PART IV
JESUS AND MARY MAGDALENE

The Da Vinci Code (pp. 247-248)

“‘The woman they are speaking of,’ Teabing explained, ‘is Mary Magdalene. Peter is jealous of her.’ ‘Because Jesus preferred Mary?’ ‘Not only that. The stakes are far greater than mere affection. At this point in the gospels, Jesus suspects that He will soon be captured and crucified. So he gives Mary Magdalene instructions on how to carry on His Church after He is gone. As a result, Peter expresses his discontent over playing second fiddle to a woman. I daresay Peter was something of a sexist.’ Sophie was trying to keep up. ‘This Saint Peter, the rock on which Jesus built His Church?’ ‘The same, except for one catch. According to these unaltered gospels, it was not Peter to whom Christ gave directions with which to establish the Christian Church. It was Mary Magdalene.’ Sophie looked at him. ‘You’re saying the Christian Church was to be carried on by a woman?’ ‘That was the plan. Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene.’”

 The key figure in “The Da Vinci Code’s” grand conspiracy theory is Mary Magdalen. The novel contends that Mary Magdalen was not only a devoted follower of the Lord, but was in fact His lover, His wife, and the mother of His child. It was the Lord’s intent, the novelist insists, that His wife and lover become the leader of the Christian Church after His death. The male leadership of the early church, we are told, fiercely resented the prominence of Mary and she was marginalized and ignored in the years which followed the Lord’s death. That pattern culminated when Constantine and his co-conspirators found it necessary to transform Christianity into a patriarchal religion based upon the identification of Jesus as the Son of God. The facts of Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalen, their sexual relationship with one another, the children which were produced by that relationship, and Christ’s intent that Mary become the leader of His Church were then brutally suppressed and denied. Dan Brown goes so far as to describe this effort as “the greatest cover-up in human history.” (Lutzer, p.49) The real truth about the man Jesus, His wife Mary, and the children which their marriage produced was kept alive through secret organizations and cryptic codes focusing on the ancient legend of the “Holy Grail.” Leonardo Da Vinci was supposedly one of the heroes who helped to perpetuate this legacy through his art - thus the novel’s title “The Da Vinci Code.”

In the Gospels of the New Testament Mary Magdalene is one of the most prominent of the Galilean women who followed Jesus in the course of His public ministry. Mary was from the town of Magdala, an important agricultural, fishing and trading center on the southern end of the Sea of Galilee. The Greek name of this town was Tarichaea and its population was predominantly Gentile. Josephus notes that the town had its own hippodrome and was notorious among the Jews for its immorality. Mary is introduced in the Gospel of Luke in this way:

“The Twelve were with Him and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” (Luke 8:2-3)

The seven demons from whom the Lord had delivered Mary Magdalene are also mentioned in Mark 16:9. Mary was included among the courageous core of women who followed Jesus to the cross and remained by His side throughout His execution and burial. 

“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed Him and cared for His needs.” (Mark 15:40-41; cf. John 19:25)

“So Joseph brought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where He was laid.” (Mark 15:47)

On Easter Sunday morning. Mary is among the women who come out to complete the burial preparations only to discover the tomb empty and the body missing (cf. Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1;Luke 24:10). John’s Gospel reports that Mary remained outside of the grave weeping and became the first person to encounter the risen Lord Jesus:

“Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside of the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb, and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. They asked her, ‘Woman, why are you crying?’ ‘They have taken my Lord away,’ she said, ‘ and I don’t know where they have put Him.’ At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. ‘Woman,’ He said, ‘why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?’ Thinking He was the gardener, she said, ‘Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have put Him, and I will get Him.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Mary.’ She turned toward Him and cried out in Aramaic, ‘Rabboni!’ (which means Teacher). Jesus said, ‘Do not hold on to Me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to My brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to My Father and to your Father, to My God and your God.’ Mary Magdala went to the disciples with the news: ‘I have seen the Lord!’ and she told them that He had said these things to her.” (John 19:10-18)

