Why The Gospel of Mary Fell Out of Favor

General Comment and Disclaimer

It is my position that The Gospel of Mary is not a testimony of Mary Magdalene. Further, there are no suggestions that Mary or Mary's descendants are represented in the Church, by the Church or in any offshoots of the Church.

Moreover, if the descendants of Mary were identified with the Church, the Church would have found a way to incorporate her legacy into the Church.

Background

The Bible, as accepted by most Pauleen Christian groups was compiled between 382 and 404 CE (382-404 A.C.)

The earliest copies of the books in the New Testament date to approximately 130 CE (130 A.C.) (The Old Testament or TANAKH is believed to date back to Ezra, with the oldest existing copy being the Dead Sea scrolls. Religious tradition states that the first five books were written earlier, but of course there is no historical evidence of this.)

In concurrence St. Augustine, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued "Decree of Damasus, from the Acts of the Roman Synod, 382 A.D." In the Decree of Damasus, the pope listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use prepare a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, and a New Testament of 27 books. He completed it in 404 CE and in 405 it was published. These books are gathered together into one book called The Bible, or Holy Scripture. Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. He also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide. The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 reaffirmed Pope St. Boniface. The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.

A number of writings were not included in the Decree of Damasus compilation of the Bible; in fact it is presumed that the very reason for the Decree of Damasus was to limit the Bible to those sections believed to authentically represent Christianity.

Much of these decisions were based on determinations of what was in the Jewish scripture, or TANAKH at the time. This generally corresponds to what the Christians refer to as the Septuagint. This includes:

("Septuagint" also refers to the Greek Old Testament.)

There are some discrepancies in the details, but the general reason for the reference to Jewish usage is not because the Septuagint was originally Jewish scripture; instead it was because Christian doctrine holds Jewish doctrine as controlling on these writings:

"... because that unto them were committed the oracles ..." (Romans 3:1-2)

The criteria for the New Testament was different. There was no Jewish usage attributable to the Gospels, and of course Christian philosophy is of "the new law".

Most of the New Testament inclusions and exclusions were based on what was believed to be authentic doctrine. Examples would be contradictions with other scripture, contradictions with divine law ("contradictions of Truth") such as advocating suicide, which is considered unacceptable under Christian doctrine, and other contradictions of doctrine.

In the case of the Gospel of Mary, there were different issues.

Deuterocanonical Sections

The Council of Trent 1546-1565 issued a determination that the Deuterocanonical books would be retained in the Catholic Bible. Books missing from Protestant Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees. Parts of Ester and Daniel (vis. Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42 (Book of Susana)) are also not included in the Protestant version. These sections are called the "Deuterocanonicals" by Catholics and "Apocrypha" by Protestants.

Protestants consider these to be learned writings and these sections are carried in an appendix to many Protestant bibles.

These sections are from the Old Testament, and the determination regarding inclusion relates to whether these sections were part of the Jewish bible (TANAKH) at the time of Jesus. (1 Maccabees, the historical account of the Maccabee War, would have been part of Jewish scripture but that's a historical technicality which has no direct bearing on the Council of Trent.)

Regardless, the Deuterocanonicals or Apocrypha have no bearing on the acceptance of The Gospel of Mary.

Karen King

Much of the analysis of the exclusion of The Gospel of Mary relates to the content and implications of Mary Magdalene communicating doctrine.

In The Complete Gospels, Harvard Professor Karen King suggests that the primary issue was one of doctrine and the authority of women to teach:

The confrontation of Mary with Peter, a scenario also found in The Gospel of Thomas, Pistis Sophia, and The Gospel of the Egyptians, reflects some of the tensions in second-century Christianity. Peter and Andrew represent orthodox positions that deny the validity of esoteric revelation and reject the authority of women to teach. The Gospel of Mary attacks both of these positions head-on through its portrayal of Mary Magdalene. She is the Savior's beloved, possessed of knowledge and teaching superior to that of the public apostolic tradition. Her superiority is based on vision and private revelation and is demonstrated in her capacity to strengthen the wavering disciples and turn them toward the Good.
Also suggested by Professor King are some doctrinal issues:
... the Gospel of Mary communicates a vision that the world is passing away, not toward a new creation or a new world order, but toward the dissolution of an illusory chaos of suffering, death, and illegitimate domination. The Savior has come so that each soul might discover its own true spiritual nature, its "root" in the Good, and return to the place of eternal rest beyond the constraints of time, matter, and false morality.

My understanding of these analyses is that the Church was adverse to a female having a stature of teaching, along with a possible objection to a "vision of the world" presented in the document. Neither of these make sense because neither issue would change the stature of the leaders of the Church at that time.

Of note, the Acts of the Roman Synod and the Decree of Damasus occurred over 300 years after Mary's death. Mary's gender would have no effect on the hierarchy of the Church at the time of Damasus. It is also unlikely that the concept of finding one's own true spiritual nature would have been a significant contradiction to "authentic" doctrine.

In other words, it does not follow that The Gospel of Mary was excluded on the basis of female hierarchy or of a "vision of the world" presented by the document.

What did follow The Gospel of Mary was the implications regarding Mary's hereditary line -- Mary's bloodline.

Another Consideration

While I do not believe that Mary had drafted a "Gospel" (or for that matter referred to a "Savior"), the origin of these tracts did not seem to be an issue with the compilation of the Decree of Damasus or the Roman Synod.

