early Christian Church. 

 

Moving on to Jesus’ burial, it is important to note that in contrast to his male disciples, who fled and abandoned him, it was his female followers, a member of the very council that had condemned him unanimously (Joseph of Arithamea), and even the two bandits beside him on the cross who “shared his cup.”  In contrasting this behavior of the male disciples to that of the disciples of John the Baptist earlier in the Gospel, who “came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb,” the author is dramatically emphasizing the failure of the male disciples and is describing subliminally the division within the Church that followed the death of Jesus.  

 

Thus, we come to the scene of the empty tomb, wherein a young man dressed in a white robe and “sitting on the right side” (symbolic of the return of The Messiah with power) tells Magdalene, Mother Mary, and sister Salome that “he is going ahead of you to Galilee” (continuing the messianic struggle for liberation) (Oxford Bible, N.T.., p. 91n).   Not only does the use of the color white confirm our interpretation of the early Christian Church but the idea of Jesus’ being reborn in his followers is entirely consistent with the theology of early Christianity.   

 

Finally, when the author says that the women “fled… and…were afraid,” she is referring in part to the persecution after the stoning of James in 62 CE and the consequent flight of his followers to Pella/Perea  afterwards. Due to the fact that this flight was in part due to the division within the early Church and the consequent complications that led to James’ death, this, once again, had to be included subliminally and symbolically.

 

Thus, the editors of the Oxford Bible, as well as many other sources, have concluded that the ending of Mark (16.9-20) borrows some themes from the other gospels and was added later (N.T., p.91n).   Therefore, this had to be an attempt to make the Gospel of Mark fall into line with the later theology of Paul and Luke that was discrepant from that of the early Church.  

 

In conclusion, we come to the meaning of Jesus’ death and martyrdom, which in Mark also seems to be different from that of the other gospels. Besides fulfilling the messianic prophecy, “Mark” says that Jesus’ death was a “ransom for many” (10.45). It is important to note that the traditional Pauline interpretation of this is that the ransom was paid for the salvation of the sins of the world, but the Oxford Bible notes that, according to the original word usage, the ransom was primarily for the indebtedness and consequent oppression of the Palestinian people (N.T., p. 78n). Thus, we see that the idea of original sin and the need for redemption was the addition of Paul and Luke in the Epistles and Luke-Acts and was not a part of the original teachings of Jesus, as we have shown throughout the article. 

 

                                                      CONCLUSION

 

After our critical analysis of Mark, we come to the following conclusions:  that Jesus’ death was a “ransom for many,” referring primarily to liberation from oppression and not redemption from original sin and everlasting punishment; that salvation depends on a balance of works and faith; and that Jesus intended a kingdom on earth and not just in a next life. Thus, the real teachings of Jesus represented a theology of  both temporal and spiritual liberation.                  .              

 

Therefore, the original Mark is our best expression of the real teachings of the early Christian Church and confirms that it was James in his Epistle and not Paul and Luke who best represented Jesus’ theology.   However, much of what James wrote was excluded from The Bible, but Magdalene in Mark, which reflects the teachings of both Jesus and James, presented the theology and history of the early Church symbolically and subliminally.  Finally, with respect to the debate between traditional Christians and Gnostics, it would appear that the true teachings of Jesus were represented more by the original Mark and the Epistle of James than by the extremes of Paul and Luke on the one hand or the gnostic manuscripts of Nag Hammadi on the other.     

 

At this point, it is necessary to review the evidence for our hypothesis that Mark was written by Magdalene and later presented to an audience of Nasoraeans, or followers of John, across the Jordan River in Perea and indirectly in Northern Syria.  As for the identity of the author of Mark, since modern scholars have concluded that “Mark” was not the author and that the true identity of the author has been overwritten, it has proven instructive to research the identity of the real author.  As we have seen above, Magdalene fits, more than “Mark” or any other author who has been proposed, the classic criteria of the early Church Father Papias, which were as follows:  a native speaker of Aramaic, a speaker of Greek as a second language, a Palestinian Jew, an eyewitness or associate, a person who could have written the Gospel around the time of the Roman War of CE 66-70, someone whose audience was oral, and someone with simplicity of style.  As for the audience of Mark, most modern scholars agree that it was one which was a native speaker of an Aramaic dialect, had Greek as a second spoken language, and had a partial familiarity with the geography and customs of Jewish Palestine, all of which would be satisfied by an audience of John’s followers in Perea and eventually in Northern Syria.              