The only documentation for any leadership role attributed to Mary Magdalen comes from gnostic writings of the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries, most notably the famous Nag Hammadi collection uncovered in 1945. (Cf. Notes pp. 29ff.) The dates of the Greek originals upon which the Coptic Nag Hammadi documents were based has been the subject of intense debate among scholars. Those sympathetic to neo-gnosticism often make fabulous claims about the reliability and the antiquity of these writings. They see in these documents a way to undermine and deny the content of historic Christianity. However, responsible historians, without an ideological axe to grind, reject those enthusiastic endorsements and strident attacks as unwarranted. Dr. Phillip Jenkins, of Pennsylvania State University, sums up the consensus of academic opinion:

“In most cases, all that can be known for certain about a given Nag Hammadi document is that the particular manuscript was written before the late fourth century, when it was concealed: the date of composition remains highly uncertain. Conceivably, even at this very late date, the ink might not have been too dry on some of these writings. While the canonical gospels were completed by 100 or so, it is unlikely that any of the Nag Hammadi materials date from much before 150, and most probably were written between about 150 and 250, or later. Indeed, the fact that we find so many efforts in the late second and early third century to specify the orthodox canon may indicate that it was in exactly these years that spurious and heterodox works were pouring forth from their creators in unprecedented numbers.” (Jenkins, pp. 92-93)

While the sources of these texts appear to have been written at least 100 years after the books of the canonical New Testament, they do provide an intriguing glimpse into 3^nd Century gnostic thought. Most of the works are “pseudographical,” that is, falsely attributed to authors of the apostolic age to enhance their own authority and stature. At the same time, they reveal the gnostic’s disdain for history and the bewildering, often contradictory, varieties of gnostic philosophy. There is very little new historical information in these writings and the positions taken in one work are often specifically rejected in another. The contrast between these later works composed on the heretical fringes of the early Church and the books of the New Testament - consistent in content and rich in history - is overwhelming.

Both of the unfortunate patterns typical of gnostic writings - anti-historical bias and inconsistency - are evident in the Nag Hammadi documents’ treatment of Mary Magdalen. No additional details about her life or background are provided, and the perspective which they present on any potential leadership role which she may have played in the early church is ambiguous at best.

Mary fares best in “The Gospel of Phillip” (c. A.D. 225). The text describes her as the “companion” of Jesus - “Three Marys walked with the lord; His mother, His sister, and Mary Magdala, His companion.” (Barnstone, p. 267) Later we are told that the other disciples objected to the prominence accorded to Mary Magdalen. In response, Jesus indicates that she is more spiritually perceptive than any of the other disciples: “They said, ‘Why do you love her more than us?’ The savior answered, saying to them, ‘Why do I not love you like her? If a blind man and one who sees are together in darkness, they are the same. When the light comes, the one who sees will see light. The blind man stays in the darkness.’” (Barnstone, p. 273) Another of the gnostic writings that has survived outside of the Nag Hammadi collection is actually attributed to Mary Magdalen, although most scholars believe that “The Gospel of Mary” was not composed until after A.D. 200. Only fragmentary pieces of this text remain which makes its interpretation all the more difficult. But what’s left is enough to cause considerable controversy. Mary recounts the special visions which Jesus had bestowed upon her alone: “Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brothers, ‘Do not weep, and do not grieve or be irresolute, for his grace will be fully with you and will protect you. Rather, let us praise his greatness. He prepared us and made us truly human.’ When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the good and they began to discuss the words of the savior. Peter said to Mary, ‘Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than other women. Tell us the words of the Savior that you remember, which you know and we do not. We have not heard them.’” (Barnstone, p. 479) Peter’s attitude evidently changed after Mary had spoken as he and his brother Andrew objected to the concept of the Lord granting revelation through the voice of a woman. This provokes a spirited debate among the apostles: “When Mary said this, she fell silent since the Lord had spoken to her of all these things. But Andrew answered, saying to the brothers, ‘Say what you think about what she said. I do not believe that the savior said this. These teachings are of strange ideas.’ Peter also opposed her about all this. He asked the others about the savior, ‘Did he really speak to a woman secretly, without our knowledge and not openly? Are we to turn and listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?’ Then Mary wept and said to Peter, ‘My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think I concocted this in my heart, or I am lying about the savior? Levi answered, saying to Peter, ‘Peter, you are always angry. Now I see you contending against this woman as against an adversary. If the savior made her worthy, who are you to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us. We should be ashamed and put on the perfect person and be with him as he commanded us, and we should preach the gospel, without making any rule or law other than what the savior said.’” (Barnstone, p. 481) In the second half of the 3^rd Century a gnostic gospel entitled “Pistis Sophia” (“The Wisdom of Faith”) was composed which also accords a primary leadership role to Mary Magdalen. Jesus announces to His disciples that Mary and St. John are to lead His Church: “But Mary Magdalene and John the Virgin will surpass all my disciples and all men who shall receive mysteries in the Ineffable, they will be on my right hand and on my left, and I am they and they are I.” (Schneemelcher, p. 366) As in the other texts, Peter expresses the resentment and frustration of the other apostles: “My Lord, we are not able to suffer this woman who takes the opportunity from us, and does not allow any one of us to speak, but she speaks many times.” (Brock, pp. 85-86) Mary notes Peter’s opposition to her role as she complains to Jesus: “My Lord, my mind is understanding at all times that I should come forward at any time and give the interpretation of the words which Pistis Sophia spoke, but I am afraid of Peter, for he threatens me and hates our kind.” (Brock , p. 86)

