[Paleopsych] Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel?

Premise Checker checker at panix.com
Sat Jan 22 16:21:11 UTC 2005

Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel? by Ramon K. Jusino, M.A. 

All biblical citations taken from HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, 
1973, 1978 by the International Bible Society. [He should have used the 
original, the King James Version.

[It's a fascinating article. The Gospel according to St. John is excerpted 
in WIllis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer, edd., _The Gnostic Bible_ (Boston: 
Shambhala, 2003) as an instance of "gnostic" writing, and the extant pages 
of apocryphal Gospel of Mary [Magdalene] is clearly "gnostic." She was, of 
course, the first witness to the resurrection of Jesus in some of the 
canonical gospels and was not at all the whore, conflated with the passage 
in Luke, so commonly depicted from the Middle Ages onward. In the Gospel 
of Mary, her visions from Jesus are disputed by St. Peter, who found it 
difficult to imagine that such a vision could come from a mere woman. 
Christianity was, indeed, more feminist than the surrounding religions, 
and it has great appeal among the downbeat urban proles in its early 
years, though not when it spread to Germany. (See James C. Russell, _The 
Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach 
to Religious Transformation_ (Oxford UP, 1994) for the latter story.)

[Karen L. King, _The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman 
Apostle_ (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2003) mumbles only a couple of 
paragraphs about why Mary's "gnostic" vision did not get incorporated into 
"orthodox" Christianity, something about the needs of "patriarchy." 
Perhaps, come to think of it, and given that marginal movements attract 
marginal people, in this case women at the time, as Christianity moved up 
the respectability ladder, it would be bad form to claim that the author 
of the fourth gospel was a woman. But this movement up the respectability 
ladder was much too soon. (King has concluded that the Gospel of Mary was 
early second century, despite that the Coptic translation of the original 
Greek dates from the fifth century, though there are earlier and somewhat 
different fragments in Greek, but they date to the third century.)

[I have at least looked at a great many non-canonical gospels. There are 
certain infancy accounts and certain resurrection accounts (these last 
differing not much from the canonical accounts), but none present a 
complete and connected story of the life of Jesus from the beginning of 
his ministry onwards. And a great many of them are simply strange. The 
canonical accounts won out on literary grounds alone. But John's, or Mary 
Magdalene's, account is very different from the others, as we all know. It 
is not impossible that his account had a great many passages of a 
"gnostic" sort that mostly got edited out. Even if the Holy Ghost 
supervised the writing of the fourth gospel, it doesn't mean the editors 
could not have removed embarrassing passages.

[Anyhow, enjoy the article and let me know what you think of it.]


    This article makes a case for ascribing authorship of the Fourth
    Gospel (the Gospel of John) in the New Testament to Mary Magdalene. As
    far as I know -- no previously published work has made an argument in
    support of this hypothesis. Most biblical scholars today assert that
    the Fourth Gospel was authored by an anonymous follower of Jesus
    referred to within the Gospel text as the Beloved Disciple. It is
    posited here that, in an earlier tradition of the Fourth Gospel's
    community, the now "anonymous" Beloved Disciple was known to be Mary
    Magdalene. It is further posited that Mary Magdalene is the true
    founder and hero of what has come to be known as the Johannine
    Community (i.e., Mary Magdalene was one of the original apostolic
    founders and leaders of the early Christian church).
    I realize that this hypothesis may seem very radical and perhaps
    unorthodox to you. However, I believe that it is well-founded and I
    respectfully offer the following in support of it. The evidence
    supporting this thesis includes some of the Gnostic Christian writings
    of the Nag Hammadi Library, and internal evidence from the text of the
    Fourth Gospel itself. This study also relies heavily on the Johannine
    Community research done by [16]Raymond E. Brown (America's foremost
    Catholic biblical scholar).
    I have made every attempt to write this article in such a way that it
    can be easily followed and understood by those without prior biblical
    scholarship knowledge. It is written and dedicated to those who
    embrace the love of God, who love and respect the church, and who are
    open-minded enough to investigate new ideas without feeling threatened
    by them. (A [17]Works Cited list is provided for you at the end of
    this article.)


