The Gospel of Mary Magdalene - Self-Knowledge of the Soul and Mind

 

It's truly difficult to imagine the first century of early Christianity, to peer back through the glare of two millennia, to witness a period before an elaborate rigid hierarchy exclusively dominated by men-decided doctrine, back before the cradle formulations of Nicaea or even the Apostolic Creed, back even before the New Testament existed as a collection of sacred scriptures, much less elaborate Christologies are trinitarian economics... even when before there was even a concept of what salvation meant, and the Christhood of Jesus was still widely being debated, it was truly a period of daring spiritual, philosophical, and mystical development. And while that period is honestly difficult to imagine, the past few centuries have given us a small window onto just that period through the recovery of ancient text from that very crucible in Christian history.

One of those texts presents us a radically different Christianity than the one that's come down to most of us. Here the savior teaches that an inward spiritual turn is key to salvation rather than the tortured death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, that the key to salvation may lie in secret teachings revealed through prophetic visions, that apostolic authority rests on understanding that secret rather than dynastic transmission, and that Mary Magdalene, and not the rock of Peter, was the true recipient of that secret... and thus the true heir of apostolic Christianity.

Recovered in the late 19th century, let's explore one of those texts - the Gospel of Mary, the only gospel attributed to a woman to have survived from that early period in Christian history, and one that presents a Christianity utterly unlike what has survived down to us today. The Gospel of Mary is kind of not a gospel in the sense of a retelling of the life teachings, execution, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as in the four gospels that you're probably more familiar with. But in early Christianity the term gospel was just the term “good news ' and could be more broadly understood as extolling the good news of the salvation by Christ such as in other texts like the Valentinian Gospel of Truth. In this sense the genre was more extensive and in that sense the Gospel of Mary can be rightly called a gospel.

As we have it, the Gospel of Mary survives in three fragmentary texts. The most extensive is a 5th Century Coptic manuscript purchased in 1896. But there are two other much more fragmentary texts whose sections have been recovered in ancient Greek. Sadly, less than half of the original text is preserved, with the first six to eight texts of the beginning lost along with another four pages either again missing or lost. They might turn up one day. We can hope indeed.

The publication of the text itself seems positively cursed with everything from broken pipes to the discovery of the more famous Nag Hamadi Library. The Gospel of Mary isn't found in that collection and the advent of the World Wars helped to stall production for nearly a century after its discovery.

Dating the text is also a thorny issue though most scholars date it somewhere on a spectrum from early to late in the second century of the Common Era. Personally I have to say that I do find the arguments for an earlier dating in the second century rather plausible, if not totally convincing. Obviously you should read the literature and decide for yourself.

The Gospel of Mary is anonymous, but considering the central and authoritative role played by Mary Magdalene in the text, it's certainly possible that it was composed by a woman or dictated by a woman or at least in an environment where feminine or gender-egalitarian Christian authority was practiced... though there is some debate about just which Mary is presented in this text. There were at least half a dozen Mary's in the early Jesus movement - from the mother and the aunt of Jesus to his apostle and financial backer Mary of Magdala, one of several such prominent women in the early Jesus movement.

Mary of Magdala is an extraordinarily complex character in the gospels whom Luke, for instance, has being exorcised of seven demons, but who was among the very earliest followers of Jesus. At his execution apparently there were no men. There were just women followers and she may have been the first witness of the empty tomb, at least in the Gospel of John. She's also witness to the risen Christ who famously bids her not to touch him or cling to him because he has not yet ascended to the Father, whatever that means in the Gospel of John.

Mary would also continue to feature in non-canonical Christian scriptures where she's often found among the other disciples and apostles discussing a wide range of topics with Jesus, both pre- and post-resurrection... though her questions and even her very presence as a woman is a common source of vexation for the men in these texts. However in texts like the Piste Sophia, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Mary her spiritual and authoritative preeminence are apparent.

Despite this preeminence, or probably because of that preeminence, Mary Magdalene is only infrequently mentioned in the patristic sources. Indeed in western Christendom the Mary's of the New Testament underwent a process of conflation - all the Mary's got flattened together with the result that Mary of Magdala eventually emerges as a repentant sex worker and an important homily of Pope Gregory the first in around 591 of the Common Era. This view would become positively pervasive in western Christianity, though it's worth noting that this whole Mary conflation and the sex worker legend never developed in eastern Christianity, not that women were going to be playing a central role in the development of Christendom in that neck of the woods either, though it's not like a sex worker couldn't rise to prominence as a leading apostle, disciple of Jesus.

