Talk:Mary Magdalene/Archive 2

Marie de Magdala: the only woman of an ontological dignity equals in that of Jesus Christ
According to the current theological data on Marie de Magdala, this one is the only woman who can represent the spiritual wife of Jesus Christ and God's feminine Embodiment, being consequently a member of Logos. Marie de Magdala and Jesus would have lived their spiritual marriage in the virgin chastity, Marie de Magdala having stayed virgin after the resurrection of Jesus. The status so conferred on Marie de Magdala engendered numerous researches and discussions, in particular concerning the fact that she credibly reached the immortality by rising to the sky without dying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.0.100 (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For my part, I agree with this interpretation. It is logical according to the evangelic texts that Marie de Magdala is the ontological and spiritual wife of Jesus, that is God's feminine Embodiment. User: Olivier Goetz ( ol.goetz@laposte.net ) in 28.10.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.0.100 (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This IS NOT "current theological data" - the above hypothesis is neither mainstream nor accepted among either Christian or non-Christian Biblical scholars or laypeople. From a purely Biblical point of view, it is stated in the text that Mary is a woman just like any other. She was seleted by God to birth Jesus through immaculate conception, but she is still only human and CLEARLY not imparted with divinity. I know the Catholic Church venerates her and some Catholics use her as a conduit for their prayers to Jesus (a tradition which has extra-Biblical origins), but even Catholic doctrine has her as only human. Ckruschke (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Mary Magdalene, the feminine Incarnation of God
According to the last theological speculations, Mary Magdalene, considered as the virgin and spiritual wife of Jesus, seems to be certainly the feminine Incarnation of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.193.190 (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not Mary the mother of Jesus, but a woman who loved God. She was never a wife or equal to Jesus on ANY level. She just loved him and devoted her life to him, like His disiples. She was just a devoted follower.75.21.79.116 (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Unless we have two or three people saying the same thing at the exact same time, we appear to have someone using multiple logins to try to gain some concensus... Ckruschke (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Some theologians can always try to reduce Mary Magdalene to a simple woman . It's not only a problem of Gospel's interpretation, it's an eschatological problem. Christianity is not a religion for the male sex only. So I think Mary Magdalene can be considered as the virgin and spiritual wife of Jesus and I'm certain she's the feminine Incarnation of God. See for example Jurgen Moltmann and E. Moltmann-Wendel, Humanity in God (London: SCM, 1984). User: Olivier Goetz. 4 April 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.0.101 (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes to lead
Recently the lead was changed; I reverted those changes, for two reasons: first, the birth year provided does not appear to be sourced or verifiable; second, the bit about Magdalene possibly being the wife of Jesus is already explored in much greater detail, lower in the article -- mentioning it as such without any attribution or clarification, so early in the article, strikes me as undue weight on a contentious subject. Comments? – Luna Santin  (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; the birth year is unverifiable and the bit about her being the possible wife of Jesus is too FRINGEy to warrant mention in the lead. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Category
Should the category Category:Courtesans and prostitutes be added to this page? --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008  20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Mary Magdalene was neither a courtesan nor a prostitute, so the category does not apply. Prtwhitley (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Even though she had sinned
Yes we all might know the past of Mary Magdalene but even though she did all the bad things in her past she asked jesus to forgive her and she really ment it.And jesus forgave her because everyone deserves a second chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.248.14.169 (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How is having the misfortune to be afflicted with seven demons bad? Seems to me that what you think "we all might know" is incorrect. She was NOT a prostitute.

Furthermore, your statement does not address any changes or additions to the article, which is the point of the talk page. Prtwhitley (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Reason for date
Have I misread the article? I can not find in it, a reason for 22 July being the feast day; or has that been lost to the mists of time?--83.105.33.91 (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagged "Protestant view" for expansion
I tagged that subsection for expansion, but if it can't be, then it should probably be removed. There's no need for a section that is only two sentences long in such an otherwise finely-written article. S. D. D.J.Jameson 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if wrong
I do believe there are certain verses in the bible that support Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. One I remember but can't remember exact verse is the stoning incident where Jesus said (paraphrased) that only one who has not sinned, cast the first stone. Then, throughout it seems to be the same woman.--68.103.153.82 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" woman was definitely someone else, and anyway an adultress isn't necessarily a prostitute. Mary Magdalene might be the sinful woman (again, not necessarily a prostitute) who cleaned Jesus' feet with her tears and then dried them with her hair, but it isn't clear she is. The only thing the Bible clearly says about Magdalen's past is that Jesus cast out seven demons from her. It's Christian tradition that she was a prostitute, but that tradition isn't backed up by Scripture. —Angr 05:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Her Sin was Abortion
There is nothing in the Bible that she was a prostitute, leaving open the possibility her sin was abortion related, perhaps she helped women obtain abortions. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That "possibility" is speculation and has no place in this article. Please see WP:OR. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Resolve This Inconsisteny
In a section of the article which seeks to establish an intimate relationship between Jesus' and Mary Magdelene, the author has not made clear to whom he is refering. He also changed the gender of the object pronouns so that the sentences make no sense whatsoever. What are his goals here?

''There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.''

Mary, His mother and Her sister But then the author writes His sister and His mother and His companion What is the original intention - to speak of the sister of his mother - her sister or to speak of Jesus' own sister - his sister? This is gobbledy-gook. It is ridiculous and invalidates the entire paragraph if it is not removed or clarified.


 * This seems to be an issue with the original scripture. All independent translations I was able to check have both "her sister" and "his sister". --Drieakko (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore,if one considers all that Jesus said about marriage, conjugal love and lust, it is extremely doubtful that he would have engaged in such a relationship so late in his life with one of his followers. I am willing to accept that Jesus may have married early at the age of 18 or 20 before he began his ministry. But I can not accept that he would have struck up a sexual liaison and yet continue to be called Rabbi by so many sincere and loving followers. How inconsistent. Sin was greatly frowned upon in those days. Jesus was not a freespirit, he was quite disciplined and strict and not likely to engage in light love affairs. I think it is quite inappropriate to maintain the theory that Jesus, who abhorred sin, who defined lust as adultery, and who prohibited premarital sex, would then have had an adulterous relationship with a woman. Incoherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.108.112 (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The lines that you're referring to are taken verbatim from the English translation of the Gospel of Philip written circa 150-300AD, rather than being penned by a Wikipedia Author. Tiggs (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Where does anyone get the idea that Jesus only new Mary Magdalene in the latter part of his life? It is more than likely that she was a childhood friend and long time companion. It is the foolishness of dogmatic authors that have obscured the true nature of their relationship. It seems to fly against the will of the church to allow Jesus to have any real passions that a mortal man may have. Therefore, every attempt was made to obscure any reference to a relationship between Jesus and Mary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haus888 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Current Viewpoints on Mary's marriage to Jesus
The text of the article states that Many modern writers have come forward with claims that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. I do not think that there are many writers that claim this. It seems to exegerate the following of this view. I would suggest it be changed to "Some modern writers have come forward with claims that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus." JVandezande (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should really say who these scholars are. Stephen (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this was already removed from the article. Ckruschke (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Mary's left hand
I'm here in Rome, where there are many statues and paintings about Mary Magadalene. almost all show her carrying something in her left hand. Sometimes it appears to be a palm leaf. Othertimes, an orb of some kind, presumably carrying myrhh? Could we have a section that discusses the significance of this and what she carries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.139.158 (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Just found this online: (Sorry that I didn't already know the meaning of the palm frond.)

