Talk:Mary Magdalene/Archive 1

message: "For some Christians, Mary was believed to have been the same woman that Jesus had rescued from being stoned to death. However most modern scholars believe that the prostitute Jesus rescued and Mary were two seperate persons. However the Mel Gibson movie The Passion of the Christ had portrayed the prostitute and Mary as the same person."
Is this "prostitute" the woman taken in adultery? Some Christians have historically been discouraged from reading Scripture on their own: could this still be true among some sects? Wetman 23:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The sinner "tradition"

message: From the last paragraph of the first half of the "Wife of Jesus?" section:
Mary Magdalene appears with more frequency than other women in the canonical Gospels and is shown as being a close follower of Jesus. In the scene of the wedding at Cana, the names of the nuptial couple are not mentioned, but Jesus acts as a groom at such a wedding would be expected to act, although the servants had to be told by his mother Mary to follow his instructions.
Mary Magdalene was not even at the wedding at Cana; that was Mary, the mother of Jesus!  This has nothing to do with Mary Magdalene.
:To be sure, "His mother Mary" would indeed mean "Mary, the mother of Jesus." If our anonymous contributor has the guest list for the wedding at Cana, as it would seem, perhaps she also has one of the invitations. --Wetman 05:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops, I forgot to add my sig.  Anywho, I don't know if that snide remark at the end was aimed at me; if it was, it quite clearly states in the cannonical Gospels that it was Jesus's mother that asked for the miracle at the wedding of Cana: "3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." (John 2:3-4).  Now, it may state in one of the so-called Apocryphal Gospels that it was Mary Magdalene that attended the wedding feast and asked Jesus for the miravle, but I am not aware of it.  Also, this was early in Jesus's ministry, presumably before he knew Mary Magdalene (I think).  Aside from any of this, the article even states that this was Jesus's mother!  I'm deleting the part about the wedding at Cana.  If you can justify it, put it back in.--Conwiktion 05:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: "Early Protestant scholars of the Mary in the Gnostic texts identified her with the Magdalene, however, some scholars think that this Mary is actually the Blessed Virgin Mary.  This fits in better with the notions that Mary was intimate with Jesus, was his greatest disciple, and was to be the center of Jesus' religion:  indeed, the Virgin is central to Catholicism and Orthodoxy in this way." Anyone want to re-edit this with a reference identifying "some scholars" and return it to this article, with enough reasoning behind it that the reader can follow the thought, if any? --Wetman 07:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I had already updated the above quote; that is an earlier one; you are right, I didn't cite the source!   "Starting in the 19th century, Protestant scholars of the Mary in the Gnostic texts identified her with the Magdalene, even though she isn't always named as such. However, some scholars, including Stephen J. Shoemaker, think that this Mary is actually the Blessed Virgin Mary. This fits in better with the notions that Mary was intimate with Jesus, was his greatest disciple, and was to be the center of Jesus' religion: indeed, the Virgin is central to Catholicism and Orthodoxy in this way. Protestants who rejected the extreme devotion to the Virgin Mary in the Catholic Church may have had an aversion to seeing the same in the Gnostic texts." Some of Schoemaker's books are on Amazon.com.  As a side note, the Catholic Church used to use the Apocryphal literature far more before the Second Vatican Council; but one of the mandates of that Council was that the teaching of the Church is to be far more Bible-centered, for greater ecumenism with Protestants.  So much research on those texts since the 1960s have not come from Catholic scholars, which may lead some contemporary non-Catholic scholars to be unaware of many ancient traditions.  The major one, the centrality of role of Mary the mother of Jesus, is certainly a part of Catholic and Orthodox teachings, but this is rejected by the Protestant traditions, or at least Protestants may be uncomforatble with it.  How about this edit?  "Starting in the 19th century, Protestant scholars of the Mary in the Gnostic texts identified her with the Magdalene, even though she isn't always named as such. However, some scholars, including Stephen J. Shoemaker, think that this Mary is actually the mother of Jesus. This fits in better with the notions that Mary was intimate with Jesus, was his greatest disciple, and was to be the center of Jesus' religion: indeed, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is central to Catholicism and Orthodoxy in this way. Protestants who rejected the extreme devotion to the Virgin Mary in the Catholic Church may have had an aversion to seeing the same in the Gnostic texts." --Marcusscotus1 16:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I actually added the Shoemaker reference and removed some unacceptable interpreting of Protestant motivations and the disingenuous sense of a horde of unnamed scholars. --Wetman 06:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother of Jesus vs. Magdalene? 