The idea that women in general, and Mary Magdalene specifically, were destined to a second-class spiritual or authoritative position in the development of Christianity is not only far from obvious, but positively contra-indicated in texts like the Gospel of Mary.

As I just mentioned, we have just shy of half of the text, but the sections that do survive are theologically breathtaking. Sadly the first six to eight pages are missing, as I mentioned, but the text appears to be a kind of post-resurrection question and answer session between Jesus and his disciples, some of which were women, including Mary most prominently.

When the text does pick up, the savior answers a question about the fate of all substances in the cosmos. Here and in other places, as we'll see, the answers strike a rather stoic and platonic rather than a Jewish tone. We learned that while all of matter and spirit are now intermingled, at the end of time they will return to their respective roots - matter back to the unformed state of raw potentiality and spirit back to its Source and the Divine realm. Note the lack of any apocalyptic judgment in this answer. That's more common in Jewish than in pagan philosophical currents. For instance in stoicism everything just gets swallowed up in a giant fire. And that question bears on the next question taken up by Jesus. What is sin?

Again Jesus strikes the middle Platonist philosopher rather than the Jewish sage concerned with demonic uncleanliness that you might see in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In a pretty shocking revelation the savior reveals that sin as such doesn't exist. Rather, it comes into being as much as it can be said to have any kind of real ontological status through a kind of metaphysical adultery where the material flesh is indulged in over and against the true spiritual self. Because the true spiritual self is eternal, taking the temporal physical self as the true self, it's a kind of infidelity, literally of faithlessness in our true self and our eternal destiny.

By extension the savior declares that this is the true origin of both sickness and death, because the true self can and will never grow ill and die. Souls don't get sick and die. Only if one confuses the true spiritual self with the material self, giving into the delusion of the physical body as the true self, can one ever really grow ill and die.

It's this disturbing confusion that the teachings of the savior are meant to up-end and thus free people such that they will enjoy eternal spiritual life, just as a savior does, despite his physical execution and death.

But note what isn't the key issue for this salvific teaching - if it's not the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the Gospel of Mary the theory of salvation is truly about understanding the teachings of the savior and avoiding this disturbing confusion, and thus the metaphysical adultery that causes one to cling to temporary physical reality and thus prevents final and eternal spiritual freedom from this material realm.

Indeed, gaining that understanding in typical stoic and platonic fashion, liberates one from suffering in this world. One simply becomes indifferent because this isn't truly real.

Finally, the realm of the Divine isn't a remote heaven or hell. It isn't a place of punishment. There doesn't appear to be a hell at all in this theology. Rather the Divine realm, or the Divine kingdom, is imminent to one's true spiritual self; it's a return to that substance dependent on grasping that simple but counter-intuitive truth: You aren't this! This isn't real!

Indeed in the savior's final message to his disciples he desperately urges them not to look here and there, but only to turn within... such that those who turn to their true spiritual selves will become liberated. Further, that no external law will provide them salvation, no amount of external rule-following or rituals of any kind will substitute for the radical self-understanding as an eternal spiritual being that will return you to the Divine after one's physical body returns to its proper root source.

That the Magdalene has grasped this understanding while the other apostles have not is apparent in just the next section. The savior bids all the disciples farewell and all of them but Mary break out in tears. They are terrified that if they teach the message of the savior publicly they will share his fate - cruel physical execution – again, a fate that Jesus and Mary Magdalene who understands the true message of the savior aren't in the least bit afraid of.

Indeed the savior has given them the truth that allows them to become true human beings, transcending physical limitations like death and gender, a limitation that men in power have a more difficult time transcending than even death as women and gender non-conforming people just witness all the time.

At this point in the dialogue Peter, the rock upon which the church will in fact be built, defers to Miriam for the teachings that the savior has provided to her, given that she was uniquely loved by the savior, as he admits this much. Indeed,

other gospels, especially the Gospel of Philip, have Mary denoted as the companion of Jesus, such that Christ loved Mary more than all the other disciples and he used to often kiss her on the mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by this and expressed disapproval. They said to Jesus, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” And 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 the darkness? They are no different from one another, but when the light comes then he who sees will see the light and he who is blind will remain in darkness.”