And yet, at the same time, other prominent gnostic writings like “The Gospel of Thomas,” written in the mid 2^nd Century, present a somewhat less flattering picture of the role of Mary: “Simon Cephas said to them, ‘Mary should leave us. Females are not worthy of life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I shall guide her to make her male, so she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’” (Barnstone, p. 69)

The gnostic writings which advocate a major apostolic role for Mary Magdalen were written in the late 2^nd and early 3^rd centuries when gnostic heretics were locked in bitter controversy with the defenders of orthodox Christianity. The twenty-seven books of the canonical New Testament had been well established by this time throughout the Church as the definitive source of Christian doctrine. This explains the gnostic attempt to attribute their writings to apostolic authors who had been dead for centuries. One of the major selling points of the gnostic heresy was the argument that gnosticism liberated women from the repressive constraints placed upon them by the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. Gnostic women were allowed and encouraged to do the very things which they could not do in Christian churches. The effectiveness of that strategy can be seen in the classic book “Against Heresies” written by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon in the Roman province of Gaul at the end of the 2^nd Century. Irenaeus lamented the susceptibility of Christian women to these clever falsehoods from a gnostic teacher in his region named Marcus. Marcus would entice the women to worship the goddess and join with him in consecrating the elements of her sacrament and prophesying in her name before the congregation of his followers.

“By there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself as having improved upon his master. He is a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above...Handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate them in his presence...He devotes himself especially to women and to those such as are well-bred, and elegantly attired, and of great wealth, whom he frequently seeks to draw away as these by addressing them in such seductive words as these, ‘I am eager to make thee a partaker of my Grace...Behold Grace has descended upon thee, open thy mouth and prophesy.’...Some of his disciples too, addicting themselves to the same practices have deceived many silly women and defiled them.” (ANF,1, p. 334-335)

Mary Magdalen, as the most prominent female in the canonical gospels, became the convenient foil of these attacks upon historic Christianity. By presenting her as the beneficiary of unique spiritual insight, designated by Jesus as a preeminent leader of His Church, the gnostics sought to undermine and overcome the authority of the male leadership of orthodoxy and transform the Christian religion. Dan Brown’s uncritical embrace of these questionable and contradictory writings makes him the darling of feminists and neo-gnostics everywhere. That is evidently much more important to him than historical accuracy or credibility. The assertion of an apostolic role for Mary Magdalen is without support in Scripture or the traditions of historic Christianity. The sources upon which The Da Vinci Code selectively depends were written long after the completion of the Bible by false teachers far out of the fringes of the Christian faith.