message: I know that plenty of people would probably find such reference offensive. I was raised a Catholic (though don't practice) and I know that the Catholic take on saints is hardly a "cult".
:This anonymous editor would profit by actually reading Cult (religion) before getting "offended". She says she "Removed the word "cult", replaced with "Sainthood" as this seems both more appropriate and less blatantly offensive." Where is one to start with these people? --Wetman 21:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting edit.  "Cult" is both the proper term to use here is totally non-offensive.  Let me emphasize that cult used in this context does not have the same meaning or negative connotation as it does when it is commonly used to refer to organizations that attempt to take complete control of the lives of their members.   Trust me, I'm a practicing Catholic, and cult as used in this context is quite typical in Catholic writings.  I refer you to the wiki-link provided by Wetman.  Also, here is an excerpt from cannon law that refers to the "cult of the saints": [].--Conwiktion 05:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, oops... I'm embarassed... someone changed it to veneration,  which is also acceptable.  So, no changes.... :P --Conwiktion 05:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Cult" of Mary Magdalene

message: I saw in the article on the theory of a marriage between MM and Jesus that the section seemed to have been edited by a person presenting Church dogma. The hypothesis of Jesus celibacy is Christian dogma, even my minister taught me that during my Christian education. If Jesus is to be assumed unmarried and the theory of MM's mariage with Jesus is to be attacked with the logical fallacy of no evidence then I have to intervene. Please, state what is dogma and what is proven.--Wiglaf 16:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian dogmas and Wikipedia

message: A National Geographic documentary about the topic mentions a travel of hers and some of her friends to Provence. They dispute whether the children on the travel were hers and Jesus', but they don't dispute that the trip took place. Does anyone have any certain information about that sail? --Joy [shallot] 16:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  travel to Provence 

message: The tradition of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute seems to receive no mention in this article.  Whether it's proven or not, as so very very little having to do with this possibly fictional person is, the institution that's responsible for her being notable in the first place holds that she was a prostitute before becoming one of Jesus' followers.  Whether it's historically true or not, it seems silly that it's completely not acknowledged. siafu 14:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned here--Wiglaf 14:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm specifically referring to the removal of :Category:Famous courtesans and prostitutes, which should have been left as was. siafu 14:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Umm, apparently there is no proof whatsoever that she was a prostitute, and the misrepresentation has ended decades ago, why categorize her as such today? If the category was called "Famous people accused of being prostitutes" then you'd have a point, but as it stands it's not right or fair to do this. --Joy [shallot] 14:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, why should we perpetuate the slandering of a dead woman? Catholic mythology may deserve a few lines or a paragraph, but not be allowed to be presented as fact.--Wiglaf 14:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not presenting it as fact to include the category, never mind that the entire story of Mary Magdalene is essentially mythology to begin with.  She is notable as having been a prostitute, and should be categorized that way, and the discussion of whether it was fact or not should be clearly delineated in the article. siafu 14:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe when you find the lines saying so in the Bible. I have a copy and I am waiting.--Wiglaf 15:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be misunderstanding.  I don't dispute that the legend of her being a prostitute is likely made up later by a misogynistic church trying to quash gnosticism, but that Catholic tradition (and that of many Protestant sects as well) has as much bearing on the nature of Mary Magdalene as a character (which is what she is) as a cannonical text does.  Essentially, the woman is a character from mythology, as her historical existence is completely unknown, and demanding a Bible reference is placing one source of mythology above another.  I'm not asking anyone to believe as a fact that Mary was a prostitute, just to acknowledge that that is what she is famous and notable for. siafu 15:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you mean, but still, her status as a prostitue is so well-known that this article should try to state what is relatively certain and what is not. That she is a saint is certain and that she was a follower of Jesus is relatively certain. That she was labelled a prostitute is worthy of being mentioned in the article. But if it has to be a category, you should call it category:alleged prostitutes. Let's be fair to her.--Wiglaf 15:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I envision a naive user looking through :Category:Famous courtesans and prostitutes out of sheer curiousity.  It would be somewhat irresponsible to not have possibly the most famous of them all, Ms. Magdalene.  Any user that would click the link, naturally, would be reading the article and would clearly see the information on the controversy.  Moreover, we don't have a :Category:Alleged saints, even though most of the entries in :Category:Saints are a product of Catholic tradition, and are not, naturally, mentioned in the Bible.  There doesn't seem to be a previous discussion on this issue on this talk page, so there's no clear consensus one way or the other; perhaps it would be wise to seek one? siafu 15:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with a category page is that there is no context or explanation. The naive reader you mention, sees only a list of names and would reasonably assume that all of them are known to be prostitutes and courtesans. You suggest that the reader would click on the link to learn more information, but I suspect that more often the reader would just absorb the "fact" that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and click some other link  on the category page. On the saint category page, on the other hand, there is no problem because her status of sainthood (i.e. in the eyes of the church) is an established fact.--Lee Hunter 15:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The 'Identification with other women of the New Testament' section had the statement that Pope Gregory I declared Mary 'a prostitute' in his Lenten Sermon from 591 AD.  This is incorrect.  Gregory definitely called her a 'sinner', but did not say that she was a 'prostitute'.  This sentence has been edited accordingly. Thiudareiks 00:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prostitute

