Talk:Gospel of Mary

POV
"This would comply with the Roman Catholic tradition that believes that Jesus loved her more than the other disciples, that she was his greatest disciple. One must however wonder that, if in fact it was Mary the mother and not Mary Magdalene, then when Levi stated "Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us" why would he not simply say something to the effect of, 'well it is mother, surely that is why he loves her more than us' a concept that, being based on the maternal bond, would surely be an easier explanation (if in fact any would even be needed, after all the love between mother and son would certainly need no explanation)" Any objections to deleting this segment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.51.201 (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge
Shouldn't we merge both articles? The Gospel of Mary Gospel of Mary Magdalene

Seems to have been done.Chaikney 17:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A Question needing an answer
The text here states: "In the fragmentary text, the disciples ask questions of the risen Savior (a designation that dates the original no earlier than the 2nd century)" - I was wondering if someone could elaborate on this for me, does this mean Ressurection accounts do not appear before the 2nd century?

The answer
No. Few would deny that the canonical gospels circulated in the first century, or that they contain resurrection accounts.

However, the argument depends not on the absence of resurrection accounts in the first century, but on the designation of Jesus as Savior being absent. The parenthetical comment intends Savior (Greek uncial nomen sacrum ΣΡ) as antecedent, not risen. But this too I fear is an error. Alastair Haines 14:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate
Could you please elaborate what you mean by "But this too I fear is an error."--Must have books 11:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant Messenger
There is a link to this site at the bottom of the page. However, on the Reluctant Messenger website, it says to regard everything on the site as fiction. Is this an appropriate source?

Reliable sources
No, this is not a reliable source. Any editor (or reader) may delete it at any time. Personally, I do not delete such sources, because they are still relevant information, additionally, I hate censorship. My foibles are not Wiki policy however. Alastair Haines 14:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, Robert Anton Wilson has an entire chapter that purports to be extracts from the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" in his book 'The Widow's Son' which also is fiction. Although it is impressively mystical, and has the same sort of conflicts between Peter and Mary that are described in the article, it is not a "source" nor does it belong here. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Removed this section
Couldn't find the book it refers to and it didn't quite make sense - if you can find the book, put it back in! An alternative, more modern version of The Gospel of Mary, meant to depict a brief though comprehensive text, illustrating certain essential aspects of her faith.


 * Found within collection Eternal Series (ISBN 978-0-9730277-4-6)

“Your environment and memory shape your thoughts as your guardians are to do at least of the following: teach / condition, protect and heal you. The greatest guardian of your life is G-D, the very foundation of your ancestry. Know that a person wherever they are, are still effected by the actions of their ancestry. Whereas G-D defines good nature and is the root of all ancestry, within the development therein... your ancestries sin must be conditioned away, as required.

That our ideals adhered be manifestations of our love towards our self, each other, and an affirmation of our loyalty towards G-D. In so being, that which is good towards G-D is good for ourselves and others harmoniously: Our eternal nature. That ideals: Health, Truth, Love, Beauty, Procreation, are and must be geared towards greatness, and as such are themselves manifestations of G-D's love understood and affirmed.”

Contents of Eternal Mary / Gospel of Mary

Copy-Edit complete

 * I found this article on the backlog page, but it didn't really have much that needed changing. I've removed the template and submitted it to the LoCE for final proofread. —beverson 19:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusing paragraphs in the Which Mary? Section
This sentence appears in the Which Mary? Section:

"Aida Spencer, however, reviewing De Boer for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, notes: "In summary, Mary Magdalene [the title of a study by De Boer] is an interesting, insightful, and intriguing historical study. However, the reader who is not capable of analyzing theories and who may be susceptible to the idea of an open canon may confuse a pleasant, respectable style with a potentially misleading theory.""