The Da Vinci Deception - (pp. 244,247)

“Teabing clarified, ‘The early Church needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being. Therefore any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus’ life had to be omitted from the Bible’... ‘But how could Christ have had a bloodline, unless?... ‘She paused and looked at Langdon. Langdon smiled softly, ‘Unless they had a child.’ Sophie stood transfixed. ‘Behold,’ Teabing proclaimed, ‘The greatest cover-up in human history. Not only was Jesus Christ married, but He was a father. My dear, Mary Magdalene was the Holy Vessel. She was the chalice that bore the royal bloodline of Jesus Christ. She was the womb that bore the lineage from which the sacred fruit sprang forth.’”

The assertion that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ lover, His wife, and the mother of His children is the central component in The Da Vinci Code’s conspiracy theory. This, we are told again and again, is the great secret which Constantine suppressed, which institutional Christendom sought to eliminate through bloody persecution and witch-hunt for centuries, and which the Renaissance genius Leonardo da Vinci both concealed and conveyed in the masterpieces of his art.

This claim is not new to Dan Brown or his Da Vinci Code. It has been repeatedly advanced in recent years by New Age mystics and amateur conspiracy theorists. Dan Brown’s personal favorite appears to be a 1982 occult classic entitled “Holy Blood - Holy Grail” by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. (The name of one of the novel’s central characters, “Sir Leigh Teabing” is an anagram based on the names of Baigent and Leigh.) This amazing book purports to reveal the secret history of Christ and the shocking legacy of the Holy Grail. The book asserts not only that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered children through her, but also that Christ did not die on the cross, and that secret documents concealed beneath the Temple Mount in Jerusalem revealed this secret to the Knights Templar who then dedicated themselves to the perpetuation of Christ’s royal descendants through the Merovingian line of French royalty. In the novel, Sir Leigh Teabing specifically cites this work as the “international bestseller” which “brought the idea of Christ’s bloodline into the mainstream.” (DVC, pp. 253-254) The other works mentioned as authorities in the field to prove that “the royal bloodline of Christ has been chronicled in detail by scores of historians” (DVC, p. 253) are The Templar Revelation by Lynn Pickett and Clive Prince, The Woman with the Alabaster Jar and The Goddess in the Gospels by Margaret Starbird. Richard Abanes offers this telling analysis of the authors cited as authoritative historians:

“None of these authors are, in fact, historians. Starbird holds an M.A. in Comparative Literature and German. Baigent has an undergraduate degree in psychology and has recently been pursuing an M.A. in Mysticism and Religious Experience. And Leigh is ‘ primarily a novelist and a writer of short stories.’ What about Lincoln? He is a BBC television personality and scriptwriter. And Picknett and Prince are actually conspiracy theorists with a penchant for occultism, the paranormal, and UFOs.” (Abanes, pp. 41-42)

Such are the “scores of historians” that document the remarkable theory upon which the entire plot of The Da Vinci Code is based. Lutheran historian Dr. Paul L. Maier argues that despite the zeal of these “sensationalizing authors” that there is not “one spark of evidence from antiquity”, “not a scintilla of evidence anywhere in the historical sources” to suggest that Jesus may have gotten married to Mary Magdalene. (Hanegraff, Maier, p. 18)

In the novel, Teabing pontificates that the marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene was “ a particularly troubling earthly theme which kept recurring in the gospels.” (DVC, p. 244) This is not true. There is of course, no reference whatsoever to any such marriage in the canonical gospels of the New Testament. That, Sir Leigh concludes, is the reason why they were included in the canon while other - more accurate documents - were not. Evidently the gospels of which the fictional historian speaks are the gnostic writings of the Fourth Century. But even here there are, in fact, no references to a marriage between Jesus and Mary. The most compelling evidence Brown can produce is a quotation from the gnostic “The Gospel of Phillip.” The passage cited says:

“And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the 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?’” ( DVC, p. 246)

Sophie, the novel’s heroine, then makes the obvious observation that these words in no way constitute an affirmation of any marriage between Christ and Mary Magdalene. Professor Teabing goes on to clinch his argument with the assertion that “As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion in those days literally meant spouse.” (DVC, p. 246) This categorical assertion is false and misleading in every way. Actually, the oldest copy of the Gospel of Phillip extant today is written in Coptic, not Aramaic, and that copy is a translation of an original Greek text. Thus, what an Aramaic term may or may not have meant is hardly relevant. Even if, theoretically, one might argue that the Aramaic word could have been used in an earlier oral tradition - assuming the highly dubious authenticity of this document - the point remains invalid nonetheless. For as Craig Bloomberg of Denver Seminary (a real Aramaic scholar!) will tell you: “no Aramaic or Hebrew words for companion normally mean spouse.” (Abanes, p. 38)

What then does this passage mean when it says that “Christ loved her more than all the other disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth.”? The answer to that question must be determined from the context of the passage itself and from the use of similar language in other contemporary documents. “The Gospel of Phillip” does not define the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in terms of physical intimacy or marriage as Dan Brown would have us believe. In fact, the same text goes on to commend Mary for her unique spiritual insight as one who sees the light while the other disciples remain in the darkness. In that regard, The Da Vinci Code’s translation of the text is misleading -“Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth.” In the original text both parts of the phrase, not merely the first part as in this translation, are comparative. “The Gnostic Bible,” a standard scholarly translation of the passage, more accurately reads: “The companion is Mary of Magdala. Jesus loved her more than His students. He kissed her often on her face, more than all His students.” (Barnstone, Meyer, p. 273) There is no sexual connotation whatsoever in this language. “The Gospel of Phillip” later quotes Jesus defining the significance of His kiss as an act of spiritual nourishment that leads to spiritual enlightenment: “For it is by a kiss that the perfect conceive and give birth. For this reason we also kiss one another. We receive conception from the grace that is in one another.” (58:30-59:6) The “Apocalypse of James,” another gnostic writing of the same period, uses exactly the same language to describe Christ’s special revelation its author: “And He kissed my mouth. He took hold of me saying, ‘My beloved! Behold, I shall reveal to you those things which neither the heavens nor the archons have known.’” (Olson, Miesel, p. 95)

The Da Vinci Code also contends that Jesus must have been married because “the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried.” (DVC, p. 245) Once again, the novel’s assertion directly contradicts the historical evidence. Archaeological exploration near the Dead Sea has indicated that the Jewish Essene community at Qumram included both married and single men and women. The two most prominent non-Christian Jewish writers of the period, Josephus and Philo, both refer to the practice of celibacy among the Jews. Our Lord Himself refers to celibacy when He describes those “who have renounced marriage for the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:12) It is also significant to note that in his defense of an apostle’s right to marry if he so chooses, St. Paul cites “the other apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas” as those who have taken wives. (1 Corinthians 9:5) Surely, if Jesus Himself had been married, Paul would not have failed to mention that fact to conclusively clinch his argument. Once again, The Da Vinci Code’s conclusion is untenable and the evidence cited to support it is inaccurate.

It is not theoretically impossible that Jesus could have chosen to marry. Had He been married there is no reason why He could not have carried on a normal sexual relationship with His wife within the context of that marriage. However, the reality of the personal union of the divine and the human natures in Christ would seem to rule out the possibility of the procreation of children. But the real question is not could Jesus have married - a question which must remain theoretical - but rather, did Jesus marry. As we have noted, there is no hint or suggestion anywhere in Scripture or in the traditions of the ancient church that Jesus was married. All of the modern speculation about a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalen is just that, idle speculation without any Biblical or historical basis. Erwin W. Lutzer is correct when he concludes: “The Da Vinci Code bases its conclusions on imaginary data, hoping that gullible readers will give them credence.” (Lutzer, p. 52)