message: Issue was resolved:
 I'm only concerned with your edit, which is highly problematic. Let me explain in detail:
:The Australian scholar Barbara Thiering claims that 
That's fine by me.
:, in addition to the tradition that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus, 
What tradition are you talking about? There is no such tradition. The article should have made clear what the basis for this idea current in our day is, but it no ancient tradition.
:there is additional evidence that can be obtained by using the pesher technique showing that the New Testament contains a full account of the marriage and children of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Evidence for what. It's only relevant here in regard to Mary Magdalene. But please in a NPOV manner. 
For clarity's sake I have inserted an explanatory sentence:
:She thinks the gospels were deliberately written in a double way
to explain the basis of this technique.
Also, for the sake of NPOV and accuracy, I have added:
:Neither her method nor her findings are accepted by any other scholar.
Your proposed compromise notwithstanding, please name just one scholar who actually accepts either either her method or her findings. Just one.
Str1977 10:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thiering

message: No mediation necessary now:
Seriously, if the statement that Barbara Thiering is alone in making her claim is true, we have a responsibility to make that clear.  It's not belittling to state it, it's simply an accurate representation of the case. siafu 22:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Dylan, please see here. Also, I concur with what siafu said. There was nothing belittling in the version that you changed. Regards. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ann.  KHM03 12:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: 195..., I don't know whether you will come back to read this. I doubt it because your time was too limited to look into the actual issue. But nonetheless:
*If someone claims that there is a tradition of MM as wife of Jesus while there isn't one, it is only right and proper to point this out.
*As a historian I must base myself on sources and if there are no sources that say that X or Y believed such a thing back then, that doesn't prove that they didn't, but it cannot go into the article. That would be speculation.
*As for the Bible in general: when there are other sources (and note that the Bible is actually not one but roughly 70 books) about the same things, I can weigh the souces against each other. And the Bible doesn't fare that bad in this.
*The article clearly indicates sources (according to ...) and gives great room for non-Christian views. But this is not unlimited.
Goodday, Str1977 17:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to complaint

message: I am Roman Catholic and I have never seen the tradition described in the article, among Catholics, HOWEVER my wife is Eastern Orthodox and both the eggs and especially the tag "Christ is Risen" are quite distinctive among Orthodox Christians - I have personally seen this in both Greek and Romanian Orthodox churches.  Probably the only Catholics who maintain this tradition are those of Eastern Rites who are about 2% of all Catholics and have a superficially different liturgy and traditions.  I intend no disrespect.
: You're right, it seems to be mainly an Orthodox tradition at least these days. I changed the article to reflect this; feel free to make other corrections or improvements as you see them. Thanks for pointing out this one. Wesley 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter Egg Tradition believed to be Orthodox not Catholic 

message: Possibly that Mary Magdalene means Mary of Magdala is the majority view, but I have seen and heard other explanations offered.  See http://www.magdalenereview.org/?cat=12 for example, where other things are mentioned, such as Mary of Magdalia, or Mary the stronghold of faith.  I don't know how widespread some of those other thoughts might be, or the authority of the sources cited. Schizombie 09:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary of Magdala? 

message: This whole section is out of place in an entry about Mary Magdalene; she isn't mentioned once. It should either be tied very closely to MM or moved to an entry about Jesus, since it really addresses the belief that he was married more than the belief that he was married to MM specifically.131.107.0.106 18:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphysical Marriage 

message: There have been a flurry of edits in this article of late.  Do remember the 3RR rule (not so sure the edits were of simple vandalism, but rather of an inexperienced contributor).  Also, don't forget to explain major edits, people. black thorn of brethil 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Edits

message: Many (if not most) claims made in this article are uncited.  See . black thorn of brethil 10:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Hopefully, I didn't miss it somewhere in the article, but: why is there a skull laying next to Mary Magdalene in two of the pictures? Or is this just coincidence? --Plumcouch 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My first guess would be Memento mori. --Andrew c 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull? 