There is a lot going on here, but the Gospel of Philip is likely using physical intimacy as part of this complex use of symbolism. Such kisses were part of early Christian ritual. And it's also possible that the historical Jesus and Mary Magdalene hooked up or something, even though there's not much evidence for that.

This is the only place in Christian literature where Mary, and Mary alone, seems to be the person who gets the true teachings of Christ. Then much later in the Piste Sophia, which is a truly psychedelic and underappreciated text, we have the savior extolling Mary as such: “Mary you are the blessed one who I will perfect in all mysteries of those of the height of discourse and openness, you whose heart is raised to the kingdom of heaven more than all of your brothers.”

“Well done Mary, you are more blessed than all the women on the earth because you will be the fullness of the fullness and the completion of the completion.” Of course this praise will also earn Mary Magdalene the ire of some of her brothers, especially Peter. More on that in a moment.

But at this point in the gospel Mary begins to instruct Peter and the rest of the disciples on the secret teachings that were revealed to her in a vision by the savior. Now visions and prophecy were common in the early church and this would have been not that unusual. The visions, like many visions, were, however, apparently terrifying. How many angels have to start their visions with “Fear Not”?

Jesus praises Mary for not wavering during the vision. Further, it's her mental grasp of the truth of the vision that is evidence of her spiritual development, mirroring the stoic sage whose grasp of reality is always the result of a strong ascent to a catalyptic impression and thus never wavers in their steadfast inner tranquility. So to Mary.

While the soul appears to be the aspect of the human being that enlivens them, it's the mind according to the Gospel of Mary that grasps the salvific truth... or as the savior tells to Mary... “for where the mind is, there is the treasure”.

Sadly, there are four more pages missing at this key point in the discourse in which the revelation of the secret teachings from the savior to Mary to Peter and the other disciples. But when the text picks back up, Mary is describing the process by which the eternal soul escapes the demonic gatekeepers of this material world which seek to confuse, trap, and torture it. The soul apparently faces a series of celestial gatekeepers that the text calls the power of wrath, namely darkness, desire, ignorance, zeal for death, realm of the flesh, foolish wisdom of the flesh, and wisdom of the wrathful person.

We learn how to escape past desire and ignorance and perhaps zeal for death or wrath more generally. Desire is conquered in that it lays claim to the physical body that descended to the material realm, but the soul contends that desire only has power over the garment of the soul, that is the body, and not the soul itself.

The soul then encounters ignorance who claims that the soul is bound by the judgments that it made in accordance with an external law. Remember Jesus warning us not to attach ourselves to an external law? But the soul rejects that. It judges according to such a law because while such laws can bind the body, they cannot bind the soul. Thus free of law and judgment, the soul escapes and this gives new and profound meaning to the statement of Jesus: “Judge not, lest you be judged”.

Then finally the soul comes to the powers of wrath where the soul is accused of nothing less than murder for shedding its physical body. Of course the soul reminds wrath that the death of the body is not truly death, that the true self is the soul of course and that will now rest in a new aeon of silence.

I suspect this is also one of the criticisms of the forms of the zeal for death. This actually may be an attack on early Christian notions that martyrdom, physical death, guarantees salvation.

Note that zeal for death is still only zeal for physical death, but physical death has nothing to do with true salvation. For the Gospel of Mary that salvation only occurs when the mind grasps the true reality of the inner self as eternal soul. Thus zeal for death would only accomplish physical death and thus trap it at this very level on the route to its final redemptive escape from this realm.

Finally, Mary takes repose in just the silence that she mentioned. Her soul is at rest and it's peaceful. This is just the limit of what the secret teaching was revealed to her in her vision by the savior, and that's when the attack comes. Andrew pounces first, arguing that the savior never taught these strange ideas, and then Peter continues the assault on Mary, arguing that not only would the savior not have taught such ideas in private, but he would have never revealed them to a woman.

This echoes other attacks by Peter on the teachings and centrality of Mary Magdalene and other Christian teachings. In the Piste Sophia, Peter exclaims, “My master, we cannot endure this woman who gets in our way and does not let any of us speak, though she talks all the time.” Bossy lady stereotype! Indeed, Mary expresses her fear of Peter in his attack on her because of her gender and not because of the character of her teachings which the actual savior concludes by telling all of them, “Any of those filled with the spirit of light will come forward to interpret what I say. No one will be able to oppose them”, thus settling that gender has no bearing on spiritual truth and and its teaching. More famous and more shocking than that, is the final teaching in the Gospel of Thomas. Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. But Jesus said 'Behold I shall lead her. Thou shalt make her male in order that she will also become a living spirit like all males, for every woman who makes herself male shall enter the kingdom of Heaven.'”