A saint carrying a palm frond means that the saint was a martyr. In many cases the palm frond is carried together with the specific attribute of the martyrdom (in the case of St. Agatha her detached breasts). The palm frond meant resistance to pressure, because it stood the strong winds of the desert, in the same way the martyrs did not give up their faith. The image used as a background for this page shows Sts. John and Paul holding palm fronds (a detail of the ceiling of SS. Giovanni e Paolo).

FYI: Here in Rome and Verona, there are more than a few basilicas in honor of St. Mary Maddalena. And therein are many paintings and sculptures of her. She is more often depicted in the paintings within these older, sacred places as holding a palm frond in her hand. She is often pictured with the Madonna and even in some paintings with the Madonna and baby Jesus. The palm frond seems to be a very important piece of this puzzle, and I'd like to see more of the images from the earlier depictions of St. Mary Maddalena (where she was a saint, not a sinner) and considered to be a martyr on this page, as well as in Google images. Yes, later on, she was depicted carrying the red egg and the jar of myrhh, but in the early days, she was a martyred saint and someone worthy of having her own temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.139.158 (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: palms. They are the Roman emblem of Victory, cf "Palms of Victory, Crowns of glory" in the old song. This pagan symbol was Christianized to indicate the victory over death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How often is she mentioned?
AS a curious reader I wondered how often Mary Magdalen is mentioned in the New Testament. My memeory is nto many times, but it would be nice to see a collection of actual mentions of her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.0.170 (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * She is mentioned when Jesus excorcises 7 demons from her, and also when he appears to her after the Ressurection. Sometimes it is thought that Mary, Sister of Martha and Mary, Mother of Joses could actually be talking about Mary Magdaline in passages of the bible where it simply says "Mary". Tarheelz123 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus married to Mary?
Cross referencing the items that the mormon prophet claimed that Jesus was a polygimist bore no results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.35.44 (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because it's not a belief held by the LDS Church. 128.187.97.22 (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

same as Mary of Bethany?
Is she the same as Mary of Bethany or not... after all the Mary of Bethany entry claims it... --Hoerth (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a short section on the subject. --Drieakko (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A call for critical review of ...
the following books --124.78.214.145 (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=&field-author=&field-title=Mary+Magdalene&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&node=&url=&field-feature_browse-bin=&field-binding_browse-bin=&field-subject=&field-language=&field-dateop=&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=&sort=relevancerank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=34&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=14

^^^^^ FYI --124.78.214.145 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+Mary+Magdalene&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Speculation on Mary Magdalene as prostitute
I reverted edits that strongly took side that Mary Magdalene and the unnamed "sinful woman" are not the same person. They may or may not be (personally I find it very likely that they are originally the same person, although I am also of the opinion that casting her as "sinful" was Luke's propaganda as he twisted the story to fit his own purposes), but it is not up to Wikipedia to say more; just present the facts and opinions from elsewhere. Religious articles in Wikipedia are so full of speculations (which, in one hand, the religions themselves also are) that if the articles start taking sides, there will be nothing but a fruitless fight. --Drieakko (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For me, the following text is not accurate: "In 1969 the Vatican, without commenting on Pope Gregory's reasoning,[56] implicitly rejected it by separating Luke's sinful woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdala via the Roman Missal.[citation needed]" As explained in the article about Mary of Bethany, the position of the Catholic Church, also explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia, is still that the three were the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwnit (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't - the Catholic Encyclopedia (as used online) is now 100 years old. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

First witness to the Resurrection
The text now says "In all four gospels, Mary Magdalene is first witness to the Resurrection." It should perhaps be reverted to something like my earlier statement: "In all four gospels, the first vision of the Resurrection is witnessed by Mary Magdalene." As the article says, Luke only reports that Mary Magdalene saw angels announcing the Resurrection. It seems misleading to say that Luke is thus calling her a "first witness to the Resurrection." Also, Matthew only says that Mary Magdalene was among the first witnesses, but the current phrasing will suggest to many readers that all four gospels say that Mary saw the Resurrection before anybody else did. Yes, active voice is better than passive ceteris paribus, but not when it misleads readers. BrianHoltz (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling Mary Magdalene a prostitute is ancient Hebrew racial profiling of women of color such as Rohab and Jezebel. Since Canaanites and Phoenicians were listed under Cush in Genesis 10, the name calling followed. Its appearance in the New Testament follows that tradition as well as expressing Peter's jealousy. Moses’ Ethiopian wife suffered repudiation, also, because of the same difficulties Hebrew's had with Cushites following their enslavement in Africa. [Larry West's "Our Common African Genesis, 2nd ed." 2009] Regarding this reference with its 151 citations as unreliable (without reading) simply places wiki as another mainstream source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrgenesis (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't help but wondering if the self-published book in question is yours. And yes, Wikipedia articles basically reflect what mainstream sources have to say, it is an encyclopedia after all. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The bible is primary source material and not suitable as a source for WIkipedia
Alright then. I came to this article with the hope of finding out something about the subject, MM. After reading it I am left none the wiser. I just need the simple facts about MM not a list of unpublished opinions supported by quotes from the bible.

Remember "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." I don't mean to insult the holy book of Christians but the bible is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia (wp:rs). For a start it is primary source material (It is is meant to have been written by people who were first hand observers of the biblical events) [], when we should be looking at secondary sources from unbiased 3rd parties. Secondly the bible is not a book with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the past 2,000 years it has certainly been corrupted during the manual copy processes. It has many contradictions between the gospels. It is so full of ambiguities that a preacher can use it to back up any assertion.

It's a great book but it is not a suitable source for Wikipedia when every verse has been analysed by published 3rd party commentators already. MoyrossLADY (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While the Bible may not be a perfect source, we have to remeber most of the "third party" sources come from similar findings. Most historians rely on pieces of wrting from the time, the only difference is some pieces of writing do not last 2,000 years. while the bible may not be taken word for word, interpretations taken from it might be admissable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.194 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that would be original research, see WP:OR. What we need are interpretations by modern scholars. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed obvious satirical sentences
The first paragraph ended with this: Mary Magdalene was the mom of baby jesus. In his gold fleece diapers...so small, yet so omnipetent. I like to picture my baby jesus in a tuxedo t-shirt. Because he's formal yet still likes to party.

I removed it because it contains incorrect information. Mary Magdalene was not the mother of Jesus. It is also satirical and not in keeping with a serious article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profharoldhill (talk • contribs) 06:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Is it just me, or does the following sentence read as if it was written by someone with an axe to grind?


 * "New Testament scholarship has shown that this picture of Mary Magdalene is patently false and disparagingly misleading."