 

Besides the above evidence, we may review the following: the Acts of Philip states that Magdalene’s appointed place for missionary work was across the Jordan; Hippolytus describes how, according to the Nasseni, who also were to be found across the Jordon, their beliefs came from James, handed down through Magdalene; Origen comments on the fact that there were groups of early Christians across the Jordon who followed the teachings of Magdalene; Magdalene was one of the two scribes who recorded James’ vision of his own execution and the advice of Jesus for his followers to flee Jerusalem, and there is historical documentation which records how Simon of Jerusalem led such a flight; Horsley, who has provided an important reference for our article on Mark and has written one of the best-received books on the subject, feels that the audience was in rural Syria (or Trans-Jordan); Eisenman doubts the authenticity of the roles ascribed to “Mark” and has provided important linguistic evidence on the relationship between the Nazoraeans (early Christians) and the Nasoraeans (the followers of the Baptist), including the latter’s emigration across the Jordan and later to Northern Syria, as well as their modern descendants, the Mandaeans; Thiede has verified through papyrological studies the finding of a fragment of Mark on the Dead Sea at Qumran and has advanced this as proof that the author of Mark was an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus and that there was contact between the early Christians and the Essenes of Qumran; and, finally, we have the uncanny resemblance of “Miryai” in the Mandaean religious literature to the historical Magdalene, as well as Mead’s interpretation of the alternative brand of Judaism referred to in the Mandaean Book of John the Baptizer as that of Paul, which could have come from the contrast to Mark and its evangelizing influence amongst the Nasoraeans of both Perea and Northern Syria and Mesopotamia.

 

Thus, the hypothesis of a Mark written by Magdalene for an audience of Nasoraeans, or followers of John, in Perea and eventually Northern Syria and Mesopotamia is supported by 15 pieces of evidence, with none apparently against it.  Although this does not constitute formal “proof” of our hypothesis, it is perhaps as close as we can get in the field of history. However, more important than the authorship of Mark is its contents, and we have tried to reveal the original Mark in our analysis in order to help reveal the history and theology of the early Christian movement after the death of Jesus. 

 

Therefore, if our attempt to help reveal the original theology of the early Christian Church is accurate, the modern Mandaeans, a community of “daily bathers” who still survive in the marshes of Southern Iraq, would represent the authentic teachings of the early Church more than any other classical group.  Their version of early Christian theology has been mixed syncretically with some  influences from Greek Gnosticism and Eastern mysticism, but it is logical that these influences came later after their emigration to Northern Syria, in contrast to Drower’s “tentative assumption” for her argument that the Mandaeans originated in Samaria and Galilee as almost full-blown “gnostics,” since neither the term nor the concept existed at that time (The Secret Adam, p. 100-102).  However, it is fair to say, based on Drower’s first-hand, classic study, that their beliefs are closer to the teachings of the early Christian Church than are those of most modern Christian denominations.  Nevertheless, ironically, this group is now in danger of extinction due to the war in Iraq, and many of its members have emigrated to Jordan, Syria, and other parts of the world after having been persecuted and marginalized for two millennia in both the West and the East precisely because of their religious beliefs. 

 

Thus, returning to the original purpose of our article, if the moral code of Western Civilization is supposedly based on the New Testament and especially the Gospels, the clarification of the true teachings of Jesus should help to reveal the hypocrisy that is so rampant in the West, based as it is on the substitution of words for action.  Furthermore, it can be shown psychologically that the theology of Paul and Luke is subject to guilt, low self-esteem, and depression, which can be manipulated by hierarchical systems and was the overriding reason for its development. 

