CHAPTER I EVOLUTION

In this chapter, I will discuss the actual history of the very early Christian Manuscripts and then follow their evolution from the very first writing, down on parchment by their assumed authors, through the final versions as accepted Bible Canon of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox, in this case, meaning the accepted views of the then current power structure within the Christian movement. This Bible Canon eventually became known as the Christian Greek Scriptures or New Testament. The reason for beginning here, is to show how and why the importance of Mary Magdalene, and who she was, has been nearly omitted from our modern Bible text.

The first four of these collections of manuscripts are what have come to be called the Four Gospels, and are the only writings from the Christian Greek Scriptures that still do include Mary Magdalene’s name. They are also the manuscripts that follow the actual ministry of Jesus. We are always led to believe that these are firsthand accounts of this ministry, but only two of them are thought to be authored by persons with firsthand knowledge of these events. The first three of these have come to be called synoptic. A word coined for only that purpose, meaning similar. The fourth has been considered Gnostic, almost from its beginning (more on this term later). These four gospels have been named for their alleged authors and therefore are called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The first of these authors, (I will leave out the word alleged from this point, but please consider it to always be there in the case of these four men)Matthew, was also called Levi, which is a name that will come up in the Nag Hammadi chapter. He was known to be a tax collector. Matthew was also one of the named twelve disciples of Jesus’ inner circle, which would of course, make him one of the eyewitness’s to the accounts he describes.

Mark, on the other hand, who is credited with the second gospel, is not known to have ever directly followed Jesus on his ministry. Although, it is assumed he lived at the same time and was probably near the same age, they must not have had much, if any, interaction, as Mark is thought to have received his information from Peter, sometime after the events unfolded. Peter, also, as one of the original twelve disciples, would have had firsthand knowledge of Jesus’ ministry. Peter is credited with authoring some of the Christian Greek Scriptures himself, most notably First and Second Peter.

The third of these authors, Luke, who was also called a physician, was evidently younger than the others and appeared after the ministry of Jesus. Luke was known to be a companion of Paul and is assumed to have garnered most of his information from this source. Paul, originally, had been persecuting Christians under the name of Saul but then was converted to Christianity, and had his name changed to Paul.

Paul is also considered responsible for authoring much of the Christian Greek Scriptures himself. As we can see, not only would Luke not have been a witness to Jesus’ ministry, but his main source of information, Paul, had no firsthand knowledge either. Luke is also credited with the authorship of the Book of Acts.

The author of the fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John, had always been assumed to be John, son of Zebedee, the brother of James. Both of these men were, along with Peter and Matthew, also of the original twelve disciples of Jesus. Of these four Gospels, this one attributed to John seems to have much more detailed information, especially in relating to the events surrounding the crucifixion. Evidently, the author of this text had been very close to these events as they unfolded. Of course, one of my premises is that Mary Magdalene was the true author of this Gospel and, as I will show throughout this book, Mary Magdalene was the one person who was a constant companion to Jesus throughout his ministry.

The reason John had originally received credit for the Gospel that bears his name, was based on the attestation of Irenaeus in the second century. Irenaeus was said to be a disciple of a disciple, and supposedly received this information from Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna while he (Irenaeus) was still a young child.

Today it is widely acknowledged that John did not write this Gospel and, of course, there is much speculation on who did. It is true that either Mary Magdalene or John, son of Zebedee would have had this firsthand knowledge of these events as they unfolded. But Mary was named as being at the crucifixion and John was not.

None of these manuscripts are believed to have been written before at least 60 A.D. With Jesus having been crucified in about the year 30 A.D., which would shortly after have ended the events covered in these four Gospels, we can see through simple math that at least thirty years had transpired between the actual events and their recording onto parchment.

The Synoptic Gospels, or first three Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are so similar they appear to be copies of one of them. Although, as I will show in the chapter called “The Beloved Disciple”, there are some glaring differences. These similarities and differences are what is known as the Synoptic Problem.

The Fourth Gospel is in no way similar to the first three. It is described by a word I used earlier, Gnostic. Gnosticism has many forms but generally divides God into a number of Divine Aeons and is based on a knowledge superior to and independent of faith.

Gnostics also believe that the Resurrection has already occurred. For these reasons, the Gospel of John had been largely rejected by many of the early Christians. Only after Irenaeus accepted it in the second century, was this work included into the Orthodox Bible Canon, although it had always been accepted by the Gnostic Christians.