    To this day, Mary Magdalene remains a most elusive and mysterious
    figure. Speculation about her role in the development of early
    Christianity is not new. She has been the subject of many different
    theories and myths throughout ecclesiastical history. Such speculation
    is the result of the deafening silence from the Scriptures regarding
    this woman who is cited by all four Gospels as being present at both
    the Crucifixion of Jesus and the Empty Tomb on the morning of the
    Resurrection. Why is it that we know virtually nothing else about her?
    Has she made contributions to the development of the early church of
    which we are not aware?
    Here is a fact that few people seem to know: The Bible never
    explicitly says that Mary Magdalene was ever a prostitute at any point
    in her life. Luke does not name her in his narrative about the
    "penitent whore" who washes the feet of Jesus with her hair (7:36-50).
    Nor is she named as the woman who was caught in the act of adultery
    and saved from being stoned to death by Jesus (John 8:1-11). She is
    identified as once having been demon-possessed (Luke 8:2). However,
    the assumption that her sinful past consisted primarily of sexual sin
    is a presumption that is not usually made about the men who are
    identified as former sinners. [18]Susan Haskins has published an
    excellent study of the many myths and misconceptions surrounding Mary
    Magdalene. Her book is a "must read" for anyone who wishes to do a
    serious study of the Magdalene.
    We begin by presupposing the following well-settled position: The many
    positive contributions made by women to the development of the early
    church have been minimized throughout history. Claudia Setzer has
    recently reminded us that women, especially Mary Magdalene, were
    essential witnesses to the Risen Christ. Setzer [19](259) asserts that
    the prominent role of female disciples was an early and firmly
    entrenched piece of tradition which quickly became an embarrassment to
    the male leaders of the emerging institutional church. Many prominent
    scholars have argued, quite convincingly, that there was a concerted
    effort on the part of the male leadership of the early church to
    suppress the knowledge of any major contributions made by female
    disciples. It is asserted here that much of Mary Magdalene's legacy
    fell victim to this suppression.
    This study posits the theory that the Fourth Gospel, once universally
    believed to have been authored by John of Zebedee, was actually
    authored by Mary Magdalene. It is further posited that she was the
    Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel and, therefore, the founder and
    leader of what has come to be known as the Johannine Community.
    Indeed, there is more evidence pointing to her authorship of the
    Fourth Gospel than there ever was pointing to authorship by John.
    The research of Raymond E. Brown [20](1979) is used as the primary
    basis for this study. Brown's research on the Johannine Community is
    clearly second-to-none. He is readily acknowledged by most theologians
    today as America's foremost Catholic Scripture scholar. This study
    does not dispute any of Brown's essential assertions on this subject.
    Rather, I use much of Brown's research to substantiate the hypothesis
    in this article. This study builds on Brown's research by attempting
    to identify the author of the Fourth Gospel where Brown does not. At
    one time, Brown did argue that the Fourth Gospel was authored by John
    of Zebedee [21](1966: xcviii). However, Brown has since changed his
    view on this because he found that there was little evidence to
    support Johannine authorship of this Gospel [22](1979: 33).
    Mary Magdalene is posited as the author of the Fourth Gospel in the
    sense in which antiquity defined authorship [23](Brown 1990:
    1051-1052). The author is the person whose ideas the book expresses,
    not necessarily the person who set pen to papyrus [24](Brown 1966:
    lxxxvii). According to Brown, the Fourth Gospel was authored by an
    anonymous follower of Jesus referred to in the Gospel text as the
    Beloved Disciple. This Beloved Disciple knew Jesus personally and was
    in the originating group of the Johannine Community [25](Brown 1979:
    31). The Fourth Gospel was based on this disciple's own eyewitness
    account (John 21:24). Brown identifies several phases in the
    development of the Fourth Gospel: 1) the initial pre-Gospel version
    authored by the Beloved Disciple; 2) the pre-Gospel work produced by
    "the evangelist" or main writer; and, 3) the final version written by
    a redactor after the death of the Beloved Disciple [26](1979:22-23).
    I assert that Mary Magdalene's contribution to the writing of the
    Fourth Gospel took place within the first phase of development
    identified by Brown -- i.e., the initial pre-Gospel version. The
    Gospel went through several phases of modification. The end result of
    these modifications was the eventual suppression of her role as author
    of this Gospel and leader of their community.
    Before we go any further, let us take a look at what the Fourth Gospel
    actually says about this Beloved Disciple. In the Gospel of John there
    are seven passages which refer to the beloved anonymous founder of the
    Johannine Community. These passages are as follows:
    1. (1:35-40) This passage refers to "another disciple" who heard John
    the Baptist and followed Jesus along with Andrew, the brother of Simon
    Peter. Even though this passage does not specifically refer to the
    disciple as being loved by Jesus, Brown argues that this passage is a
    reference to the Beloved Disciple. He says that the disciple is not
    referred to as the beloved simply because he is not yet a disciple of
    Jesus at this point in the story [27](Brown 1979: 33).
    2. (13:23-26) This passage clearly refers to the anonymous disciple as
    "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The disciple is sitting next to Jesus
    during the Last Supper. Peter nods to the disciple to get him to ask
    Jesus for the identity of his betrayer. The disciple asks Jesus and
    Jesus tells him that his betrayer is, of course, going to be Judas
    3. (18:15-16) After the arrest of Jesus, the other disciple is allowed
    to enter the courtyard of the high priest with him. Peter, on the
    other hand, was not allowed in at first. Peter was let in only after
    the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, spoke to the
    gatekeeper. The other disciple is not explicitly referred to as the
    Beloved Disciple. However, Brown asserts that this passage refers to
    the same disciple whom Jesus loved [28](1979: 82).
    4. (19:25-27) The Beloved Disciple is at the foot of the Cross along
    with the mother of Jesus, and other women including Mary Magdalene.
    Jesus tells the Beloved Disciple to take care of his mother. The
    disciple is said to have taken the mother of Jesus into his home.
    5. (20:1-11) Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved run to the Empty
    Tomb after being told by Mary Magdalene that the body of the Lord was
    6. (21:7) In this passage, several of the disciples are out fishing
    after the Resurrection of Christ. The Beloved Disciple is the first to
    notice that the man who was speaking to them was Jesus. The disciple
    says to Peter, "It is the Lord!"
    7. (21:20-24) The Beloved Disciple's death is addressed in a
    conversation between Peter and the Risen Christ. The passage also
    asserts that the Gospel was written by the Beloved Disciple and based
    on his eyewitness testimony. Chapter 21 was obviously written by a
    redactor (or editor) after the death of the Beloved Disciple.
    You may note at this point that in the above cited passages from the
    Gospel of John, the Beloved Disciple is clearly male. Also, in
    19:25-27 and 20:1-11 the Beloved Disciple and Mary Magdalene appear in
    the same scenes simultaneously. How can I allege that Mary Magdalene
    is the Beloved Disciple in light of this? The answer will be addressed
    in detail below. But for now: The reason that the Beloved Disciple was
    turned into a man in the text was because this disciple was clearly
    the founder and hero of the community that produced this Gospel. At
    some point after the death of Jesus, the emerging male leadership of
    that community simply became embarrassed about having a female
    founder. (Remember, we're dealing with male attitudes towards women
    2,000 years ago.) In order to "mainstream" their community, they
    suppressed some of the more radical practices that Jesus taught them
    through his example -- such as treating everyone with equal dignity
    and respect, including the sick, the poor, the oppressed, the outcast,
    and women. Jesus apparently did not object to men and women sharing
    power and positions of leadership. Some of his successors, however,
    were not courageous enough to be so radical. So, in the case of the
    Gospel of John, the female Beloved Disciple had to become male. I will
    elaborate on just how I believe this happened below.
    One fact is very clear: For some reason, the writer of the Gospel of
    John wanted to keep the identity of the Beloved Disciple a secret.
    This disciple was obviously an extremely important figure in the
    history of their community. Why, then, is the name of this disciple