message: Was the historical representation (true or false) of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute removed? If so, why? Regardless of truth or falsehood, the common association in the public eye of Magdalene as Whore is such that to not mention it is probably a greater disservise to the article than not mention? I'm not a Bible historian, so I can't really explain how the assertion came into parlance, but surley someone else can. Nedlum 15:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In brief, there are a number of women named "Mary" in the gospels, and not all biblical scholars agree as to which of these were Mary Magdalene. I don't think there's any particular conspiracy in this regard, it's just hard to tell for sure. Wesley 22:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I integrated the "Prostitute" info, as much as it was valid, into the "identifications" section as it best fits there and doesn't warrant a section of its own. Also, there was no recanting of the official position of the Church since there wasn't a official position of the Church in the first place. Str1977 (smile back) 10:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put back the bit on the Catholic Church reversing its position and added a source. Elcocinero 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Elcocinero, you didn't. However, I don't object to what you have actually done and thank you for it. It clarifies what actually happened in 1969. Also, the article seems to be more about a distancing from the identification of Mary of Magdala (former demoniac and witness of the risen Christ) and the sinful woman who annointed Jesus. Str1977 (smile back) 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostitute (2) 

message: I moved the following over from talk:
:In 1969, however, in a very unpublicized declaration, the Roman Catholic Church reversed its position, and held that there is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was the sinful woman in Luke's Gospel, nor that she had ever been a prostitute.
First of all: What is a "very unpublicized declaration"?
I don't doubt that many in the Church doesn't hold to the identification anymore, while others still do. But to issue a binding declaration on this is most unlikely (just like there has been not declaration affirming the identification in the first place). Also, the sentence only addresses the identification of Mary of Magdala and the sinful woman from Luke, but leaves out Mary of Bethany alltogether. Str1977 (smile back) 08:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "very unpublicized declaration"

message: If this statement is not to be POV we must know exactly what the definition ( unbiased definition ) of scholarly circles is. 
Otherwise I suggest this be changed to "little acceptance", "almost to acceptance", "relatively little acceptance" or something else.--Hontogaichiban 15:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''no'' acceptance from scholarly circles 

message: I know that there are people who say they were married, not including those on this discussion page, however, I heard that they could not have been married because they were from two different Jewish sects(tribes?), and from what I understand, by Jewish law, they could not intermarry. Does anyone know anything about this? And can it be confermed? I can't remember when or where I heard it. One of these science cable channels.
S.Rodgers--65.24.77.104 04:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help feeling people are being very polite when they suggest they were married, seems much more likely they were just lovers to me.--Hontogaichiban 08:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there is any basis for the idea that the reason Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not married was because they came from different tribes. (I am not saying they were married, I'm just saying that being from different tribes would not have been an issue.) The New Testament clearly states that Joseph was a male-line descendant of Judah (see Matthew 1 and Luke 3), which would mean Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. However, I don't think it identifies Mary Magdalene's tribe anywhere. Apparently The Da Vinci Code and its supporters claim that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin, and that a (supposed) marriage between them would have united the royal bloodlines of David (from the tribe of Judah) and Saul (from the tribe of Benjamin). Anyway, there were really only three possible tribes she could have been a member of: Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. All the other tribes had been exiled and lost to the Jewish people hundreds of years before (see Ten Lost Tribes). The tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and at least some of the tribe of Levi which had no land of its own, stayed together and there was no prohibition on intermarriage among them. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus and Mary 

message: If Mary Magdalene is the same as the Virgin Mary..
Then she was never real.
The worship of Mari came from Syria..the high priestess was not allowed to get married.
which by the way..unmarried and "virgin" seem to be the same and not used like us western people use the word.
Saint Sara of France and the "black" Mary of Egypt is the same idol(use your own name) as Mari the black virgin.
She isn't venus either as both Venus and the moon was/is seen as male to Middle Eastern & Asians.
It's all planetary..
--4.153.29.154 08:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magdalene or  the "Virgin" 