Taking all four of these Gospels at face value, which would be factual coverage of the Ministry of Jesus, but understanding that nothing major was written down earlier than 30 years after the fact, it is easy for me to believe there would be some errors. Don’t forget, two of these writers were not even there (Mark and Luke), and the Gospels attributed to them could even be considered copies of parts of Matthews’ manuscripts.

The detractors to this statement will say the three Synoptic Gospels are so similar because of Divine Inspiration, these men were inspired by God to write as they did. Paul says in his second letter to Timothy at 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”. Of course there are problems with this. First is, as I have said, there are glaring differences between the first three Gospels and also between those three and the fourth. I will bring some of these out as they relate to my original premises.

Another question would seem to be what exactly is Divine Inspiration? Did God hold the pen of the writer and move it on the parchment? Or would it be more like the works of Mark Twain? That is, writing inspired by the Great River? Also, as the Christian movement continued, there were a great many more works that appeared on and about Jesus’ life and ministry. Who was it that decided which were divinely inspired and which were not?

Actually, during the next thirty to forty years, there would be a virtual flood of writings about Jesus’ ministry and the early Christian movement, credited to such writers as Luke and Peter and Paul, as I have mentioned but also many, many others. Jesus had been gone now for over seventy years. The Christian movement was into the first century and rapidly growing. But it was growing in several different directions. Some of the early apostles (as they were now called) are trying to put all of this information into some kind of Orthodox doctrine. They would, of course, be working with transcribers (another word for editors), translating and then transposing all of these written records. Remember, no electronic copiers.

Most of these men have already developed strong beliefs of their own on the things that Jesus had taught. Of course, Jesus had only taught one message, but by now there are three major differences in doctrine that actually concerned the Divinity of Jesus, himself. Some believed Jesus was God, others that he was a God therefore Divine, but the son of the true God, and others that he was a man and not Divine at all. There were also many lesser doctrines that divided this young Christian movement even further. As these transcribers had already, for the most part, established their own beliefs, and while they were transposing manuscripts, if they happened across a word that did not seem right to them, they could simply leave it out. If they came across a whole manuscript they did not agree with, they could declare it heresy and destroy it.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the controversy concerning the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark, 16:9-20. These verses are absent from the oldest Greek Manuscripts which end at 16:8. Evidently they were added to this Gospel much later. It is easy to see they do not continue the thought of the 16th chapter up through verse 8. The chapter begins with Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bringing spices to the tomb on the first day of the week (Sunday morning). Nearly identical to Matthew 28:1 except the version in Matthew only mentions the other Mary. Mark’s account continues with the women seeing a young man, (Matthew says an Angel) who tells them Jesus is risen and to go tell his disciples that he will see them in Galilee. From verse 9 we read that when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene and she went and told them that had been with him. So these later verses, from verse 9 and after seem to contradict the first part of chapter 16. These last 12 verses are also where the thought that believers can take up poisonous snakes and drink poison without harm, comes from. These verses appear in many versions of the Bible as accepted Canon (the King James, for one). In many versions they are included with footnotes as in the Jerusalem Bible. The Roman Catholic Church official view is that whether they were written by Mark or not, they are inspired writings and therefore part of the accepted Bible Canon of the Roman Church. My own view is that it clearly shows the mark of a transcriber fixing things.

I do not believe, for the most part, that these men were liars. Most of them thought they were doing what was right. They were merely assessing the true doctrines of faith as they knew them.

Through all of this and what is the ultimate concern of my own book is what all of these transcribers thought of the role of women in these early manuscripts, the early Christian Church, and most importantly, in Jesus’ own life. To answer this, we only need look at the expected role of women in this area of the known world in the 1st century, such as in Israel itself. Women were akin to slaves. They were in fact, considered as second class citizens. The fact that they are mentioned in scriptures as followers of Jesus at all is unusual and that some would even actually be named in his biographies is even more unusual.

In first century Rome, which is of course who ruled Israel, women could not vote or stand for office and women had no formal role in public life. Of course any male author of the original manuscripts, as well as any later transcribers, knew and accepted these roles of women in the first century world. Even among the Apostles themselves, women were not considered equal. Paul writes in his first letter to Timothy 2:8-14 “I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefreedness and sobriety, not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array. But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the women learn in silence with all subjection, but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence, for Adam was first formed then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression”.