    concealed? Was the goal to protect this disciple from persecution?
    Hardly -- after all, the disciple was clearly deceased when the final
    draft of John's Gospel was produced (21:20-24). Is it possible that
    the writer of the final draft had forgotten the name of their beloved
    founder? Not very likely. This is, indeed, an interesting mystery.
    Today, the majority of biblical scholars, both Catholic and
    Protestant, assert that St. John of Zebedee did not write the Gospel
    that bears his name. They ascribe authorship to the "anonymous"
    Beloved Disciple. So, if the evidence pointing to John as author of
    this Gospel is so flimsy -- how, then, did this book become known
    universally as the Gospel of John?
    The Fourth Gospel was initially accepted earliest by "heterodox"
    rather than "orthodox" Christians [29](Brown 1979: 147). The oldest
    known commentary on the Fourth Gospel is that of the Gnostic Heracleon
    (d. 180). The Valentinian Gnostics appropriated the Fourth Gospel to
    such an extent that Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202) had to refute their
    exegesis of it. Brown well notes the relationship between the Fourth
    Gospel and the early Christian Gnostics when he writes that there is
    "abundant evidence of familiarity with Johannine ideas in
    the...gnostic library from Nag Hammadi" [30](1979: 147). In contrast
    to this, Brown points out that clear use of the Fourth Gospel in the
    early church by "orthodox" sources is difficult to prove [31](1979:
    148). This would seem to suggest that the contents of the Fourth
    Gospel, at one point, were not attractive to "orthodox" Christians yet
    very attractive to Gnostic Christians for some reason. In fact, the
    earliest indisputable "orthodox" use of the Fourth Gospel was by
    Theophilus of Antioch, c. 180 A.D., in his Apology to Autolycus. This
    strong connection between the Fourth Gospel and Gnostic Christians
    provides significant support for my thesis.
    If you are unfamiliar with [32]Gnostics, I suggest that you look them
    up. They were branded as heretics by the emerging institutional church
    very early on in ecclesiastical history. Of significance to this study
    is the following: Many Gnostic groups practiced radical
    egalitarianism. They believed that God acted and spoke through both
    men and women. Both men and women were known to be leaders and/or
    prophets in their communities. Many men, including those in the
    church, felt threatened by them.
    The popularity of the Fourth Gospel among Gnostics made it important
    for the early church to pursue the question of its apostolic
    authorship [33](Perkins: 946). It was Irenaeus who defended the
    apostolicity of the Fourth Gospel by appealing to a tradition
    circulating in Asia Minor which, he claimed, linked John of Zebedee to
    the Fourth Gospel. The testimony of Irenaeus, however, makes for very
    tenuous evidence establishing John of Zebedee as the Fourth Gospel's
    author. First of all, it turned out that Irenaeus confused John of
    Zebedee with a presbyter from Asia Minor who was also named John.
    Secondly, Irenaeus claimed that he got his information about Johannine
    authorship of the Fourth Gospel when he was a child from Polycarp,
    bishop of Smyrna (d. 156) [34](Perkins: 946). The church tradition
    that established John as the author of the Fourth Gospel was based,
    primarily, on Irenaeus' childhood recollections! It is mainly for this
    reason, in the absence of other supporting evidence, that the majority
    of biblical scholars today assert that John was not the author of the
    Fourth Gospel.
    Brown's research reveals that there was a schism early in the history
    of the Johannine Community. He posits that the community divided in
    two due to an internal christological disagreement. The majority of
    the community, whom Brown refers to as the Secessionists, defended the
    community's high christology and moved toward Docetism, Montanism, and
    Gnosticism [35](Brown 1979: 149). The rest of the community, whom
    Brown refers to as the Apostolic Christians, were amalgamated into the
    emerging institutional church. The Apostolic Christians became
    accepted as "orthodox" believers because they were willing to modify
    their christological beliefs in order to conform to the teachings of
    the emerging church hierarchy. The Secessionists, the majority of the
    Johannine Community, were quickly labeled as "heretics" by the
    institutional church because they did not make any such modifications.
    This schism took place before the final canonical redaction of the
    Fourth Gospel. The final redaction that we have today is the work of
    an editor belonging to the group which aligned itself with the
    institutional church. Both groups, however, took their pre-canonical
    version of the Fourth Gospel with them after the schism and claimed it
    as their own [36](Brown 1979: 149).
    My hypothesis includes the assertion that, at the time of the schism,
    this pre-canonical version of the Fourth Gospel clearly identified
    Mary Magdalene as the Beloved Disciple. The Secessionists, as Brown
    calls them, preserved the tradition of the Magdalene as the Beloved
    Disciple -- the founder and hero of their community. The Secessionists
    brought their tradition with them to several Gnostic groups. This
    explains Mary Magdalene's identification as the Beloved Disciple in
    several ancient Gnostic documents from a corpus of literature known as
    the Nag Hammadi Library.
    The Apostolic Christians, on the other hand, gravitated toward the
    institutional church and were pressured into suppressing, among other
    things, their tradition claiming that a woman was their founder and
    former leader. The end result of this suppression is the Fourth Gospel
    as we have it today.
    The following outline charts the events which led to the dissemination
    of the pre-canonical version of the Fourth Gospel to both "heterodox"
    and "orthodox" Christians. It is based on the outline from Brown
    [37](1979: 166) on the history of the Johannine Community:
    FIRST STAGE -- (mid-50s to late 80s A.D.): The originating group of
    the community is led by Mary Magdalene. She is highly esteemed as the
    primary witness to the Resurrection of Christ. She is recognized as
    such even by believers who do not belong to this particular community.
    She is known, very early on, as the companion of Jesus, and the
    disciple whom Jesus loved. An essential part of their proclamation of
    the gospel is the fact that Mary Magdalene was the first to see the
    Risen Christ.
    SECOND STAGE -- (c. 80-90 A.D.): At this point, the community has a
    version of their Gospel, either written or oral, which includes the
    tradition that Mary Magdalene was their founder, hero, and leader.
    Mary Magdalene is probably deceased by this time. There is a schism in
    the community which is most likely the result of an internal dispute
    about their high christology. The community is divided into two groups
    which Brown calls the Secessionists, and the Apostolic Christians.
    THIRD STAGE -- (c. 90-100 A.D.):
    The Apostolic Christians: As the church becomes a more organized
    institution, this group is fearful of ostracism and persecution. They
    seek amalgamation with the leaders of the emerging institutional
    church. The claim that a female disciple of Jesus had been their
    community's first leader and hero quickly becomes an embarrassment.
    They need to obscure that fact if they are to be accepted by the male
    leadership of the growing organized church. A redactor in this
    community reworks their Gospel in order to make it consistent with
    this obscuration. The result of this redaction is the canonical Fourth
    Gospel as we have it today.
    The Secessionists: They are the largest of the two groups. They hold
    on to their tradition which cites Mary Magdalene as the Beloved
    Disciple of Jesus. Many members of this community take this tradition
    to various Gnostic groups. Their identification of Mary Magdalene as
    the disciple whom Jesus loved is reflected in the Gnostic Christian
    writings of Nag Hammadi -- e.g., the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel
    of Mary.
    The evidence which links authorship of the Fourth Gospel to Mary
    Magdalene is found in the Gnostic writings of the Nag Hammadi Library.
    Of particular interest are the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary
    (referring to Magdalene).
    [38]The Nag Hammadi Library was discovered in 1945 in the area of Nag
    Hammadi in Egypt. Much has been written about it since its publication
    in the mid-1970s. This library consists of 4th century Coptic
    manuscripts which are copies of manuscripts originally written in
    Greek. These manuscripts belonged to Gnostic Christians. Most scholars
    cite the mid-second century as the earliest plausible date of
    composition for these documents. However, a few of the documents are
    said by some to have been written as early as the late first century
    -- making them contemporary with the New Testament Gospels
    [39](Haskins: 34). The importance of this 1945 discovery cannot be
    Let's look at a few important excerpts from the Nag Hammadi Library.
    This first passage comes to us from the Gospel of Philip:

      ** And the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ
      loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her
      [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended]
      by it [and expressed disapproval]. They said to him, "Why do you
      love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to
      them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who
      sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one
      another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light,
      and he who is blind will remain in darkness" (NHC II.3.63.32ff)
      [40](Robinson 1977: 138).**

    Another passage from the Gospel of Philip reads as follows:

      **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 (NHC
      II.3.59.6-11) [41](Robinson 1988: 145).**

    The Gospel of Mary (referring to the Magdalene) says the following:

      **Peter said to Mary, "Sister, we know that the Savior loved you
      more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior which
      you remember -- which you know (but) we do not, nor have we heard
      them." Mary answered and said, "What is hidden from you I will
      proclaim to you." (NHC BG 8502.1.10.1-8) [42](Robinson 1988:

    At this point in the text, Mary Magdalene goes on to tell Peter,
    Andrew, and Levi about her visions of the Risen Christ and her
    conversations with the Lord. These visions involve something which she
    refers to as the seven powers of wrath (NHC BG 8502.1.16.12-13)
    [43](Robinson 1988: 526). After she concludes her discourse about her
    revelations from the Lord, the men argue over whether to accept the
    authenticity of the Magdalene's vision.
    The Gospel of Mary concludes as follows:

      **When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this
      point that the Savior had spoken with her. But Andrew answered and
      said to the brethren, "Say what you (wish to) say about what she
      has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For
      certainly these teachings are strange ideas." Peter answered and
      spoke concerning these same things. He questioned them about the
      Savior: "Did he really speak with a woman without our knowledge
      (and) not openly? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did
      he prefer her to us?"
      Then Mary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what do you
      think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart, or
      that I am lying about the Savior?" Levi answered and said to Peter,
      "Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending
      against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her
      worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows
      her very well. That is why he loved her more than us. Rather let us
      be ashamed and put on the perfect man and acquire him for ourselves
      as he commanded us, and preach the gospel, not laying down any
      other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said." When [...]
      and they began to go forth [to] proclaim and to preach. (NHC BG
      8502.1.17.7ff) [44](Robinson 1988: 526-527).**

    For some reason, there are four pages missing from the account of her
    revelations in the extant text. In all, ten of the nineteen pages of
    the Gospel of Mary are missing [45](Robinson 1988: 524, 526).
    Clearly, these passages establish as indisputable fact that, at least
    in some ancient gnostic communities, Mary Magdalene was thought of as
    having been the "Beloved Disciple" and the companion of the Lord. She
    is repeatedly singled out as the disciple whom Jesus loved the most.
    This would seem to contradict the assertion in the Fourth Gospel that
    the male founder of the Johannine Community is "the disciple whom
    Jesus loved" (John 13:23). How can there be two strong traditions each
    identifying two different people as the disciple whom Jesus loved the
    most? This begins to make sense only if we explore the possibility
    that, in reality, both of these traditions are referring to the same
    There is no doubt that the Beloved Disciple in the canonical version
    of the Fourth Gospel is an anonymous male disciple. Yet, as we have
    seen, the writings of the Nag Hammadi Library reflect a strong
    tradition repeatedly naming Mary Magdalene as the disciple whom Jesus
    loved. How do we explain this disturbing contradiction? There are only
    three possible explanations for this:
     1. There is no connection between the Fourth Gospel and the Gnostic
        writings cited here. They simply reflect two different traditions
        which cite two different people as Jesus' favorite disciple. This
        is simply a coincidence.
     2. Brown's explanation: The writers of the Gnostic gospels were
        influenced by the portrait of Mary Magdalene as an extraordinary
        proclaimer of the Resurrected Christ. This portrait of Mary
        Magdalene sparked the Gnostic writers to make her the disciple
        whom Jesus loved most and the chief recipient of
        post-resurrectional revelation [46](Brown 1979: 154). In other
        words, the Gnostic writers spawned a tradition naming Mary
        Magdalene as the Beloved Disciple in response to what they had
        read in the Fourth Gospel. In this scenario, the canonical Fourth
        Gospel predates the traditions revealed in the writings of Nag
     3. My thesis: The pre-canonical version of the Fourth Gospel clearly
        named Mary Magdalene as the disciple whom Jesus loved, just as the
        Gnostic writings still do. The Gnostic writings reflect a
        dependency on the pre-Gospel text which the "Secessionists"
        brought to the Gnostic groups after the schism [47](Brown 1979:
        149). The rest of the community, Brown's "Apostolic Christians,"
        also had the same pre-Gospel text. They, however, redacted their
        text in order to make it more acceptable to the emerging
        institutional church which they wished to join. They quashed
        references to Mary Magdalene as having been their founder. They,
        instead, made references in the text to a "Beloved Disciple," but
        turned the disciple into an anonymous male. In two passages of the
        text, their redaction attempts to make the Beloved Disciple and
        Mary Magdalene seem to be two different individuals by having them
        appear together in the same scenes. (Structural flaws within those
        passages, discussed below, support this contention.) They did this
        because they knew that the church leaders would not accept the
        authenticity of a Gospel written by a woman. As Brown has
        observed: "The acceptance of the (Fourth) Gospel into the
        canon...was only at the price of an assurance that it had
        apostolic origins" [48](1979: 149). And, in the worldview of the
        institutional church leaders, no woman's ministry could be deemed

    Of the three possible explanations, it is the third which is most
    The first explanation can be easily refuted. There is most certainly a
    connection between the Fourth Gospel and the Gnostic writings cited
    here. Brown's research shows that the majority of the Johannine
    Community (the Secessionists) took a pre-canonical version of the
    Fourth Gospel with them to the Docetists, the Montanists, and the
    Gnostics [49](1979: 149). In addition to this, as we have seen, the
    Fourth Gospel was very popular among Gnostics well before its
    acceptance and canonization by the institutional church [50](Perkins:
    946). And Brown points out that there is "abundant evidence of
    familiarity with Johannine ideas" in the Gnostic writings of Nag
    Hammadi [51](1979: 147). There was obviously much contact between the
    Johannine Community and Gnostic groups very early on. Therefore, it
    cannot be mere coincidence that Mary Magdalene is cited in the Gnostic
    writings as the "disciple whom Jesus loved" in much the same way as
    the anonymous male disciple is cited as such in the Fourth Gospel. The
    similarities are too striking to dismiss as unrelated.
    In order to refute the second explanation, which comes from Brown, we
    must carefully analyze the internal evidence which supports my thesis.

