Editing Mary Magdalene (section)

==Speculations==
{{See also|Jesus bloodline|Beloved Disciple}}
[[File:Semiradsky Christ Martha Maria.jpg|thumb|upright=1.25|''Christ with Martha and Mary'' (1886) by [[Henryk Siemiradzki]], showing the conflated "composite Magdalene" sitting at Jesus's feet while her sister Martha performs chores.{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|pages=249–150}}{{sfn|Casey|2010|pages=544–545}}]]

In 1998, Ramon K. Jusino proposed an unprecedented argument that the "[[Beloved Disciple]]" of the [[Gospel of John]] is Mary Magdalene. Jusino based his argument largely on the [[Nag Hammadi]] [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] books, rejecting the view of [[Raymond E. Brown]] that these books were later developments, and maintaining instead that the extant Gospel of John is the result of modification of an earlier text that presented Mary Magdalene as the Beloved Disciple.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html |last=Jusino |first=Ramon K |title=Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel? |date=1998 |access-date=December 30, 2014 |publisher=Ramon K. Jusino |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141219060807/http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html |archive-date=December 19, 2014 |url-status=live }}</ref> The gospel, at least in its current form, clearly and consistently identifies the disciple as having masculine gender, only ever referring to him using words inflected in the masculine. There are no [[Textual variants in the New Testament|textual variants]] in extant New Testament manuscripts to contradict this,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Joh 1 {{!}} VarApp {{!}} STEP {{!}} |url=https://us.stepbible.org/?q=version=VarApp%7Cversion=THGNT%7Creference=John.1&options=GNHVU |access-date=July 20, 2023 |website=us.stepbible.org |at=See especially John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20}}</ref> and thus no physical evidence of this hypothetical earlier document. Richard J. Hooper does not make the Jusino thesis his own, but says: "Perhaps we should not altogether reject the possibility that some Johannine Christians considered Mary Magdalene to be 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'."{{sfn|Hooper|2005|p=223}} Esther A. de Boer likewise presents the idea as "one possibility among others", not as a definitive solution to the problem of the identity of the anonymous disciple.{{sfn|de Boer|2004|p=190}} There is a theological interpretation of Mary as the Magdala, ''The Elegant Tower'' and certain churches honor her as a heroine of the faith in their teachings.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ct.dio.org/comment-and-dialogue/question-corner/apostle-to-the-apostles-the-story-of-mary-magdalene.html|title=Apostle to the apostles: The story of Mary Magdalene|website=Catholic Times|last1=Doyle|first1=Ken|date=March 14, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120314224852/http://ct.dio.org/comment-and-dialogue/question-corner/apostle-to-the-apostles-the-story-of-mary-magdalene.html|archive-date=March 14, 2012}}</ref>

[[Dan Brown]]'s 2003 bestselling mystery thriller novel ''[[The Da Vinci Code]]'' popularized a number of erroneous ideas about Mary Magdalene,{{sfn|Ehrman|2004|pages=xii–xvii}}{{sfn|Casey|2010|pages=25–26, 544–545}} including that she was a member of the [[tribe of Benjamin]], that she was Jesus's wife, that she was pregnant at the crucifixion, and that she gave birth to Jesus's child, who became the founder of [[Jesus bloodline|a bloodline]] which survives to this very day.{{sfn|Ehrman|2004|pages=xii–xv}} There is no historical evidence (from the canonical or apocryphal gospels, other early Christian writings, or any other ancient sources) to support these statements.{{sfn|Ehrman|2004|pages=xii–xv}}{{sfn|Casey|2010|pages=25–26}} ''The Da Vinci Code'' also purports that the figure of the "beloved disciple" to Jesus's right in [[Leonardo da Vinci]]'s ''[[The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci)|Last Supper]]'' is Mary Magdalene, disguised as one of the male disciples;{{sfn|King|2012|pages=183–184}} art historians maintain that the figure is, in reality, the apostle John, who only appears feminine due to Leonardo's characteristic fascination with blurring the lines between the sexes, a quality which is found in his other paintings, such as ''[[Saint John the Baptist (Leonardo)|Saint John the Baptist]]'' (painted {{circa}} 1513 – 1516).{{sfn|King|2012|pages=189–191}} Furthermore, according to Ross King, an expert on Italian art, Mary Magdalene's appearance at the last supper would not have been controversial and Leonardo would have had no motive to disguise her as one of the other disciples,{{sfn|King|2012|pages=187–189}} since she was widely venerated in her role as the "apostle to the apostles" and patron of the Dominican Order, for whom ''The Last Supper'' was painted.{{sfn|King|2012|pages=187–189}} There would have even been precedent for it, since the earlier Italian Renaissance painter [[Fra Angelico]] had included her in his painting of the Last Supper.{{sfn|King|2012|pages=187–188}} [[Criticism of The Da Vinci Code|Numerous works were written]] in response to the historical inaccuracies in ''The Da Vinci Code'',{{sfn|Ehrman|2004|pages=xiii–xvi}}{{sfn|Casey|2010|page=26}} but the novel still exerted massive influence on how members of the general public viewed Mary Magdalene.{{sfn|Ehrman|2004|page=xvi}}{{sfn|Casey|2010|pages=25–26}}