Paul again, in his first letter to the Corinthians 15:4-8, in describing witnesses to the resurrection writes “and he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Ce-phas (Semitic for Peter) then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once: of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James: then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time”. In all of this Paul fails to mention Mary Magdalene even though in three of the Gospels she was named as the first to witness the risen Christ John 20:16 Mark 16:9 and Matthew 28:9 although in the passage in Matthew she is accompanied by the other Mary, probably Mary the wife of Cleopus. In Luke’s Gospel account of this event, Luke 24: Mary Magdalene and other women are told Jesus had risen by, in this case, evidently, two Angels. In this scripture Cleopus and Simon Peter are the first to see Jesus after the resurrection. So only in the Gospel of Luke is Paul seemingly accurate. But remember Luke received his information of all the events of the resurrection from Paul.

It is hard for me to believe that except for motherhood, women’s names have survived in Bible Canon at all. For instance, Peter is known to have been married, (Mark 1:30) but his wife is never named. Jesus, himself, clearly did not share these same worldly views of women, as I will show in later chapters. Transcribers would have certainly believed they were doing the right thing by editing women out of the important roles they had shared with men in Jesus’ ministry such as discipleship and later on, apostleship.

Now we have the man, Irenaeus of Lyons, again, who is responsible, in the second century, for bringing many of the manuscripts into one collection of what he considered Orthodox Christianity. Irenaeus had written that the only way for Christians to retain unity was to humbly accept one doctrinal authority which, of course, was fashioned after his own beliefs.

Irenaeus had written a book about 180 A.D. called Adversus Haereses or Against Heresies, in which he attacked Gnosticism and Gnostics, who believed they possessed a secret oral tradition from Jesus, himself. Due largely to Irenaeus’ persecution of the Gnostic sects they were basically eradicated from the Roman Empire. Although they did, strangely , continue to flourish in the Languedoc region for another 1000 years. After all of this, the Orthodox or accepted view, at least in the Roman Empire, became Catholic. Any other interpretation became heterodoxal or not the accepted view.

There was one more major attack on this so called Orthodoxy that, by now, was being called Catholicism. It appeared in the form of the doctrine called Arianism, a type of Christianity that had survived the transcribers and was being taught by a man named Arius. Arius believed that Jesus and God were two separate persons as opposed to the Catholic view which taught that Jesus and God were the same person (the doctrine of the Trinity appeared later). In about 324 A.D. the then Roman Emperor, Constantine, saw that these two views were dividing his empire, so to settle this dispute, he called for the , now famous, Council of Nicea of 325 A.D. with over 300 Bishops attending, as well as Constantine, himself. They argued the merits of Arianism and Catholicism as well as many other points of doctrine, which included such things as the date they should celebrate Easter, and which of the surviving manuscripts should be included as Bible Canon, although most of the editing was already done and Irenaeus had removed most Gnostic material. Catholicism, of course, won against Arianism. Following is the letter Constantine had sent out after the Council of Nicea.

“To the Bishops and Nations everywhere. In as much as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked it is right, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected, as therefore Porphyry, who was the enemy of the fear of God and wrote wicked and unlawful writings against the religion of Christians, found the reward which befitted him that he might be a reproach to all generations after, because he fully and insatiably used base fame, so that on this account his writings were righteously destroyed. This also now it seems good that Arius and the holders of his opinion should all be called Porphyrians, that he may be named by the name of those evil ways he imitates, and not only this but also that all the writings of Arius wherever they may be found shall be delivered to be burned with fire. In order that not only his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed, but also the memory of himself and of his doctrine may be blotted out. That there may not by any means remain to him remembrance in the world. Now this I also ordain, that if any one shall be found secreting any writing composed by Arius and shall not forthwith deliver up and burn it with fire, his punishment shall be death. For as soon as he is caught in this he shall suffer capital punishment by beheading without delay”.

After all of this, Constantine, himself, later embraced Arianism and died a baptized Arian in 337 A.D.

This basically completes the Christian Greek Scriptures as we know them today. Interestingly enough, of all the transcribing and original manuscripts from the followers of Jesus and all of the various copies, nothing but a few fragments exist today that are any older than the late fourth century.

Even after all of this editing, there is still a surprising number of clues that I will use to help prove the premises that I have put forth. These clues along, with collaboration from other sources, such as the Gospel of Mary from the Papyrus Codex called the Codex Berolinensis 8502, discovered in 1896 and the Nag Hammadi Library, which is a Gnostic Library of Christian literature, dating from earlier than any surviving portions of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Discovered in 1945, these manuscripts do not seem to show the editing out of the female role as do the Christian Greek Scriptures. Although, they do show some serious contentions arising between Mary Magdalene and some of the other disciples, which I will show, is partly responsible for the editing of Mary Magdalene out of her rightful place in Scripture.