    As previously stated, an important assertion of mine is that a
    redactor carefully concealed the identity of Mary Magdalene as the
    Beloved Disciple, by referring to her only as an anonymous disciple.
    As the redactor reworked the seven passages cited above which refer to
    the Beloved Disciple, he simply changed any reference to Mary
    Magdalene by substituting it with an anonymous reference to the
    Beloved Disciple or to "another disciple." For most of the document
    this was fairly easy to do and the resulting text appeared to be
    congruous. Instead of seeing the Magdalene's name, the reader is
    simply presented with the anonymous male disciple.
    Removing references to Mary Magdalene from most of the story was easy.
    However, in the course of his work, the redactor was confronted with a
    problem. The tradition placing Mary Magdalene at the foot of the Cross
    and at the Empty Tomb on Sunday morning was too strong to deny. The
    Magdalene's presence at both of these events was common knowledge
    among most early Christian communities. (This is evidenced by the fact
    that all three of the other New Testament Gospels report her presence
    at these events.) The redactor could not simply omit any reference to
    the Magdalene at the Crucifixion or any reference to her as a primary
    witness to the Resurrection. However, the redactor still wanted to
    establish the Beloved Disciple as the founder of his community and as
    an eyewitness to these major events in the work of salvation. This
    way, he could still maintain that the founder of his community was an
    eyewitness to the events in the Gospel even though he inexplicably
    fails to reveal his identity (John 21:24).
    At this point, the redactor probably asked himself a question very
    similar to this one: How can I suppress the knowledge of Mary
    Magdalene having been the founder of our community without being so
    obvious as to remove her from the Crucifixion/Resurrection accounts,
    with which most Christians are already familiar?
    The redactor's solution to this problem was actually quite simple. In
    those two events where he could not deny the presence of the
    Magdalene, he would rework the text so as to make it appear as if Mary
    Magdalene and the Beloved Disciple were two different people appearing
    simultaneously in the same place, at the same time. Consequently, Mary
    Magdalene and the male Beloved Disciple appear together in the Fourth
    Gospel in only two passages -- 19:25-27 (at the foot of the Cross) and
    20:1-11 (at the Empty Tomb on Sunday morning). ...Isn't that
    interesting? And it is precisely at these two points that we find some
    major structural inconsistencies within the text of the Fourth Gospel.
    Brown discusses the inconsistencies in both of these passages. (That
    shows that I'm not just reading inconsistencies into passages that
    have none.) Notably, Brown finds no such structural defects in any of
    the other passages which contain references to the Beloved Disciple.
    The passage from the Fourth Gospel which has Mary Magdalene and the
    Beloved Disciple together at the foot of the Cross reads as follows:

      **Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister,
      Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his
      mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he
      said... (John 19:25ff)**

    I cut the passage here in order to make a point. The structure of this
    pericope is very puzzling. In the first sentence (v. 25) we read a
    list of women standing by the Cross of Jesus. In the second sentence
    (v. 26) the writer seems to refer to the aforementioned list of women
    at the Cross when he calls one of them "the disciple whom (Jesus)
    loved." If one were to read only the portion of the passage cited
    above, one would readily assume that the Beloved Disciple is one of
    the women standing by the cross with Jesus' mother. (Read it over to
    yourself and see if you don't agree.)
    The entire passage reads as follows:

      **Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister,
      Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his
      mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he
      said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the
      disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple
      took her into his home. (John 19:25-27)**

    The original pre-Gospel version of this passage probably referred to
    Mary Magdalene as the disciple whom Jesus loved. Through the use of
    masculine determiners and cases (in Greek), the redactor was able to
    change the Beloved Disciple into the anonymous male seemingly in
    mid-thought. The structure of this passage seems a little forced and
    indicates that it was probably altered as I have asserted.
    Brown in no way posits the thesis proposed by me here. However, he did
    notice the inconsistency between v. 25 and vss. 26-27. At one point in
    his discussion of this passage he questions why the Beloved Disciple
    was not included in the list of people standing by the cross in v. 25
    [52](Brown 1970: 922). He noted that the mother of Jesus and the
    Beloved Disciple were not listed by the other three Gospels as having
    stood by the cross. He concluded that the mother of Jesus "was
    specifically mentioned in the tradition that came to the evangelist,
    as seen in vs. 25, but that the reference to the Beloved Disciple...is
    a supplement to the tradition" [53](Brown 1970: 922). Brown sensed,
    for reasons other than those posited here, that the "Beloved Disciple"
    seemed oddly out of place in this passage.
    If we compare John 19:25-27 with the passage from the Gospel of Philip
    cited previously, we notice some striking similarities.

      **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 (NHC
      II.3.59.6-11) [54](Robinson 1988: 145).**

    The Gospel of Philip makes reference to the same group of women that
    are standing by the Cross in the Fourth Gospel. However, the Gospel of
    Philip clearly cites Mary Magdalene as the "companion" of Jesus.
    Brown's explanation for this similarity is that the Gnostic writers
    were somehow influenced by the Fourth Gospel into making Mary
    Magdalene the disciple whom Jesus loved the most [55](1979: 154). In
    other words, as stated previously, he argues that what we read in the
    Gospel of Philip is a reaction to what is written in the canonical
    Fourth Gospel. This is highly unlikely. Asserting that the writer of
    the Gospel of Philip responded in this way to the Fourth Gospel does
    not explain why the structural inconsistency appears in this Fourth
    Gospel passage in the first place. Furthermore, Brown argues that the
    Gnostics made Mary Magdalene into the Beloved Disciple in response to
    her portrayal in the Fourth Gospel. However, he does not attempt to
    explain why the name of the Beloved Disciple in the Fourth Gospel is
    veiled in secrecy in the first place. I believe that the more
    plausible explanation is that the Gnostic literature cited here
    reflects the earlier tradition. The redactor of the Fourth Gospel
    modified that tradition for the reasons stated above.
    The Fourth Gospel passage which has Mary Magdalene and the Beloved
    Disciple together at the Empty Tomb reads as follows:

      **Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary
      Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed
      from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other
      disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord
      out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"
      So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were
      running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb
      first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying
      there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him,
      arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying
      there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus'
      head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.
      Finally, the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also
      went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand
      from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) Then the
      disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb
      crying. (John 20:1-11)**

    The structural inconsistencies in this passage are glaring. In his
    discussion of this pericope Brown observes that "there are an
    extraordinary number of inconsistencies that betray the hand of an
    editor who has achieved organization by combining disparate material"
    [56](1970: 995). This pericope has also been described as containing
    "both high drama and confused choreography" [57](Setzer: 262).
    In his comments on John 20:1-11, Brown cites several inconsistencies.
    One, in particular, that is worth looking at for the purposes of this
    study is this observation by Brown: "It is not clear when or how
    Magdalene got back to the tomb in (v.) 11" [58](1970: 995). Brown
    notices that there is a broken trail in the travels of Mary Magdalene
    from one place to another in this pericope:
      * In v. 2 Mary Magdalene runs AWAY from the tomb to Peter and the
        "other disciple" to tell them that the body of Jesus was missing
        from the tomb. At this point, Mary Magdalene is AWAY from the tomb
        along with Peter and the "other disciple."
      * In v. 3 Peter and the "other disciple" run to the tomb. Mary
        Magdalene is not mentioned as having returned to the tomb with the
        two men. She has stayed behind -- still AWAY from the tomb.
      * In v. 11 Mary Magdalene is abruptly portrayed as remaining behind
        weeping at the tomb. However, there is no account of her returning
        to the tomb in this scene after telling Peter and the "other
        disciple" that the body of Jesus was missing.