 

Comparable to the analysis of the “imperialist character” in my dissertation, the evangelical character had sub-types as well. Paul seemed to identify with his role as arbiter between the early Christian movement and the Greco-Roman world, Peter seemed ambivalent toward it, and “Luke” seemed on the surface to reject it, apparently avoiding direct contact with Rome.  However, each of these men was used to a certain degree as an instrument by the Roman Empire, which took advantage of their desire to see Christianity become a universal religion by co-opting much of its theology.

 

But the East also has its religious distortions and the development of Islamic Fundamentalism is a prime example.  Thus, if the world is to avoid a new Crusade, it is incumbent upon us to go back to the roots of the major religions and seek to disentangle the original teachings of the founders from later additions in order to prevent religion from being used as justification for creating a world based on artificial divisions.  Indeed, Eisenman traces how much of the theology of early Christianity was adopted by Muhammad (p.296, 391-392), so if we go back to the roots, we may find that East and West have more in common than we thought. 

 

In conclusion, it would be important for scholars of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to stimulate a new dialogue on this basis, since all three religions have in common “the religion of Abraham,” which originated in the Harran area of Northern Syria, Abraham’s place of birth and an area that has played an important role in our analysis of the early Christian Church. The area is also near Mt. Ararat and thus is connected to the “religion of Noah” and Adam as the “Primaeval Man” (Drower, The Secret Adam).  It is ironic that these areas, modern Armenia and Kurdistan, have been witness to some of the worst atrocities the world has ever known, but it could also be a place that could inspire renewal, restoration, and re-integration.  Just as the modern world needs to save the Mandaeans, who originated in this area and are one of the principal inheritors of the original teachings of early Christianity, it also needs to save itself. As in the original ending of Mark, the choice is ours and we must provide an ending to the story that we ourselves have written.

 

                                                        REFERENCES

 

Bovon, Francois, “Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Philip”, in Jones, F. Stanley, ed., Which Mary?,

Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002, pp. 75-89 

 

Buckley, Jorunn, The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People, Oxford: Oxford University,   2002

 

Clement of Alexandria, The Clementines (www.compassionatespirit.com)

 

Coogan, Michael, et. al., editors, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3^rd edition, Oxford:  Oxford     University, 2001

 

Crossan, John, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995

 

Drower, E. S., The Secret Adam: A Study of Nasoraean Gnosis, London: Oxford University,           1960                    

 

Eisenman, Robert, James, the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early           Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York: Penguin, 1997

 

Fanon, Franz, The Wretched of the Earth, New York: Grove, 1968

 

Harvey, Donald, “The Character of British Imperialism in the Middle East of                             WWI,” Doctoral Dissertation,  Universities of Texas and Oxford , Ann Arbor:  University               Microfilms, 1982  

 

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, New Advent, Summa Fathers Bible Library, Fathers of the   Church (www.newadvent.org/fathers)  

                                                  

Horsley, Richard, Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel, Louisville:             Westminster John Knox, 2001

 

James, Apocalypses of James, Nag Hammadi Library, Gnostic                                                       Society(www.webcom.com/gnosis/library.html)

 

Leloup, Jean-Yves, ed., The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Rochester: Inner Traditions, 2002

 

“Mandaeism” (wikipedia.org)

 

Mandaean Website (www.geocities.com/mandaeans)

 

Mead, G.R.S., trans., ed., Book of John the Baptizer, 1924 (www.gnosis.org)

 

Meyer, Marvin, ed., The Gospels of Mary: The Secret Tradition of Mary Magdalene, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2004

 

Origen, Contra Celsus (Against Celsus), New Advent, Internet

 

Papias, in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, New Advent, Internet

 

Philip, The Gospel of Philip, Nag Hammadi Library, Gnostic Society

 

____, The Acts of Philip, New Advent, Internet

 

Schussler-Fiorenza, Elizabeth, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of           Christian Origins, New York: Crossroad, 1983

Thiede, Carsten, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003

 

Thomas, Gospel of Thomas, Nag Hammadi Library, Gnostic Society

 

 

 

Date of Posting: May 4, 2008

Readers may respond with comments to drjoelharvey@yahoo.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please get in touch to offer comments and join our mailing list.

Copyright 2008