Of course a great deal of ink has been spilled on that last section, and I am not going to try to settle that here. Although I have some ideas about it that are actually related to the Gospel of Mary here, but what we see in these texts is a literary rivalry between Mary and Peter that may very well mirror a rivalry in the early Christian factions.

We might have a Marian soteriology that perhaps represents an inward turning decentralized theory of salvation where authority is based on correct knowledge of the savior's teachings. On the other hand there may have been a petrine mode of outward salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus properly maintained through the inter-mediation of a more institutional body with diagnostic authority flowing from Peter.

Indeed this Marian model might be further pushed back against a combined Peter/Paul duality. Recall that Paul has Peter at the empty tomb first, not Mary Magdalene, like in some of the other gospels, especially in terms of the ability of women to teach and lead in the ancient church.

First Corinthians 14 infamously has it that as in all the congregation of the saints women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something they should go home and ask their husbands. For it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the ecclesial. And, of course, don't forget First Timothy 2: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. She must remain silent.”

That's despite Galatians actually noting there's no longer male and female in Christ, but let's just ignore that for a minute. The pushback here is clearly about the gender of Mary and her selection for those secret teachings, despite Peter's own acknowledgment of her special place among the disciples.

Certainly the field of Christianities that existed during the time of the composition of the Gospel of Mary debated a wide range of fundamental topics, and surely the role of prophetic woman-led apostolic authority must have been one of them.

The Gospel of Mary may give us a window into that debate, not only a debate in the early church, but also to a mode of Christianity practiced for hundreds of years but now lost to us. Remember we have evidence of this text being probably used from the second century to at least the fifth. That's hundreds of years in which the Gospel of Mary may have been authoritative in at least some communities.

But the attack by Peter rouses Miriam out of her serene silence, bursting into tears as Peter questions her integrity and the integrity of her teachings. Only Levi, often thought to have been a hated tax collector, chides Peter for his infamous temper. (He did cut off a guy's ear once, but then Jesus put it back on.) Levi compares Peter to an archon, and then argues that clearly the savior held her in favor and thus her teaching should likewise be held in such esteem. And those who do otherwise - Peter and Andrew - should be ashamed of themselves.

Finally the text leaves us with two slightly different nuanced endings, which could be of some importance. In the Greek ending, Levi and Mary apparently go forth and begin teaching the gospel apparently according to the secret revelation that Mary gets. The Coptic text ends such that perhaps all the disciples went forth to teach the gospel, but what gospel?

Note that the text never reconciles Mary with Peter and Andrew. For all we know, and I think this is to the point, Peter and Andrew go forth with their gospel, and Mary and Levi go forth with their gospel, thus explaining perhaps the origins of the then rivalry between perhaps the more Marian and Petron churches during the time the Gospel of Mary was being written down. Thus Peter's inability to accept Mary Magdalene's leadership merely because of her gender, despite her prophetic visions, her unique status with Jesus, and even Peter's own acknowledgment of her spiritual authority, asks her to teach him, which may actually cause him to go forth and teach a gospel that not only will not liberate people, but will trap their souls in the realm of the archons.

The final words of the Gospel of Mary are indeed a stark warning to the would-be reader, into the would-be initiate, into that disturbingly confused Petron Christianity as the Gospel of Mary might have had it, and perhaps of the very progenitor of so-called Orthodoxy itself.

Notice that I haven't really called this amazing text Gnostic, really even once during the whole episode, but mostly because I'm not really sure it's a terribly helpful category for understanding what's going on in this text. In fact the ascent of the soul, the mild dualism, and even the gatekeepers of the soul could just as well be found in hermetic and other middle platonic texts. It really reminds me a lot in the ways of the poimandres, more than anything else. Surely understanding of the truth of the nature of the self as soul is kind of Gnostic, but it's also kind of hermetic; kind of stoic and kind of platonic, and I've tried to point that out along the way in my discussion of this really wonderful text. Categories are never real, but they're sometimes useful and sometimes they're not. I think Gnosticism may be a case here where that category just might not be that useful for understanding what's going on in the Gospel of Mary.

by Dr. Justin Sledge, from YouTube @TheEsotericaChannel on October 7, 2022