    When did Mary Magdalene return to the tomb? The reader loses track of
    her trail between v. 2 and v. 11. Brown noticed this [59](1970: 995).
    I assert that this inconsistency is due to the insertion of her alter
    ego, the male Beloved Disciple, in vss. 2 thru 10. It is obvious that
    this passage has had some extensive re-editing done to it. The
    redactor's effort to conceal the identity of Mary Magdalene as the
    Beloved Disciple, and make two individuals out of one, has created a
    muddled account of the Magdalene's whereabouts between vss. 2 and 10
    in this passage.
    Brown maintains that this passage "has undergone considerable
    development" [60](1970: 1001). He considers the possibility that Luke
    24:12 reflects an earlier tradition in which Peter runs to the tomb
    without the other disciple. A pre-canonical version of the Fourth
    Gospel may have reflected this before the redactor reworked it. Brown
    asserts that the insertion of the Beloved Disciple into the scene in
    John 20 was the work of the redactor. In fact, he maintains that it is
    precisely the introduction of the Beloved Disciple into this text that
    has caused the inconsistencies which I've discussed here [61](Brown
    1970: 1001).
    Setzer describes the insertion of the Beloved Disciple in this passage
    as a "contrivance" [62](262). She notes, as does Brown, that the
    account of Peter and the Beloved Disciple running to the tomb together
    is "sandwiched between" Mary Magdalene's initial discovery of the
    Empty Tomb and her first encounter with the Risen Jesus. She asserts
    that this "contrivance" let the Gospel retain the tradition that Mary
    Magdalene was the first to discover the Empty Tomb while still giving
    the Beloved Disciple prominence as the first person to reach the Empty
    Tomb and believe that Jesus has risen [63](Setzer: 262).
    Setzer's observation is very consistent with the hypothesis that I've
    proposed here. My thesis also alleges a contrivance on the part of the
    final editor of the Fourth Gospel. The redactor wanted to maintain
    that the Gospel was based on the eyewitness testimony of his
    community's founder and hero. However, he did not wish to admit that
    this founder and hero was a woman. Yet, he could not very well deny
    Mary Magdalene's presence at the Crucifixion and the Empty Tomb. So,
    his "contrivance," as Setzer puts it, was to change Mary Magdalene
    into an anonymous male disciple throughout the text except in those
    places where he could not deny her presence due to the strong prior
    tradition to the contrary. In those scenes, he placed the Beloved
    Disciple and Mary Magdalene together in the same passages. This
    accounts for the structural inconsistencies, the confused
    choreography, and the apparent contrivance.
    One other inconsistency which Brown points out [64](1970: 995) is
    worth noting here:

      **Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also
      went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand
      from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) (John

    The contrast between "he saw and believed" in v. 8 and "they still did
    not understand" in v. 9 is peculiar. Verse 9 is clearly making
    reference to verse 8. However, the reference is contradictory. This
    appears to be an attempt to blend two different traditions: one in
    which the disciples did not immediately understand, or believe in, the
    Resurrection (Matthew 28:17; Mark 16:11,13; Luke 24:11), and another
    in which Mary Magdalene, changed here to the "other disciple,"
    instantly perceives the truth (Matthew 28:1,8; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:10).
    Brown draws many conclusions in his research which are consistent with
    my thesis. Indeed, everything in Brown's profile of the Beloved
    Disciple is compatible with what is known about Mary Magdalene -- that
    is, except for her gender.
    Brown notes that "the Johannine attitude toward women was quite
    different from that attested in other first-century Christian
    churches." He adds: "The unique place given to women (as proclaimers)
    in the Fourth Gospel reflects the history, the theology, and the
    values of the Johannine community" [65](Brown 1979: 183). May I
    respectfully suggest an additional explanation? Perhaps, the unique
    place given to women in the Fourth Gospel is due to its having been
    originally authored by a woman.
    Brown suggests that the Johannine picture becomes more understandable
    if the Beloved Disciple had been a disciple of John the Baptist, and
    if the disciple began to follow Jesus when Jesus was in fellowship
    with the Baptist [66](1979: 32-34). This is certainly a plausible
    scenario which does not contradict my thesis.
    Brown also notes that the Fourth Gospel contains many accurate
    references to Holy Land places and customs [67](1979: 22). These
    references suggest eyewitness authorship by someone who lived in the
    Holy Land before the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. All of
    these observations by Brown are consistent with a paradigm that
    includes Mary Magdalene as the author of the Fourth Gospel.
    Another factor which tends to support my thesis is the "one-upmanship"
    of the Beloved Disciple in relation to Peter in the Fourth Gospel
    [68](Brown 1979: 31). The juxtapositional relationship between Peter
    and the Beloved Disciple in the Fourth Gospel is very similar to the
    relationship between Peter and Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi
    Corpus. This suggests that the redactor of the Fourth Gospel changed
    Mary Magdalene into the anonymous male disciple but kept the
    competition motif between the disciple and Peter.
    Brown has observed that very often in the Fourth Gospel the Beloved
    Disciple is explicitly contrasted with Peter. Some of the examples
    that he points out [69](Brown 1979: 82-83) are as follows:
      * in 13:23-26 the Beloved Disciple is resting on Jesus' chest while
        Peter has to petition the Disciple to ask Jesus a question for
      * in 18:15-16 the Beloved Disciple has access to the high priest's
        palace while Peter does not;
      * in 20:2-10 the Beloved Disciple immediately believes in the
        Resurrection while Peter and the rest of the disciples do not
      * in 21:7 the Beloved Disciple is the only one who recognizes the
        Risen Christ while he speaks from the shore to the disciples on
        their fishing boat;
      * in 21:20-23 Peter jealously asks Jesus about the fate of the
        Beloved Disciple.