Given our Lord’s single minded commitment to His mission and ministry this should not be surprising. Jesus did not come into this world for Himself. The God/man lived only to accomplish the plan of salvation and to offer His life as the innocent sacrifice for the sins of mankind. And yet, in the language and imagery of Scripture, Jesus is indeed a bridegroom. His perfect bride is not a particular individual, but the entire Church, all the people of God. Thus John the Baptist declared of the Christ : “I am not the Christ, but am sent ahead of Him. The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who awaits the bridegroom awaits and listens for Him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine.” (John 3:28-29) Jesus uses the same imagery of the bridegroom and the bride to describe His earthly ministry: “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while He is with them? They cannot they have Him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.” (Mark 2:19-20; cf. Matthew 22:1-14; 25:1-13) St. Paul used Jesus as the example of the perfect husband. He urged Christian husbands to demonstrate the same selfless love for their wives that Christ has showered upon His bride, the Church:

“Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, to make her holy cleansing her with the washing with water through the Word, and to present her to Himself as a radiant Church without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:25-27; cf. Also 2 Corinthians 11:2)

The great theme of the marriage of Christ and His bride, the Church recurs in the Bible’s triumphant conclusion:

“Hallelujah! For the Lord our God Almighty reigns! Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear. (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.) Then the angel said to me, ‘Write: Blessed are those who are called to the marriage feast of the Lamb.’” (Revelation 19:6-9)

A few verses later, in the closing words of Scripture, the Church plead’s for the glorious return of her victorious Bridegroom in Revelation 22: “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’” (Revelation 22:17)

For the feminist advocates of New Age religion there is much more at stake here than the status of Mary Magdalen. Mary is perceived to be the personification of all women and her proper recognition will signal the liberation of women from the curse of male domination within the Church. Susan Haskins , author of Mary Magdalen - Myth and Metaphor, writes: “In the radical revision of much of what until now had been accepted interpretations of the early Church and women’s participation in it, Mary Magdalen’s figure has emerged in bold relief, restored to her New Testament role as chief female disciple, apostle to the apostles and first witness of the resurrection. The significance of this re-evaluation has so far gone mostly unacknowledged by the Church or Rome, whilst it is only partially conceded by other churches, because of the residual patriarchalism of those institutions. If the ‘victimization’ of Mary Magdalen can stand as a metaphor for the historically subordinate position of women in Christianity, now that the woman, so long regarded as a penitent sinner has been shown in her true light, then it may be that Christianity’s view of woman in history itself requires some kind of radical revision...From the early centuries of the Christian era, Mary Magdalen has, like the women she represents, been the scapegoat of the ecclesiastical institution, manipulated, controlled, and, above all, misrepresented.” (Haskins, pp. 392-393)

For some in the feminist camp, the agenda is even more ambitious. Margaret Starbird sees in the rehabilitation of the Magdalen not only the liberation of women in the Church, but the restoration of the long suppressed feminine component of the deity and the belated recognition of the divine within every human being, male and female. “When I speak now of reclaiming the lost Bride, I am at once thinking of restoring the historical wife of Jesus to her rightful place at his side, and, at the same time, on a deeper plane, thinking of how this will help to restore the ‘partnership paradigm’ - the imaging of the Divine as both the Bride and Bridegroom - in the holy inner sanctum of our collective psyche...The celibate male image of God worshiped for nearly two thousand years of western civilization is a distorted image that desperately needs to be corrected...At some point in my journey I understood that my original goal had evolved into a much larger purpose. I now realize that I am charged not only with restoring the Bride to Christianity - the Goddess in the Gospels - but also with restoring the partnership paradigm that was the cornerstone of ancient civilizations....The doctrine of the sacred partnership of humanity and divinity in each human individual will be the fundamental tenet of a Church of the Holy Spirit.” (Starbird, pp. 151-153)

click here to continue to Part V