Should we reword it so it sounds more neutral and less strident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.13.52 (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

More Evidence that Mary Magdalene was Married to Jesus
Forthcoming Book, Forthcoming Documentary

http://www.harpercollins.ca/books/9781554686537/The_Lost_Gospel/index.aspx

''Gathering dust at the British Museum is an ancient manuscript of the early Church, written by an anonymous monk. The manuscript is at least 1,600 years old, possibly dating to the first century and the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. It seems to be the first solid written evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, recounting that Magdalene was a gentile, that Jesus and Mary had children, and that there was a plot to kill Jesus, abduct Mary and murder their offspring.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lung salad (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * An IP removed this claim from the article as it "wasn't in the bible" & I restored. Whether the bible say so or not is not the point.  Some speculate - so - we can say that 'some speculate'.  I don't believe it either - but again - that is not the point. ClemMcGann (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Protestant views
"Protestants have never viewed Mary Magdalene as the 'sinful woman' depicted in Luke 7:36-50." Methinks they sometimes have. I would be curious to see some more detailed info on this. -- JALatimer (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

unreliable source
This paragraph seems to be based on an unreliable source:

Ramon K. Jusino, an internet writer, offers an explanation of this view, based on the textual researches of Raymond E. Brown.[38] In order to make this claim and maintain consistency with scriptures, the theory is suggested that Mary's separate existence in the two common scenes with the Beloved Disciple[Jn 19:25-27] [20:1-11] were later modifications, hastily done to authorize the gospel in the late 2nd century. Both scenes have inconsistencies both internally and in reference to the synoptic Gospels, possibly coming from rough editing to make Mary Magdalene and the Beloved Disciple appear as different persons.[39]

The first citation is to a self-published web site and should be removed. The second is to Brown, an RS, but is he really saying that editors might have tried to make the BD and MM look different? Or is that what Jusino thinks? Leadwind (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed Jusino, but Brown needs to be checked. --Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus as the Bridegroom
This article has not yet addressed the speculation the marriage which Jesus attends in john 2 may be his own. The bridegroom is not identified. It was the bridegroom who was expected to provide the wine at a Jewish marriage--which Christ provided by changing the water to wine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Clayton (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a RS discussing this? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad sources
I've removed quite a few -- tourist agencies, personal websites, Answerbag etc. See my comment above in the section 'unreliable source' about Brown. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you up to good work, as usual. Leadwind  (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

About "New Teastament Apocrypha"
The heading of the apocrypha section "It's important to understand, at this point, that the following descriptions of New Testament Apocryphal writings are generally not accepted by the main branches of Christianity, being seen as corruptions of the original writings, containing errors in the placing of events in time and geography, and often written with an agenda to serve groups with divergent views" reads as "everything in this section is of little value". That citation comes from a book edited by the catholic university of america and, while it is an acceptable source, I would like to see something more balanced. Every "testament" contains, as far as we know, errors in the placing of events in time and geography and of course, every one of them was written with an agenda to serve groups with different views including the canonical ones, perhaps even more so. There are apocriphals as old as the canonical writings, so I think that sort of disclaimer alone gives the wrong idea about the matter at hand. If you are going to explain how the Christianity views them, you also should add what the historians think of them. Leirus (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A 100 year old sectarian source isn't really an RS, so I removed this material. If we can find an RS that denigrates the apocrypha, we should cite it. Leadwind  (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Demons
Given the existence of modern scholarly work on this subject there is no reason at all and every reason not to rely on an Encyclopedia as a source. Also, there is more than one point of view in modern reliable sources. This should probably have a section of its own. See and  as possible sources. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotta agree on that one. I'd say those could be used.  @ Lung salad, not sure what you're referring to in terms of the demon discussion.  tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no obvious definition for what the seven demons were, and both historical and biblical authors only provide tentative comments relating to it. That's all that can be said about it at the moment, barring any groundbreaking new archaeological discovery of some lost commentary dating from antiquity.Lung salad (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mary Magdalene is the repentant sinner of the New Testament and authors consider this was a decisive factor in Gregory turning her into a prostitute. Lung salad (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene, "Follower" not "Disciple"
Mary Magdalene was not one of the twelve disciples and, for clarity, might better be described as a "follower" of Christ rather than a "disciple." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.88.101 (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * EB calls her a disciple, and one might be a disciple without being among the 12 Disciples. 20:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Too Many Headers
The article is divided into many headers near the bottom of the page, many containing only a few sentances. I tagged the article with the tool known as Twinkle   Gourami Watcher    (Gulp) 23:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Style in introduction and in misnamed as a prostitute section
The style in these sections seems to be short and choppy, and also seems to lack explanation. Captain Gamma (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. So what's your suggested improvement...? Ckruschke (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Neutrality?
I am writing here following my addition of NPOV-statement, referring to the sentence it is largely agreed today that "not a shred of solid biblical or extrabiblical evidence suggests she played the role of harlot, wife, mother, or secret lover". This statement is backed up by a reference which reflects a single point of view, and is biased. Other articles on that website (Apologetics Press) are clearly written from a Christian fundamentalist point of view, and should not serve as proof of things being largely agreed. The article used as a reference for this article is no different. I suggest either the sentence be rephrased, the reference changed or the sentence removed altogether. Yottie (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference is only there, in the lead, because it is a quote. The matter is very fully covered & referenced in the next section, & it is indeed generally agreed, in particular by Catholic sources, who were often late to come round. The tag should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that only the second part is a quote. I don't agree with the fact you can use a biased quote to reflect consensus. If there is indeed consensus concerning this issue, then by all means this should be reflected in the article, but as text rather than a quotation. Yottie (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is, lower down. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You may not have understood me correctly - I don't think the introduction should include that quotation. Have that as text, instead. Quotations can be used later on in the article. Best, Yottie (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed this quote is not neutral but clearly religiously biased so I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikbenm (talk • contribs) 17:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the quote shouldn't be in the lead, since the issue is covered in the main body. Also, I think that most of the rest of the paragraph is unnecessary as well, so I have trimmed it down. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Musdan - your recent revision is spot of great, IMHO. Good work! Ckruschke (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Wrong reference in footnote
Footnote (as of this writing) #7 reads " Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10, John 27:56". There is no John 27:56. I believe the original author intended John 20:1. Being a newbe I did not know how to edit a footnote. D Brugge (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Also, the footnote is for the statement, " is the only person to be listed in all four Gospels[7] as first to realize that Jesus had risen..." The placing of the footnote immediately after the word Gospels makes an awkward pause in the sentence. I had to read it several time to realize that it was not saying that she was the only person mentioned in all four Gospels. The footnote could be moved to the end of the sentence for better flow and still support the thought of the whole sentence. Just MHO. D Brugge (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Boogerpatrol (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholic saint
There's an implication of ownership in the category. The possessive case is used. Mary no more belonged to the RC church than she did to the EO church. No such names existed at the time. At least the Lutheran category name is more honest as it says that they are listed in the litany of saints honoured by Lutherans. It's possible that the RC and EO categories need to be renamed in like manner. As they currently stand, their name leaves them open to ownership charges and so the categories should be excluded. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Speculation > Name: suggested correction
My own prose is poor, so I hesitate to add this myself.