    The writings of the Nag Hammadi Library contain this same kind of
    "one-upmanship" between Peter and Mary Magdalene:
      * the Gospel of Mary portrays Peter as being jealous of the
        revelations that the Magdalene got from the Risen Christ (NHC BG
        8502.1.17.7ff) [70](Robinson 1988: 526-527);
      * the Gospel of Thomas has Peter saying the following about the
        Magdalene: "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life"
        (NHC II.2.51.19-20) [71](Robinson 1988: 138);
      * in the Gospel of Philip the relationship between Jesus and Mary
        Magdalene is contrasted with Jesus' relationship with the rest of
        the disciples (NHC II.3.63.32ff) [72](Robinson 1977: 138; 1988:
      * similar examples of Peter being upstaged by Mary Magdalene occur
        in the Gospel of the Egyptians and Pistis Sophia (Gnostic
        documents found prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi

    Positing Mary Magdalene as author of the Fourth Gospel does not
    challenge its apostolic origin. If Mary Magdalene was the leader and
    hero of the Fourth Gospel's community, then she was probably
    recognized as an Apostle within that community. Indeed, in recognition
    of the fact that she was the first to proclaim the Resurrection of
    Christ, the Roman Catholic Church has honored her with the title
    apostola apostolorum which means "the apostle to the apostles."
    In proposing this thesis I am certainly not challenging the integrity
    of the Fourth Gospel. Nor do I impute specious intent upon any of the
    Gospel's redactors. It is well known today that the Bible is replete
    with pseudonymous writings: a common practice in antiquity which was
    not viewed as dishonest. Despite the redactions and the
    inconsistencies they may have caused -- the intention of the author,
    the evangelist, and any subsequent redactors was to proclaim the
    gospel "in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about
    Jesus" (Dei Verbum, n. 19) [73](Abbott: 124). They also preserved
    "without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred
    writings for the sake of our salvation" (Dei Verbum, n. 11)
    [74](Abbott: 119). In other words, in concealing the identity of the
    Beloved Disciple, or making that disciple male rather than female, the
    redactor was not tampering with any essential tenet of the gospel of
    Jesus. Therefore, the redactor of the Fourth Gospel was still
    dispensing the Truth.
    Readers should also refrain from assuming or inferring that Jesus and
    Mary Magdalene had any kind of illicit amorous relationship based on
    any of the readings cited here. We should not be too quick to look at
    ancient literature through a "modern lens."
    I am certainly making no claim of possessing the final word on this
    issue. However, the conclusions of this study do not come under the
    rubric of the "overly imaginative deductions about ecclesiastical
    history" that Brown warns us about [75](1979: 19). There are some very
    compelling reasons for considering the possibility of Mary Magdalene's
    authorship of the Fourth Gospel:
      * there is solid extrabiblical documentary evidence which
        establishes a strong tradition among, at least some, Gnostic
        Christians naming Mary Magdalene as the disciple whom Jesus loved
        the most. This is strong external evidence which corroborates the
        identification of Mary Magdalene as the Beloved Disciple;
      * there is a well-established historical link between the Fourth
        Gospel and Gnostic Christians which predates both the canonization
        of the Fourth Gospel and the ascription of its authorship to John
        of Zebedee [76](Perkins: 946). This corroborates the hypothesis
        which says that the Secessionists of the Johannine Community
        brought their pre-canonical Fourth Gospel with them into the
        Gnostic Christian communities after the schism;
      * there is the strong internal evidence which shows extensive
        structural inconsistencies in the two passages of the Fourth
        Gospel which contain both Mary Magdalene and the Beloved Disciple
        appearing together. This corroborates the hypothesis which says
        that a redactor re-edited prior pre-canonical versions of the
        Fourth Gospel as discussed above;
      * the "one-upmanship" of the Beloved Disciple in relation to Peter
        in the Fourth Gospel is very similar to the relationship between
        Peter and Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Corpus. This helps to
        corroborate the hypothesis which says that the Fourth Gospel's
        Beloved Disciple and Mary Magdalene are, in reality, one and the
      * there are many accurate references in the Fourth Gospel to Holy
        Land places and customs which denote eyewitness authorship by
        someone who lived in the Holy Land before the destruction of the
        Temple in A.D. 70 [77](Brown 1979: 22). Mary Magdalene was most
        certainly in a position to give very vivid and accurate eyewitness
        accounts of the events depicted in the Fourth Gospel. This might
        explain some striking differences between the Fourth Gospel and
        the Synoptic Gospels which, according to most biblical scholars,
        were pseudonymous and not written by eyewitnesses;
      * the unique place given to women as proclaimers in the Fourth
        Gospel was quite different from that of other first-century
        Christian churches [78](Brown 1979: 183). This is very consistent
        with the hypothesis which says that the Fourth Gospel was, in
        fact, authored by a woman -- i.e., Mary Magdalene.

    Well...I hope that the preceding material has been a "good read" for
    you. I know that my hypothesis will seem very radical to you -- at
    least at first. However, before you dismiss it, I want you to consider
    a few things.
    Does this thesis seem radical to you only because I propose that a
    woman authored one of the four Holy Gospels in the Bible? If I had a
    thesis which proposed that Bartholomew, or Andrew, or James, or any of
    the other male apostles authored the Fourth Gospel instead of John --
    would that be considered very radical? Probably not. In fact, the
    church has no problem with the prevailing scholarship which says that
    a man whose name we don't even know wrote one of the most sacred
    Christian documents. Imagine -- even a nameless man is preferable to a
    What about all of the evidence that I have reviewed for you? Compare
    that to the basis for which authorship of the Fourth Gospel has been
    ascribed to John of Zebedee for almost 2,000 years. Most biblical
    scholars reject that evidence today. (Remember? It was the childhood
    recollections of Irenaeus.) That is why John's Gospel is considered
    anonymous by them today. But, alas, the standard of proof for
    establishing a woman as the author of a Gospel is much, much higher.
    Gnostic documents and structural inconsistencies notwithstanding --
    the church-at-large will probably never acknowledge Mary Magdalene as
    an author of a New Testament Gospel.
    Perhaps things haven't really changed that much since the earliest
    days of the church. Maybe authorship of a Gospel by a woman is still
    the embarrassment that Setzer says it would have been 2,000 years ago.
    Here's something else to think about: Why is Mary Magdalene the most
    famous harlot in the world when the Bible never says that she was ever
    a prostitute at any time? Oh, you are sure you recall reading that in
    the Bible, are you? ...Find it. Send me the biblical citation and I
    will post it on this website. You'll find my e-mail address further
    Raymond Brown has likened the quest to identify the author of the
    Fourth Gospel to a good detective story [79](1966: lxxxvii). A good
    detective sifts through evidence which is relevant and discards that
    which is not. When the evidence begins to point in a certain
    direction, he or she pursues leads and explores all of the various
    explanations and alibis. When one theory emerges as plausible and more
    credible than any other, the detective draws a conclusion that usually
    involves the naming of a suspect or suspects. The evidence supporting
    authorship of the Fourth Gospel by Mary Magdalene is much stronger
    than that which established John of Zebedee as its author for nearly
    two thousand years. After careful consideration of the evidence cited
    herein, I respectfully submit that the "prime suspect" in any quest to
    identify the author of the Fourth Gospel should be Mary Magdalene.
    Abbott, Walter M., gen. ed.
    1966. The Documents of Vatican II. New York: Guild Press.
    Brown, Raymond E.
    1979. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist Press.
    1970. The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi). New York: Doubleday &
    1966. The Gospel According to John (i-xii). New York: Doubleday & Co.
    Brown, Raymond E., and Raymond F. Collins.
    1990. Canonicity, pp. 1034-1054 in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary,
    edited by Raymond E. Brown, et al. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
    Haskins, Susan.
    1993. Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor. New York: Harper Collins.
    Perkins, Pheme.
    1990. The Gospel According to John, pp. 942-985 in The New Jerome
    Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, et al. Englewood
    Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Robinson, James M., gen. ed.
    1988. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Revised edition. San
    Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
    1977. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. San Francisco, CA: Harper &
    Setzer, Claudia.
    1997. Excellent Women: Female Witnesses to the Resurrection, Journal
    of Biblical Literature 116:259-272.
    My e-mail address: [80]RamonKJusino at hotmail.com