In 2012, scholar [[Karen L. King]] published the [[Gospel of Jesus' Wife|Gospel of Jesus's Wife]], a purported [[Coptic language|Coptic]] papyrus fragment in which Jesus says: "My wife ... she will be able to be my disciple." The overwhelming consensus of scholars is that the fragment is a modern forgery,<ref>{{cite news |author-last1=Brown |author-first1=Andrew |title=Gospel of Jesus's Wife is fake, claims expert|date=21 September 2012 |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/21/gospel-jesus-wife-forgery |url-status=live |access-date=August 6, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140809053213/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/21/gospel-jesus-wife-forgery |archive-date=August 9, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author-last1=Goodstein |author-first1=Laurie |date=May 5, 2014 |title=Fresh Doubts Raised About Papyrus Scrap Known as 'Gospel of Jesus' Wife' |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/us/fresh-doubts-raised-about-papyrus-scrap-known-as-gospel-of-jesuss-wife.html |url-status=live |access-date=February 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170807153435/https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/us/fresh-doubts-raised-about-papyrus-scrap-known-as-gospel-of-jesuss-wife.html |archive-date=August 7, 2017}}</ref>{{sfn|Sabar|2016}} and in 2016, King herself said that the alleged Gospel was probably a forgery.{{sfn|Sabar|2016}}

Ehrman states that the historical sources reveal absolutely nothing about [[Sexuality of Jesus|Jesus's sexuality]]{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|page=248}} and that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married or that they had any kind of sexual or romantic relationship.{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|page=248}} None of the canonical gospels imply such a thing{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|pages=248–249}} and, even in the late Gnostic gospels, where Mary is shown as Jesus's closest disciple,{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|pages=248–249}} the relationship between them is not sexual.{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|pages=248–249}} The extremely late ''Greater Questions of Mary'', which has not survived, allegedly portrayed Mary not as Jesus's wife or partner, but rather as an unwilling [[Voyeurism|voyeur]].{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|page=249}} Ehrman says that the [[Essenes]], a contemporary Jewish sect who shared many views with Jesus, and the apostle Paul, Jesus's later follower, both lived in unmarried celibacy,{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|pages=249–150}} so it is not unreasonable to conclude that Jesus did as well.{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|pages=249–150}}

Furthermore, according to {{bibleverse||Mark|12:25|9}}, Jesus taught that marriage would not exist at all in the coming kingdom of God.{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|page=250}} Since Jesus taught that people should live as though the kingdom had already arrived, this teaching implied a life of unmarried celibacy.{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|pages=250–251}} Ehrman says that, if Jesus had been married to Mary Magdalene, the authors of the gospels would definitely have mentioned it, since they mention all his other family members, including his mother Mary, his father [[Saint Joseph|Joseph]], his [[Brothers of Jesus|four brothers]], and his at least two sisters.{{sfn|Ehrman|2006|page=251}}

[[Maurice Casey]] rejects the idea of Mary Magdalene as Jesus's wife as nothing more than wild popular [[sensationalism]].{{sfn|Casey|2010|pages=544–545}} [[Jeffrey J. Kripal]] writes that "the historical sources are simply too contradictory and simultaneously too silent" to make absolute declarations regarding Jesus's sexuality.{{sfn|Kripal|2006|p=52}}