At different times in history, Mary Magdalene has been confused or misidentified with almost every woman in the four Gospels, except the mother of Jesus.

This sentence should be amended according to this source—the Talmud does, in fact, seem to call the mother of Jesus "Mary Magdalene". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Mary's Date of death
Currently listed as having occured in 2012....2000 years after her birth. Someone must have vandalized this date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.250.80 (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks --Musdan77 (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"In Art" Section
With all the art images throughout the page, isn't the "In Art" section somewhat redundant? Considering editors continue to copy in more artworks throughout the actual text of the page, my suggestion is that we delete the section and all the artwork images in it. Nothing personal - but this page is starting to get heavy with all of it - even if they are beautiful. Ckruschke (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * I have renamed this properly as "Gallery"; there is already an "In art" subsection higher up, which I presume is not what you meant. I agree it could go, though I have now trimmed it to one row of 4 - one of them was a duplicate anyway. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right Johnbod - I saw the lower section when I scrolled down to see what the new painting that was inserted looked like and when I put in this thread I didn't check to see if there was another one. Your change is good, but I'd still suggest the rest be deleted as there is already a "Gallery" of 18 paintings/artwork throughout the article which is, in my mind, bordering on "too much". Ckruschke (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Fine with me - I think it's quite new. If no one else comments after a while, I'd just remove it. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Art editors! ALERT!
Greetings! I was wondering if any of you vanitas -art editors were interested to help to provide a a better description for this Wikipedia Commons art piece: ? Is it a vanitas style of Mary Magdalane piece of art? If so, perhaps we can add it to the description even? Thanks in advance! :) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello! Maddalena svenuta means "Maggdalena fainted." Looks like this is representing her as an pentitent, she is prespresnted as an pentitent when she has a skull, and here we also see the whip in her hand, it relates more to her ascetic practises, and she is depicted in a state of rapture.A much more precise vanitas style would be a picture of Mary Magdalena with skull and flame, candle, as for ex. like Georges de La Tour, Penitent Magdalene, Wrightman's collectionBialosz (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Bialosz. I really appreciate that :-) Would you be interested in helping to add a description to the Wikipedia Commons perhaps? :-P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Anglican section inadequate.
This article does not state whether Anglicans accept Magdalene as distinct from the many other Marys, or jumbles them all together into a "composite Mary" (ex-prostitute, annointed Jesus heir, Mary of Bethany, etc.) as some denominations appear to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.236 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Xenosaga, Mary Magdalene and KOS-MOS
http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/KOS-MOS

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/T-elos

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Rennes-le-Ch%C3%A2teau

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Shion_Uzuki

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Jesus_Christ

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Lost_Jerusalem

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Chaos

All of the reveals are 7 hours in of this playthrough (start at the 7 hour mark):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYCfzf3BpTk

And the source for the game is already listed as Episode III, chapter 9. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 174.2.98.24, you may want to familiarize yourself with some of our key policies, such as WP:RS or WP:PSTS. Meanwhile, WP:EDITWAR is no way to go. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is worth pointing out that Xenosaga is already listed in the "Animation" depictions section, and that's all the mention this deserves. It's not fair to spam us with fan-generated sources and 7 hours of video. Who is going to watch that? Elizium23 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Xenosaga is a beautiful series with an AMAZING story with Mary Magdalene at its core. "The Animation" does not cover the entire Xeno series. If you think that section was too lengthy, fine, but I only included it because it's confusing otherwise since Xenosaga uses an unconventional interpretation of Mary Magdalene. I also meant to go to 7 hours IN on that video (as in, start at the 7 hour mark), you don't HAVE to watch ALL of it.


 * This is supposed to be an unbiased list of all of her depictions, regardless of portrayal and medium (video games are a medium, just like novels and movies).


 * Instead of Mary Magdalane portrayed as some pasty pale-skinned blone-haired blue-eyed white girl, she's portrayed as a dark-skinned woman in Xenosaga. COME ON, SHE LIVED IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Same with Jesus. Mary Magdalene and Jesus have been so whitewashed, it's ridiculous and embarassing.


 * At the very least, I'm going to re-add the video games section, but keep it succinct this time. No one should have any issues with this (after all, NONE of the "depictions" are sourced either). It's also possible there will be more video games in the future which portray Mary Magdalene. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Jayaguru-Shishya, you are a complete hypocrite. I never said "Xenosaga should be mentioned because 'cuz it's a beautiful series", I already gave my reasons above. I said "This is supposed to be an unbiased list of all of her depictions, regardless of portrayal and medium (video games are a medium, just like novels and movies)." AND THE ENTIRE LIST UNDER DEPICTIONS DOESN'T HAVE ANY SOURCES OR REEFERNCE LISTED EITHER. And reliable source? I ALREADY PROVED MARY MAGDALENE IS IN XENOSAGA ABOVE. This ALONE should be enough of a reason to include it. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox art of her by Domenico Tintoretto
I believe the art of her by Domenico Tintoretto in her infobox should be removed and moved to her gallery. It's extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely, from a historical viewpoint that Mary even looked like that. Like I said before, I HATE it when Mary Magdalene is portrayed as some pasty pale-skinned blone-haired blue-eyed white girl. Same with Jesus. Chances are, she would have had darker skin, darker hair, and probably look something more like this:

http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x4605857/middle-eastern-women-in-burkhas.jpg

We need to stop whitewashing history and being historically inaccurate. No offense to the white Europeans who made these paintings, but these paintings are interpretations and nothing more. I think it should be done out of respect to her, since there's no way of knowing what a human who died about 2000 years ago would look like. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no physical description of Mary Magdalene except that she is a woman. The illustrations in this article serve mostly to exemplify how she is portrayed in art, rather than how she actually looked, which is cause for speculation such as yours. And I would emphasize that that is speculation, pure and simple, which has no place in Wikipedia. Unless you can provide reliable secondary sources which can accurately describe Mary Magdalene, then you cannot presume to know her complexion and hair colour. Elizium23 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Isn't that being biased? I mean, there could be hundreds - THOUSANDS - of portrayals of Mary Magdalene in art. Why should we only cater to ONE interpretation in her infobox? It's historically inaccurate. Historically and geographically, there's less than a 1 percent chance she even looked like that. And my speculation is actually superior: chances are, a Middle Eastern woman from the Middle East would look... I dunno... MIDDLE EASTERN. There's a 98 percent chance her hair would be black or dark brown.


 * All that art will do is probably confuse future generations. I'm not saying we should remove it from the article entirely, just move it to her Gallery (of various historically inaccurate interpretations by white people). And like you said, speculation is usually frowned upon on wikis, however, that "art" is still speculation. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * suggests she had long hair. But that's as far as the physical descriptions go. I think most of the notable depictions of Mary, which are all interpretations, will tend to show her as more European-looking. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me put it this way. For a long time, humans believed Earth was flat. Imagine if I went on the Wikipedia article for Earth, and THIS IMAGE was in the infobox. And I was told by the editors, "we're keeping this flat earth image in our infobox because it's for artistic purposes." Well, this is kinda like that, except with white Mary Magdalene. If there is no known images of her, and all we have are inaccurate paintings, then I believe we shouldn't have ANY images in the infobox. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies here. Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What's your point? 174.2.98.24 (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That guideline is quite clear. It's suggested that Mary's ethnicity might have been misrepresented for some 2,000 years. But this article is not the place to try and correct the balance. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC) p.s. but I see you have just been blocked for edit warring on this article. p.p.s alas no, that was a whole 12 days ago.
 * I would prefer that you do not make this personal, 174.2.98.24. Elizium23 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(unindent for now)

"But this article is not the place to try and correct the balance."