The most likely explanation for excluding The Gospel of Mary is that there is no suggestion that Mary's descendants were Christian. If Mary was indeed the spiritual heir to the Church, it would be possible to explain how the Church authority changed in 300 years. It is quite another thing to explain how the heirs did not follow the new religion.

Any explanation of the document would present the greater problem; that is where Mary's beliefs fell. That presents a situation where she was supposedly integral to the establishment of a new religion, but happened to not be a part of the new religion.

Mary's actual beliefs were insignificant, since the Church could define her beliefs as they wished. The inconsistency comes when one follows her family line. It would follow that, whatever Mary's belief system was, these beliefs would trace forward through her children. In this case, Mary would have been an organic part of the Church's religion, so if she followed those beliefs, this would necessarily be reflected in the children. If nothing else, the children wouldn't "return" to the older beliefs. This presented the Church with a major problem of dogma.

Mary's bloodline is one of the most researched genealogical histories. If there were Christian descendants of Mary, that would probably have become known. Instead, there is suggestion that the bloodline was retained as some sort of "secret".

Christian historians generally accept that the Christian Church as a separate religion from Judaism developed over time. (The basis for this understanding of history is an entire topic by itself; I will not go into the details here.)

That being the case, a person who is believed to have left Israel at approximately 40 CE would be unlikely to adapt a different religion. The new religion had not developed. More significantly, Jews at the time would have continued to follow Judaism. This is before the Diaspora, but even during the Diaspora, a significant percentage of the Jews continued to follow Judaism.

The real issue is therefore the origin of Christianity. If Mary Magdalene and by implication, her descendants, are held to exist as pivotal figures in Christianity, it would stand to reason that they should be Christian. It is not reasonable to believe that the Christian Church at the time of Damasus had no idea as who these people were. It was therefore a matter of necessity that any teachings relevant to Mary Magdalene after the life of Jesus be expurgated from the Holy Scripture.

Mary Magdalene's status with the Church, and that of her bloodline, would eventually fade to oblivion.

Nobody Expects The Inquisition

The issue of Mary's bloodline apparently did not fizzle out with the Roman Synod and the Decree of Damasus.

The Inquisition was instituted in 1184 in an attempt to abolish the Catharist sect. In 1209, Pope Innocent III sent 30,000 soldiers into the Languedoc region of southern France. This was the home of the Cathars (the Pure Ones), who were said to be the guardians of a great and sacred treasure - a mysterious secret which could overturn orthodox Christianity. More likely, the Cathars were simply a diversion from the Church hierarchy. Nevertheless, the fact that this occurred in the south of France is significant.

The Languedoc action was the so-called Albigensian Crusade. This lasted for thirty-six years, during which time tens of thousands of innocent people were slaughtered -- but a treasure the Albigensian Crusade sought was never found. More likely than not, the Catharsists did not hold more than views independent of the Church. It is likely that the Languedoc action was more likely simply an exercise in antidisestablishmentarianism on the part of the Church. This was soon to change.

In 1231, the main thrust of the Inquisition (or Holy Office as it was called) was instituted by Pope Gregory IX during the course of the Languedoc massacre, and it was set against anyone who supported the Grail heresy. Apparently the Grail was considered more than a belief in the existence of a holy relic.

The issues of "the Grail heresy" apparently remained. On 13-Oct-1307 (the presumed origin of the "Friday 13th" superstition), the Inquisition cooperated with Philip IV of France in arresting and killing the Knights Templar. The Templars were noted for four things:

  1. Their origin in protecting pilgrims.
  2. Their financial functions, which was the apparent incentive for Philip IV's complicity.
  3. Their focus on the trusteeship of the Grail.
  4. Their protection of what they called the "Sangreal" bloodline.

The details of the connection of the Templars with the Grail and Sangreal bloodline were of obvious import to The Inquisition.

Those who can trace their ancestry to include Mary Magdalene would certainly not consider themselves to be "sangreal". This doesn't create a problem for those who are interested in that sort of thing, but it did seem to be a major issue with the Inquisition.
The Inquisition against the Templars was followed a year later by the expulsion of all Jews from France.

The Templars fled to Italy, Scotland and most significantly Portugal, where they established a church at Tomar. The Templar Church at Tomar housed a synagogue after the Spanish Inquisition located beneath the Templar Church. The Spanish Inquisition followed 7 years afterward by the expulsion of the Jews from Portugal under the Inquisition.

The Inquisition (now called The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) still exists. Fortunately, their concern is with such issues as whether Mormon baptisms are valid (negative, June 5-Jun-2001), or the status of formerly divorced persons who remarry. Regardless, they did not renounce the former atrocities.

The relevance of this is that, while Philip IV and Spain's Ferdinand were interested in the financial benefits, the Office of the Inquisition was concerned with religious doctrine which they perceived as threatened by the Templars, and the refusal of the Jews to accept Christianity.

The Gospel of Mary was not the subject of the Inquisition. Nevertheless, if the activities of the Inquisition (or The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) were endorsed by the Church, the acceptance of The Gospel of Mary would run contrary to this. It was irrelevant what the document stated; it's what the recognition of the document represents.


Comments about this site: email me

originally posted 11-Apr-05   rev 25-May-05   Stan Protigal   webspace courtesy Seattle Community Network (SCN has no connection with the subject matter of this site.)