message: Is Holy Blood, Holy Grail considered a "historical" novel?  The wikipedia page for the book seems to indicate that it is not considered historical by professional historians and academics, though there is no citation for any evidence to back up this claim.  If "mainstream historians" do indeed believe Holy Blood, Holy Grail to be pseudohistorical, then perhaps the adjective "historical" to describe this book is unwarranted.  Integrity168 04:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no historical novel since it's no novel at all but a "non-fiction" book or "faction". Pseudo-historical captures it quite good. Str1977 (smile back) 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think so either, so I removed the adjective "historical" describing in that sentence that I've been trying to make grammatically aesthetic in the section about Mary Magdalene and Jesus' relationship.  Integrity168 08:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't at first understand your query, as I had overlooked that someone at some time (I clicked a few versions to the past without finding out who) had removed the prefix "pseudo-", turning the term into its opposite. I have now reinstated that former version. Thanks for watching where I was sleeping. Str1977 (smile back) 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: aaaahhhhh.  excellent, now that makes much more sense!  Integrity168 21:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm curious as to why "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" requires a qualifier before it at all. Adding either "historical" or "pseudohistorical" seems to slant things one way of the other. Would the New Testament get such treatment? Is it automatically assumed to be "historical" because of its age? What about the Gnostic Gospels? Should they be considered pseudo-historical? And if so, why? The Wikipedia definition for pseudohistorical uses the term "pejorative" which automatically places HB,HG in a bad light. Maybe it SHOULD be, but what is the historicity of other books in the article? It seems NPOV to single this one out. Imagine if "pseudohistorical" was placed before every instance of "Matthew" in the article. How long would that last? Certainly there is plenty of evidence to corroborate events in the New Testament, but so to is there corroborating evidence for HB, HG. Jimaginator 13:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Blood, Holy Grail: A "Historical?" Novel 

message: :I wrote an essay about the Da Vinci Code for my history teacher so I've read a lot about it and the history around it. By my sources (and that's many) I know that Mary Magdalene never was a disciple even if Jesus counted her as his closest companion.
And you wanna know why? She was a woman.
I don't think one should hide such an important fact like that so I'm gonna change it. Call me a feministic besserwiesser if you want to, I'm changing it anyway.              No offence, though.:o)
17.07, 16 August 2006, Lady Stardust
:Any time you add new information (especially controversial information) to wikipedia, you are a) supposed to cite it b) making sure the reference is from a reliable source and verifiable. It seems other editors have reverted you because these claims lack the proper citation. Keep these things in mind before you re-add your information. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 14:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting to me is that it was the Roman Cathollics who worked so hard to change history through well documented forgeries as additions or extended writing, adding to the original spoken and only lately written gosbel of Mark - the other three being the synoptic gospels.  It is the church that is so famous in shaping history to fit its political aim at power throughout the centuries.  (Ironic that Mel Gibson says this of King Edward in his part as William Wallace in the opening minutes of "Braveheart").  So when I read for example the Gospel of Phillip with the famous "many kisses on the ***"  that are supposed to be ordinary Christian "platonic" affections, I wonder why they then would need mention?  Taken together with the mysterious wedding at Cana where Jesus is clearly the groom (according to tradition, he is in charge as the groom would be, and even creates more wine (as I did at my own wedding, by ordering more!)) along with all the other pro-arguments, I find it rather compelling argument that the celebacy of Jesus, something declared in the third century required a suppression of mention of her and the later rendering of her as a prostitute that Jesus pitied.  "Misquoting Jesus" is a book by theologian Bart Ehrman that illustrates the practice of forgery and fraud in the early churches productions and recopyings of the original scant writings of the original gospels whose earliest was written no earlier than 40 years after the alleged crucifixion.  When one stacks up all the incidental history with objective analysis, it becomes most likely that MM had been married to Jesus and less that Jesus was any more than a religious leader on a spiritual-military mission to rid the land of David of a hated Roman occupation, just the way al-Sadr in Iraq has led a religious movement that has fought the U.S. military in Iraq.  Jesus Christ was created later by a Hellenized Greek named Saul who made himself Paul and wrote extensively about a man he had never met.  Recall that his interpretation of the meaning of the movement was not popular in Jerusalem where the followers of "Jesus" actually violently threw him out of the Temple and he had to be rescued by Roman troops.  Think about THAT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.130.157 (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disciple?