Ummmmmm, I don't see why NOT? I mean, this IS literally the main encyclopedia of the planet, which is meant to provide reliable and truthful information. We shouldn't have inaccurate information. I figure Mary Magdalene's Wikipedia article would be the best place to correct misinformation, especially about her ethnicity. There's literally a 99 percent chance that her ethnicity HAS been misrepresented. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anyone is expecting to see a Facebook selfie of Mary in the infobox, are they? In fact, one might very well argue that her physical appearance has nothing whatever to do with her significance to millions of people across the world. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, what she did for Jesus mattered more than her physical appearance, but we should still try to aim to be historically accurate. I wouldn't expect to see a white girl with blonde hair and blue eyes on Hua Mulan's article, I'm not sure why it's somehow justified on Mary Magdalene's article. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should historical accuracy be the overriding principle? If you think you can gain WP:CONSENSUS for that position, by all means try. See WP:DR for Dispute Resolution methods. So far you do not have consensus. Using flawed analogies will not help your case. The physical appearance of Mary Magdalene was not a priority for the writers of the New Testament. I would daresay that her physical appearance was not a priority for the Early Church Fathers and theologians and Biblical scholars throughout the ages. She is, however, an important figure in Christian art, and the portrayals we use should be representative of the most notable works of art. Perhaps there are Oriental Orthodox icons which depict her with the features you want. Elizium23 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't be "historically accurate", as there are no historical images of Mary. Looking at the lead image of Hua Mulan it's hard to determine if she had any eyes at all. But this doesn't detract from the appropriateness or saliency of the image with regard to the culture in which she was venerated. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Christian art is, well, just Christian art. However, we should NOT use art (especially inaccurate art) in her infobox. That's what I'm saying. If you want it to remain in an "art" section, fine, but like I said before, it's inaccurate and confusing.
 * Also, what makes a NOTABLE "art" is subjective. Why is some art notable, and other art not notable? Exactly, it's pure opinions and subjectiveness. I don't want ANY art of her in her infobox because it has the potential to be wrong, and the infobox is supposed to treat her as a real historical figure. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How can anyone be "confused" when no one knows what she looked like? Notable art is generally produced by notable artists, like Domenico Tintoretto. You obviously have quite strong views on this, judging by the demands you are making for what you want. So I think, as Elizium23 suggests, you need to have a look at WP:DR for Dispute Resolution methods. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Readers will be confused because they'll view her as a Caucasian European white ethnicity, when in reality, there's a 99.98 chance she WASN'T. And tell me, what makes a "notable artist"? Oh right, it's, again, ALL opinionated and subjective. And I'm not "demanding" anything, I'm just being provocative. If I was "demanding", I would have said something like, "CHANGE IT NOW OR ELSE", but I've been very rational so far. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this whole encyclopedia is "opinionated and subjective". But it relies on opinionated and subjective consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe that there is something in the IP editor's logic. Maybe a compromise can be achieved here. Maybe a dark haired, dark skinned renaissance woman? -- Marek . 69    talk  00:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but why would she even resemble a Renaissance woman? The Renaissance occurred about 1500 years after her death. Also, why is it normal to pose with dead skulls (which is creepy and gross), and wear long-ass robes? Her clothing would get so dirty and filthy, dragging across the dirt and sand. At least the Xenosaga interpretation has her dress above her ankles. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no chance of you actually reading the article to find out why, I suppose? Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked and didn't find any answers to any of my questions. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A section about art and iconography could be added, mentioning that there are no descriptions of Mary Magdalene, etc. Bialosz (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Artibutes
In Western art there is not only ointment jar as an attribute, also very common was skull, when she was depicted as a penitnet.There are also other attributes, this is only to give you some impression that there is not only the jar. For ex. when looking at a picture depicting a female saint, and three is a skull, the skull is identifying the person as Mary Magdalene.Other attributes were mirror, book, etc.Bialosz (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Link for Jesus
Hi Jayaguru. Re: The deleted link: I understand that common knowledge links should be avoided, but as I'm sure we'll all agree, exceptions abound everywhere -- here and in almost all articles. I thought a link for Jesus and Christianity, at least once in the lede, was appropriate for this article, not so much because the reader is completely ignorant of these topics, but simply as a quick way to read the lede and perhaps review some of the basics, and simply '<--go back' to this article. What about a 'main article' link in an appropriate section? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, I corrected birthplace in the infobox so that it said "Magdala, Judea" not "Bronx, New York"? But I think a number of essential links were missing from that first paragraph, so I have re-added them. We should certainly not assume that readers are Christians, or even that they are familiar with Jesus' story. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanx -- Common as these topics may be to some readers I thought it sort of odd that there were no links for them in an article/subject that revolves around these subjects. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So, is there policy ban somewhere on linking to Christianity? Or on using piped links for first instances, in an opening para? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Martinevans123! According to WP:OVERLINK, the following ones should not be linked: "names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions"


 * Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How very odd that Wikipedia should have not one single link to Christianity (apart from in discussions like this, of course). Nor to Judaism, nor Islam, nor Hinduism, nor Buddhism . I could have sworn I'd seen some. I think you might be quite busy tidying up. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure you might have seen such links. But according to the policy, we shouldn't. There's a lot of overlinking in Wikipedia. An average reader sure is aware of the major religions on this planet. Moreover, a reader who is reading a detailed topic in Christianity, what extra-information does linking to Christianity provide for him/her? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You could start here, I guess. (And then come back to this article last?) Cheers! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) p.s. I think there's quite a lot of Christianity that isn't about Mary Magdalene.
 * And then you could move onto these, these, these and these? Surprised no-one's invented a bot to get rid of all these? Cheers! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123 is making perfect sense here. Before links for Jesus and Christianity were added to the article there were (and are) links in the lede for the following: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and Protestant. Also, 'Jesus' is not a 'major geographic feature, location, language, nationality or religion'. In any case, before I ever engage an editor, let alone delete a good faith edit of his/hers (aside from obvious errors, POV pushing, etc) I always ask myself: 'Is this particular edit somehow hurting or misleading the reader?' Is it flagrantly excessive? If the answer is 'no', I move on, with the understanding that if WP policy was 'always' enforced, to the letter, with no discretion, most of the articles would implode and most of the editors would have left WP out of frustration long ago. A bigger and perhaps more important picture. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This appears to me to be a case where WP:IAR applies.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; contribs) 09:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and Protestant are not major religions; they are sub-sects of Christianity. Therefore, we should link them. They also serve as more specific links on the topic. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Catholic and Protestant, among others, are indeed 'major religions' and are linked in the lede. Here is a list of the pages that link to Christianity. (!) As we've tried to explain, there are reasonable exceptions to the rules and again if we were to go after links in the manner you seem to be suggesting it would cause more harm than any good that would ever result. It would seem one link for Christianity in an article for a women who is widely recognized as the one who witnessed Christ's resurrection is in order here, and for the simple reasons mentioned. Hope this won't be difficult for you to accept in this light. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:OVERLINK is not "policy"; it's a WP:Manual of Style. Yes, we should follow an MOS as much as possible, but it's not as important as policy, and each individual article follows its own consensus for what is acceptable. —Musdan77 (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm quite happy to Link for Jesus, or even to add few piped links! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources about Mary Magdalene come from the four canonical Gospels ...
How so? Since when are the gospels counted as primary sources about anything relating to Jesus and the people surrounding him? The gospels are secondary sources. 109.192.116.130 (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, see WP:PRIMARY Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Place of birth and surname
The name "Magdalene" is not necessarily a surname or a place-name. The meaning is simply a derivative of "Tower" (migdol). There were numerous towns with that name ("Magdala") in the ancient near east. But the name "Magdalene" could easily be a nickname bestowed on Mary by Jesus, a reference to her stature or more likely to her personality - as "Peter" (Kephas) was a nickname given to Simon bar Jona, in reference to the "rock-like" nature of Simon's personality. As early as the third century AD, St. Jerome suggested that Mary was called Magdalene because of her stature and faith, i.e. because she was like a tower (Susan Haskin, Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor, p. 406). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.28.29 (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Magdalene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921055937/http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-07092007-221421/unrestricted/02bjjohnstondissertation.pdf to http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-07092007-221421/unrestricted/02bjjohnstondissertation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Historical records other than gospels
Hello,

I've come to this page as a reader who is interested in reading about this woman, but it seems like the article is almost exclusively based on stuff that's in the Christian Bible.

Are there other sources/historical records?

I'd be interested in reading about them. It seems to me that religious texts shouldn't be the only sources for articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 08:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but the problem is that the only sources for most of the people in the New Testament are the writings of the New Testament itself; we generally do not have contemporary records for the persons dealt with in the New Testament, as these people – in so far as they even existed – were not generally important in their own time and age. There are of course many later mentions, but these are generally secondary and derived from the religious importance that these characters came to have later on. —Pinnerup (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Understood, but I have heard that there are sources about Christian people that were written at the time of the gospels that are called "non-canonical", because they are not included in the Bible. My point is that, although those non-canonical sources are not in the Bible, they should still be treated as sources for Wikipedia. Newzild (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So New Testament apocrypha? Not contemporary of course, mainly 2nd Century I think. I think at that stage at the most we might use major reliable sources that mention them. Doug Weller  talk 20:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The "non-canonical" gospels and additional writings are by and large much later than the canonical writings, which are in themselves of course generally written at least 50 years after the events they purport to describe; that is, the "non-Canonical" writings are generally not independent attestations, but often derived from the canonical writings with later material added into the narration. Even so, the earliest of these, namely the Gospel of Thomas and a few others that can likely be dated to the 2nd Century, ought of course be included in so far as they mention these characters also. —Pinnerup (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle by Karen L. King. King's academic credentials are available here and here. The Gospel of Mary being a Gnostic text, you may further appreciate The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts by Marvin W. Meyer (Editor),‎ Elaine H. Pagels (Introduction),‎ James M. Robinson (Contributor),‎ Wolf-Peter Funk (Contributor),‎ Paul-Hubert Poirier (Contributor). - Conservatrix (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Revise and bring up to "Good Article" status
This is a note that I have plans to revise this article and bring it up to "Good Article" status. I thought of doing this before Easter when I saw how many views this page receives, but decided to wait until after the holiday was over so that I would not be editing it during the peak of its popularity. It will probably take me at least several weeks to work this article into shape, especially since I am still working on several other articles. Those who are interested in what the end result will look like should consult the other articles I have written about Biblical figures, including Satan, Jonah, and Jesus in comparative mythology, and figures involved in early Christian history, such as Origen and Hypatia. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Comma
I have removed a comma from :

… allegedly portrayed Mary, not as Jesus's wife or partner, but rather as an unwilling voyeur.

I’m posting about it because another editor objected to it. To my eye at least, the comma sets “not as Jesus’s wife and partner” in apposition to “portrayed Mary but rather as an unwilling voyeur.” Without the phrase set between the commas, the rest makes no sense; therefore it’s not an appositional phrase. The structure here is similar to (making up an example here), “He became famous not for his music, but for his philosophy,” which is grammatically correct without a comma before “not.” —67.14.236.193 (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Gnostics
Scholars consider that Gnostic texts do contain reliable historical information about... Gnostics, not about the historical persons and characters from their stories. Apples and oranges. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Real feminist theology
I suggest that instead of doing WP:RGW you should WP:CITE some real feminist theology, like Elaine Pagels, Phyllis Trible or Jennifer Wright Knust. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion Tgeorgescu. However I am not trying to do feminist theology. I just want the main article on Wikipedia about Mary Magdalene to be accurate and balanced. Do not assume and do not 'box' me into the type you think I am. I think you are crossing a line here. Saying something is sexist because it is prejudiced does not mean I am trying to do Feminist Theology.


 * I do not think Wikipedia needs to quote EVERY single opinion or line from every single book about the subject. I think you will agree we need to choose those that are fair and balanced. I do not think this is and I don't understand why you would want to keep it. I have explained my reasons. In detail. Others haven't. Also I think I have followed Wikipedia's Protocol: "if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add."
 * There were no women in the 12 apostles, but there were also no Gentiles either...(or Americans or Asians...). Judas Iscariot was also one of the original Twelve, who later betrayed him. This makes the Twelve as the paradigm for church leadership quite weak. These are facts. However, some will say it is my own research to reverse my edit, as it has been done before when I quoted facts from the Bible...which the article is full of.


 * Happy to go to arbitrage as it is often difficult to make people understand prejudice. Sofiairiondo (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * if you know the works of Pagels, Trible and Wright Knust so well and you think they can offer a more balanced view, why dont you include them? Why dont you edit the article to include their balanced views. I am a regular person, not a scholar. And I could see clearly the bias in that line of the article. Why dont great editors like you amend the articles to make them more fair and balanced? Please?Sofiairiondo (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert, I'm just an amateur. I did read one book by Knust, but not much by Pagels and Trible. See also WP:FIXBIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Tgeorgescu, you user profile does look like you are an expert no only on Wikipedia but you have a Masters in Philosophy so you SURELY can see when an article is biased? And I am sure you know how to make it more balanced?


 * , you look new to Wikipedia but you say that you know 'how it works'? (maybe you are a 'secondary' username to force others into the three-revert rule??). Please help, then? Why not edit the article to make it more balanced and unbiased. I have already said the reference it is not just about women; it also refers to equality in general, also social (which is quite heretic if you ask me). Have you read page 200? I have also quoted facts from the Bible which makes it more balanced. I can quote more facts but I suspect they will be deleted too. How can I get arbitrage? Do I need to write Jimmy Wales to get some resolve? I will though...he may have an answer.