As I read it, this doesn't seem to be addressing the question (i.e. which Mary?) I can see how it may have been added as a counter-point to the preceding paragraph, but a) it applies to the entire work not the specific argument cited here and b) on the surface it appears to be a criticism based on religion rather than scholarship. I think the paragraph I've quoted should be deleted, do any editors see a reason for keeping it? BlearySpecs (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I came to this talk page to raise this exact question. Since no one in 8+ years has raised any objections I'll consider the motion carried, and go ahead and delete this really nonsequitor counterpoint paragraph. Additionally, per the title of this entry, it seems the section currently labeled "Authorship" was once labeled "Which Mary?" I'm reverting that change, since the section in question doesn't address the author of the book at all, but "which mary" is the subject of the book. I don't think any modern scholarship seriously entertains that any of these Marys could possibly be the true author. It was probably retitled because "Which Mary?" isn't the prettiest style for a section heading, but I'm too tired to think of any more creative solutions right now. Ugly but accurate is surely better than stylistic and unhelpful. 2601:5C2:201:7E88:3497:AA64:9A2C:6D60 (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Text formating
Using firefox, is the text formatting off for anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 03:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

language of the text
The article says "All four works contained in the manuscript are written in Sahidic in the Subakhmimic dialect." Sahidic and Subakhmimic are separate dialects of the Coptic language. Many of the Nag Hammadi texts are written in Sahidic with Subakmimic influences - is this what is meant here? Or should the sentence read "All four works contained in the manuscript are written in Coptic in the Subakhmimic dialect." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.87.175 (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

mary Magdalen
I want to see the translated script of Mary's gospel Tommy bodge (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The Gospel of Mary - Errors to review and correct.
In the Interpretation section it states : The dialogues are generally concerned with the idea of the Savior as reminder to human beings of their bond with God and true identity, as well as the realization of the believer that redemption consists of the return to God and liberty from matter after death. The Gospel of Mary contains two of these discourses (7.1–9.4 and 10.10–17.7) including addresses to New Testament figures (Peter, Mary, Andrew and Levi) and an explanation of sin as adultery (encouragement toward an ascetic lifestyle) which also suit a Gnostic interpretation.

The extant text of The Gospel of Mary is missing all of Chapter 6 and 7 and the Gospel ends at Chapter 9. There is not a Chapter 10. Peter is mentioned in Chapter 4:25 and again in Chapter 9:3 and 9:4. Andrew in 9:2 and Levi in 9:6 through 9:9.

Discourses that may have a Gnostic interpretation take place in 4:21 - 4:31. Then again at 5:10-5:11, at this point pages 11 - 14 are missing from the manuscript, containing the remainder of Chapter 5, all of Chapter 6 and 7 and up to the last word (...it) of Chapter 8:9. The rest of Chapter 8, starting with verse 10 through 8:24 continue discourse.

Please, correct these errors.

It should also be mentioned that The Gospel of Mary is not mentioned in the DECRETUM GELASIANUM. (http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm) This is unusual, that is was either unknown or not mentioned in section V : Likewise a list of apocryphal books in the DECRETUM GELASIANUM, considering 3 copies of The Gospel of Mary have been found. In a radio interview with Karen King (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL4AZV6go5I) she concludes that having found 3 partly preserved copies of the gospel means it was at least moderately well circulated.

Thank you for review of these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnosis1776 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Void section
What is this "Which Mary?" section completely empty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Size
How big is it? The article says the number of pages missing but not the number of pages extant. --Error (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Carl Reinhardt link incorrect
This can't possibly be the right Carl Reinhardt, since the one linked wasn't alive then. From https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/8/3/92/htm#fn011-arts-08-00092

"For Carl (also spelled Karl) Reinhardt, see: Parlasca (1966, pp. 29–30, n. 91); Goldziher and Hartmann (2000, p. 69, n. 3); there is easy ground for confusing this scholar and diplomat with his namesakes: Carl August Reinhardt (1818–1877), an author and artist, as well as Karl Reinhardt (1849–1923) and his son (1886–1958), the former a school reformer in Frankfurt, the latter the famous philologist." Danielandrews441 (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Central character
I think after reading the text that the central character is clearly Mary of Magdala. JWsympathizer (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)