message: Ancient hebrew writings suggest that the testament of Mary Magdalene exists, as well as large chunks of the testament of Judas Iscariot. Why doesn't wikipedia have anthing about these writings? It's almost like a conspiracy theory... Wikisquared 13:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The testament of Mary Magdalene

message: Where can I verify the citation of the definition of Magdalene in a censored aggadah of the Talmud. Where is this aggadah published? I am writing an article for publication. I would like to see this definition of Magdalene as "grow" or "cultivate" wherever it is. I'm writing an article on biblical names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indianastatefair (talk • contribs) 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Magdalene in Talmud 

message: I appreciate the effort to provide more context to this sentence in the Veneration section:
:Gregory of Tours, writing in Gaul, supports the tradition that she retired to Ephesus, with no mention of any connection to Gaul.
but the same basic problem remains. There is no mention of either Gaul or France up to this point in the article, so this sentence is assuming we know something that isn't presented until a bit later. Is someone willing to rearrange this section so that it flows in a more natural sequence? It would also be beneficial for the casual reader to give enough clues so they will understand Gaul and France are related. Am I making sense? ✤ JonHarder talk 23:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have the new headings Veneration in the East and Veneration in France made it clear enough now? The Veneration in France section needs to proceed chronologically, in order to present the expanding historical development of these lengends. --Wetman 11:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. It's a simple solution that addresses my concern. ✤ JonHarder talk 13:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! That medieval reimagining of M.M. in France is an important separate development. She's the sentimental Magdalene familiar today from colorful wallet cards. --Wetman 15:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaul sentence 

message: I started by removing non-notable, oblique references to Mary and adding fact tags. Then I realized none of them had citations so I removed the whole section. Very few of the cultural references were something of direct note, but to be included they should have some sort of citation, otherwise anything could be added.  Do we really know that any of the refs that were listed actually pertained directly to Mary? --Chuck Sirloin 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the cultural references had gotten out of hand, but I disagree with deleting the whole section. Most of the material does not require sourcing because it is straight forward. I mean, how do you source that Mary Magdalene had a singing part in Jesus Christ Superstar? It simply a fact that is sourced in the movie/musical itself, and in the main Jesus Christ Superstar article. I think weeding out the list is a good thing, but blanking it and requiring sourcing for information that is self evident in the work is unnecessary. -Andrew c 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can agree with that and leave items that are referenced to another wiki article. --Chuck Sirloin 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic! Thanks for cleaning up the list.-Andrew c 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References 

message: I don't know if this helps (probably doesn't but thought you might want to know anyway) the citation for 
"It has been speculated that the biblical account of the wedding at Cana (John 2) [1] was, actually, the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Proponents of this view argue that Jesus' mother Mary advising the servants to do what Jesus tells them, reflects the role of the groom's mother, who according to Jewish tradition was in charge of the servants at a wedding.[citation needed]"
Is in the book by Richard Leigh, the Holy Blood, and the Holy Grail.
Just thought that since it says citation needed, you might like to know. St91 21:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for Wedding at Cana 

message: I've arrived at this Wiki subject very late in the game I realise...but does anyone else see a need for a paragraph discussing the historical Mary M? I don't mean anecdotes about Easter eggs, Da Vinci Code-esque nonsense, and the like, but rather what, exactly, the earliest references say (presumably its the Bible?)...I bet theres not much to go on, but I'd love to see what there is - unadorned and unencumbered by all the speculation and superstition that seems to surround her. Or is there no more than is already stated in the "New Testament References" paragraph in the Wiki article?
Hate to be a spoil-sport - but how or why on earth do we get such voluminous writings about a person who, I'm willing to bet, has about five sentences maximum in ancient texts??
Anybody else interested in a basic "What is Known" blurb about this person? Engr105th 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Mary Magdalene 

message: "In many, if not most, medieval depictions, Mary Magdalene is shown as having long red hair, which she wears down over her shoulders."
I tagged this as needing a citation, especially since the two examples in the article that fit this description are both post-medieval (the 16th-century painting at the top, and the 19th-century pre-Rafaelite painting shown near the statement). The pre-Rafaelites, in particular, nearly always painted women with long, loose hair, if I recall correctly. David (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She was depicted with black hair also, for ex.in Spain, and we also see the paintings by de la Tour where she has black hair. The section is weak, has not much information in general, not very informative--Bialosz (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And are they medieval? See the Commons category. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hair? 

message: I have removed the following statement as it has been tagged "citation needed" for several months:
*The Gnostics, the community that Mary represented, did not condone marriage (the sexual union aspect). Since the Gnostics believed that the material body was not important, they did not agree with reproducing because it created more souls being imprisoned in the body.
If anyone can find a source to back this up, feel free to re-add it. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 14:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statement removed