 * BillsYourUncle, as I said to Tgeorgescu, we do not have to add every single line from every book on this subject (in fact I think the article contains too many quotes of Ehrman and surely his opinion is not dogma?). Therefore what is the point of adding lines and quotes that are biased and NOT balanced and frankly, quite inaccurate? Do you have a particular interest?Sofiairiondo (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Went through WP:FIXBIAS. Thank you. Exactly what I am trying to do. Trying to add neutrality to the article in an encyclopaedic way. According to the section ‘Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance’, “Wikipedia do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopaedia writers, for or against (in this case that Jesus did not want total equality because the Twelve named Apostles were male); we merely OMIT this information where including it would unduly legitimise it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.” Please let me know how to reflect the beliefs of the wider world, i.e. that if a group does not include women, for whatever reason, it does not mean they are specifically excluded. That if a group does not include people from other races, does not say they are specifically excluded, that if a group does not include some nationalities, age groups or minorities, it does NOT mean they are specifically excluded. It could be perfectly circumstantial. I tried to reflect this by quoting the Bible on 15 June. The fact that the naming of the twelve apostles in happens before the introduction of Mary in  and that  Luke names Mary, Joanna and Susanna in the group travelling with Jesus and the twelve. Basically considering the option that Jesus may not have had enough female followers initially when he named the Twelve. He had some later and were specifically named by Luke. These edits were deleted for no reason. Thanks in advance for your help. Sofiairiondo (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If the majority academic view is that Jesus was sexist and a minority maintains that he was feminist, we have to tell the reader that. We're not allowed to make the story appear nicer or more palatable than it really was. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What you want to say is that the majority of academics are and have been sexists, and also editors like BillsYourUncle, you, those that what this sexist views in Wikipedia...The vast majority of the WIDER WORLD view is that Jesus was an equalitarian (which Ehrman also challenges), in every aspect. If you knew about him properly (just read the Wikipedia), you would know he was against the hierarchy and was killed for challenging it (calling the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees hypocrites in front of everyone Matt 23), asking people to give up all they had, caring for the lesser, saying the last ones will be the first one. He was killed for denouncing hypocresy. It would be hypocrite of him to be equalitarian for everything but not the sexes, specially when we have so much evidence of female disciples and their important roles in his ministry. It is like saying the earth is round but sometimes flat. This really is just common sense. Please provide evidence that the majority of modern academics, including a fair sample of female academics, think Jesus was sexist. You are twisting facts and world's wider views. If you ask people in the street, I am confident the vast majority will tell you Jesus was not sexist. In fact the vast majority of people will give you examples of instances when he was the opposite (like defending the adulterous woman against everyone who wanted to stone her). You are using traditional sexist academic views for (what seems) your own interests. You and a few other sexist editors. The majority of academics in all aspects of science and philosophy and art have been sexist AND racists AND xenophobic. Society is moving forward. Try help rather than push back towards the prejudice Jesus so much hated.Sofiairiondo (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "If you ask people in the street" This is no way to provide reliable information on Wikipedia.


 * Ehrman's page 200 is not reliable information either as I said on that page he refers to equality in general. I do not understand this obsession of some editors with keeping the wrong sexist information... I quoted Wikipedia's section ‘Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance’, “Wikipedia do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopaedia writers, for or against (in this case that Jesus did not want total equality because the Twelve named Apostles were male); we merely OMIT this information where including it would unduly legitimise it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and THE BELIEFS OF THE WIDER WORLD." I think Wikipedia is trying to say that nowadays there are certain views that do not need challenging such as equality of sexes, races, sexual orientation. I suspect it is trying to say we do not NEED to prove this with academic research and references every single time. Tgeorgescu said the majority of academics' view is that Jesus was sexist. I do not think this is true. I have asked for evidence. Moreover I dont not think Ehrman's reference sentence requires counterargument as it is against the wider view and clearly biased. It is like trying to argue the Earth is not flat....If we do this with everything, Wikipedia will become useless...Sofiairiondo (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Per Reliable sources: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications."
 * Per No original research: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.[a] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged." 09:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)


 * Let me be clear: I have no dog in this fight, we only seek to render the academic consensus for what it is. Sexism is bad non sequitur (logic) Jesus wasn't sexist. People should refrain from asserting that Ancient people had modern ideology. Jesus was 1st century Jew, not a 21st century Scandinavian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No, that is NOT the logic here. Let's go back to the sentence in the article which says "considering that one of the best-attested facts of his life is that all twelve of his chosen apostles were male". This is, as I have explained before (I dont think I have to repeat myself), a very weak, far fetched argument to prove Jesus's sexism. There are many reasons, none of them sexist, why the twelve could have been male. I could give you many, as I could give you many examples of Jesus having women's back at a time when this would have been in his detriment. HOWEVER, this edits have been continually deleted as they are apparently my own research... Go figure Sofiairiondo (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And yes, for a 1st century Jew, he was a champion of women, in a way, I'm sure, a lot of Scandinavian men are not (try stopping the stoning of a woman in the middle east in this century, I cannot see many Scandinavians queuing up...). The risks he took to his reputation and safety were probably a lot higher. Again, I can give you many examples but they are apparently my own research...One of the biggest problems is people not being able to see their own dogs in this fight...Sofiairiondo (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Jesus and the woman taken in adultery lacks historicity. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to foment a scientific revolution. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Really Tgeorgescu?? It is in John 8:1-11. Almost all of what we know about Jesus and Mary Magdalene is from the Gospels (John being the most historically accurate of the four). Are you questioning all of them or just the bits that dont suit your purposes? Is the article on Mary Magdalene based on historic evidence only. What are you playing at?Sofiairiondo (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You should not speculate about my reasons, see WP:ASPERSIONS. The consensus of mainstream Bible scholars is that Jesus and the woman taken in adultery was not part of the Bible, it was added much later by scribes. [The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.] Source: NIV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I speculate about your reasons as you speculate about mine: that I am trying to WP:RGW, that I am trying to do feminist theology, that I am trying to make things more palatable than they already are, that I am using the logic: "Sexism is bad non sequitur (logic) Jesus wasn't sexist", that I am trying to foment a scientific revolution. It is almost insulting. I dont want to repeat my reasons. I have already said why that sentence in the article lacks encyclopaedic neutrality. I have asked for evidence that modern academic, including female ones think Jesus was sexist. Still waiting.


 * The article of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery has some points that indicate that it may have been there earlier than some scholars think "However, in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (c. 313–398) was discovered in Egypt, in which Didymus states that "We find in certain gospels" an episode in which a woman was accused of a sin, and was about to be stoned, but Jesus intervened "and said to those who were about to cast stones, ‘He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and throw it. If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take a stone and smite her.’ And no one dared," and so forth. This is far from a direct quotation, but it may be a loose summary of the episode. Barring the possibility that Didymus was referring to some other Gospel than the four-Gospel collection that was typically used in the churches in his time[citation needed], this reference appears to establish that the passage was present in its usual place in some Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 300s onwards."