[moved down by me]

       L. King [4]THE WOMAN WITH THE ALABASTER JAR by Margaret Starbird
     LEGACY by Margaret Starbird [7]THE RED TENT by Anita Diamant [8]THE
     MARY MAGDALENE Edited by Jean-Yves Leloup, et al [10]THE NAG HAMMADI
               LIBRARY IN ENGLISH Edited by James M. Robinson
     Buying these products here through Amazon.com helps to support this
     Inclusion of these products here does not imply full agreement with
                   their contents. ([11]more products...)

    [12]This article available in .PDF format
    [13]more links... [14]Advancing My Thesis [15]The Appendices
    (my continuing research)

     Published pursuant to Canon 218 of the New Code of Canon Law of the
                            Roman Catholic Church.

    Fr. Raymond E. Brown, S.S. (1928-1998)
    This article was completed and posted prior to the death of Fr. Brown
    on August 8, 1998. On that day the Church lost a great scholar and
    teacher who contributed much to the study of the Holy Scriptures. May
    he rest in the eternal peace of our loving God.
    [83]This article available in .PDF format

    Subscribe to My Free Mailing List
    for related news, updates,
    and discussion.
           ____________________ Click here to join my mailing list
                      Powered by [84]groups.yahoo.com


      This [86]Roman Catholic WebRing site owned by [87]Ramon K. Jusino.
    [ [88]Previous 5 Sites | [89]Previous | [90]Next | [91]Next 5 Sites |
                      [92]Random Site | [93]List Sites ]

                            [94]{Member Of OCIH}

               My e-mail address: [97]RamonKJusino at hotmail.com

     [98]Related Links | [99]Lee este artículo en Español | [100]Comments
        from scholars/theologians | [101]Frequently Asked Questions |
    [102]Some personal info about me | [103]Recommended Further Reading |
        [104]Read my reviews of other scholars work | [105]The Beloved
      Disciple in Leonardo da Vincis The Last Supper | [106]Advancing My

               This page was last updated on December 1, 2004


    1. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0567082644/ramonkjusin
    2. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060727918/ramonkjusin
    3. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0944344585/ramonkjusin
    4. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1879181037/ramonkjusin
    5. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/187918155X/ramonkjusin
    6. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591430127/ramonkjusin
    7. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312169787/ramonkjusin
    8. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0809121743/ramonkjusin
    9. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892819111/ramonkjusin
   10. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060669357/ramonkjusin
   11. http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/mmbooklist.html
   12. http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/Magdalene.pdf
   13. http://Ramon_K_Jusino.tripod.com/magdalene2.html
   14. http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/advancing_my_thesis.htm
   15. http://Ramon_K_Jusino.tripod.com/appendices/
   16. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   17. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#workscited
   18. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#haskins
   19. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#setzer
   20. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   21. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   22. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   23. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown2
   24. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   25. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   26. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   27. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   28. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   29. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   30. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   31. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   32. http://home.sol.no/~noetic/nagham/nhlintro.html
   33. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#perkins
   34. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#perkins
   35. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   36. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   37. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   38. http://home.sol.no/~noetic/nagham/nhlintro.html
   39. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#haskins
   40. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#robinson
   41. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#robinson
   42. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#robinson
   43. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#robinson
   44. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#robinson
   45. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#robinson
   46. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   47. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   48. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   49. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   50. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#perkins
   51. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   52. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   53. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   54. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#robinson
   55. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   56. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   57. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#setzer
   58. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   59. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   60. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   61. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   62. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#setzer
   63. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#setzer
   64. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   65. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   66. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   67. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   68. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   69. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   70. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#robinson
   71. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#robinson
   72. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#robinson
   73. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#abbott
   74. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#abbott
   75. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   76. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#perkins
   77. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   78. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   79. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#brown1
   80. mailto:RamonKJusino at hotmail.com?SUBJECT=http://www.BelovedDisciple.org
   81. http://www.zondervan.com/
   82. http://Ramon_K_Jusino.tripod.com/magdalene2.html
   83. http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/Magdalene.pdf
   84. http://groups.yahoo.com/
   85. http://x.webring.com/hub?ring=catholic
   86. http://x.webring.com/hub?ring=catholic
   87. mailto:ramonkjusino at hotmail.com
   88. http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=catholic;id=364;prev5
   89. http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=catholic;id=364;prev
   90. http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=catholic;id=364;next
   91. http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=catholic;id=364;next5
   92. http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=catholic;random
   93. http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=catholic;list
   94. http://www.ocih.org/
   95. http://Ramon_K_Jusino.tripod.com/mmbannerlink.html
   96. http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html#top
   97. mailto:RamonKJusino at hotmail.com?SUBJECT=http://www.BelovedDisciple.org
   98. http://Ramon_K_Jusino.tripod.com/magdalene2.html
   99. http://Ramon_K_Jusino.tripod.com/magdalena.html
  100. http://Ramon_K_Jusino.tripod.com/magdalene3.html
  101. http://Ramon_K_Jusino.tripod.com/magdaleneFAQs.html
  102. http://Ramon_K_Jusino.tripod.com/aboutme.html
  103. http://Ramon_K_Jusino.tripod.com/mmbooklist.html
  104. http://Ramon_K_Jusino.tripod.com/myreviews.html
  105. http://Ramon_K_Jusino.tripod.com/leonardo.html
  106. http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/advancing_my_thesis.htm

More information about the paleopsych mailing list