 * If this paragraph is true it is extremely telling. I think it is very plausible that this passage had been taken out of manuscripts as it was (and is) revolutionary and someone with some principles found out and put it back in. Think about it. It makes no sense at all to 'make up' such a passage in such a patriarcal society.


 * In any case, there is a whole article in Wikipedia about this Jesus' interactions with women which gives plenty of examples of his view of women, and contradicts your previous affirmations. For me the most telling one is the one of Mary and Martha, but simply the fact that wealthy women supported him financially: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna. They must have felt included and respected to do so. Finally, we have the Gospel of Mary which so well describes the other Apostles, in particular Peter's hatred towards her for being a woman. It would have been difficult for Jesus to mixed them up. I suspect he would have talked to the women separately and that these women would not have insisted in him naming the greatest Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24...


 * I really think that sentenced should be removed. It misinforms. And the fact that I am finding so much rejection is worrying. I'm not sure I will be able to post this or answer further comments from you as I received a note that I was being blocked. Do us all a favour and remove that very unfair bit in the article. Young girls should not be reading that. It is suggesting to them the sole fact that a team is all male, means they are not welcome. Ta. Sofiairiondo (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

One way to know what female Bible scholars think is to read what they wrote. WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES like everybody else.

"Some Christian feminists believe that the principle of egalitarianism was present in the teachings of Jesus and the early Christian movements such as Marianismo, but this is a highly contested view by many feminist scholars who believe that Christianity itself relies heavily on gender roles. These interpretations of Christian origins have been criticized by secular feminists for "anachronistically projecting contemporary ideals back into the first century.""

- Christian feminism

But of course, we need sources which are germane to Mary Magdalene. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You said the vast majority of scholars think Jesus was sexist, you should prove it. I am not the one who said that. Im afraid you are the one trying to do (anti) feminist theology here.
 * What I have been trying to do is for the sentence to be removed because the way it is written, it suggests Wikipedia gives validity to the sexist premise: Twelve Apostles male, thus females MUST have been excluded, or unwelcome and Jesus must have been a sexist. It should be removed, not counter-argued with female scholars views. I dont think you want to see it...Sofiairiondo (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You speak of neutrality. For Wikipedia neutrality means that we kowtow to Ivy Plus. That's what it means around here. Nothing else. See WP:NOTNEUTRAL. And the WP:ONUS is not upon me to show that Ehrman is right, it is upon you to show that he is wrong. This is not a level playing field between top scholars and WP:RANDY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That is what you don't understand. It may not have been a scholar who wrote that sentence in Wikipedia. It may have been another Randy. And it implies a premise that is not accepted by the wider world or common sense. It should say: "Ehrman and Schaberg consider it highly improbable that the historical Jesus ever advocated complete equality between the sexes, because all Twelve of his chosen apostles were male which in their opinion means women were specifically excluded. However, this would mean gentiles or members of other nationalities were also specifically excluded. Moreover, it would mean that Jesus chose Judas Iscariot to be one of the original Twelve, presumably knowing that Judas would later betray him John 6:64, 70-71. Since Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve, this makes the argument untenable that Jesus intended the Twelve to be some sort of precedent or paradigm for church leadership."


 * This will give a more neutral tone. I have edited it. It is important that young people (including my daughter and son) who read this and are still learning, read balanced arguments and do not learn prejudiced premises as valid. I will make myself a G&T if it does not get deleted by the end of today even though it contains a reference...Sofiairiondo (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Technically, the man who preached Christianity for Gentiles was Paul. Jesus preached Judaism for Jews, he did not care much about Gentiles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not correct. Jesus helped a Roman centurion and talked to the Samaritan woman (who although Jewish were seen as foreigners and disliked by the Jews) by the well in the longest dialogue in the New Testament, and about theology (to a woman!!!). He repeatedly calls himself the son of man (not just the Jews) and he goes to the gentile cities of Tyre and Sidon where he is listened by the crowds (Luke 6:17 and Mark 3:7-8), and praises these two cities in Luke 10:13-16 for being better at repenting than the Jewish cities. John repeatedly acuses the Jews of being unkind to Jesus (John 6:41-42). If everyone was a Jew he would have written the people, (like he writes in other places ‘the people of Jerusalem’ or ‘the crowds’) which must have been to differentiate the Jews from the other non-jewish followers.


 * In any case, this edit is not about the source, is about being the language used in THIS article is WRONG in 2020. Assumes readers NOW think that it is a given that if a group is male-only it automatically excludes women. I have explained extensively why this is not the case. There are young women and young men reading this. If wikipedia allows this language, they may think it is correct. Maybe this is why my daughter’s girls-only £20,000 a-year secondary school discourages them to find their information in Wikipedia. Pity as I think it could be wonderful.


 * I don’t think your threats in my user talk page are appropriate. I’m trying to help and you are in a mission to stop me because of your own prejudice. I am stopping my financial contribution to wikipedia and letting them know my reasons. Sofiairiondo (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Jesus and Mary relationship
Mary was the wife of Jesus who bore a child Sarah with him. Mary and Jesus were of royal blood and thus Sarah had royal blood. She was the result of unison of descendant House of Benjamin and descendant of David and Solomon. Mary Magdalene is also known as Rose, Holy Grail. Search for fact (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Da Vinci Code is a fantastic novel, historically inaccurate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sexist claim removed
I am boldly removing this from the article:


 * Ehrman and Schaberg consider it highly improbable that the historical Jesus ever advocated complete equality between the sexes,[45][46] considering that one of the best-attested facts of his life is that all twelve of his chosen apostles were male.[47

It is simply not historically correct to make a statement about Jesus's views on women's equality with men using only two opinions. If these opinions are used we need to find differing opinions. There are hundreds of biblical scholars and only two should not represent up-to-date opinions of them all--and especially so when the Book of Mary seems to suggest that he felt Mary to be the apostle most able to understand his teachings. Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC) This article makes for a good read: Jesus' interactions with women  Gandydancer (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Image used in Infobox
The image used in the infobox seems to give credit to the the idea that Mary Magdalene was a former prostitute, which, as laid out in the article, does not seem to be true. Would anyone object to using a more neutral image there? Such as the ones found in the article by Andrea Solari or Piero di Cosimo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadbaz (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since nobody objected, I'm going to go ahead and switch the images.Jadbaz (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit
Hi. Rather than continue the long discussion above, what is the exact edit you believe is needed on the page? Let's see if we can work out a good consensus without fingers-a-pointing this way and that by several editors. I haven't read the entire discussion, so am asking anew. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Randy, you are very kind. Gandy's edit below seems to have solved the problem. Have a lovely weekend! Sofiairiondo (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Attribute to Mary
The beginning of the article describes gnostic texts Mary Magdalene is found in, and it says about the Gospel of Mary that "many scholars attribute to Mary Magdalene". This phrasing seems to mean that many scholars think Mary Magdalene wrote it, even if it's not intended to mean so. The article on the Gospel of Mary says that it was written in the second century, and doesn't claim that anybody thinks Mary wrote it. Meuller 95 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that also had WP:WEASEL problems. I've deleted it. Elizium23 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)