This part got me thinking: "Teabing says that Mary Magdalene was labeled a "prostitute" by "the early church" as part of a "smear campaign," and leaves it at that; but in the film, Langdon specifies A.D. 591 as the date when Mary Magdalene was formally identified as a prostitute."
Here's the deal: having heard the hymns sung in holy week about Mary Magdalene anointing Jesus with her hair (and how that beautiful act is contrasted with Judas' scheming), if the early church did "label" her a prostitute, I don't think one ought to call it a smear campaign. Because the fact that she was a prostitute makes her connection to Jesus even more astounding and inspiring.
Actually, the Church's hymnography, describing Mary Magdalene as washing the feet of Christ and all that, are actually inaccurate. That was the sinful woman, mentioned in (I think) Luke 7, and the Church would not dispute this. The hymnographer takes some historical liberty for the sake of poetry, but there is no real confusion in the Church as to who that woman was. Now I'm thinking of it though, do the hymns actually *name* the sinful woman as Magdalene, or do they just call her "the sinful woman", or "Mary"? As Peter's review points out, she is also mixed up with Mary of Bethany on occasion.
No, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. She was a sick woman, out of whom the Lord cast 7 demons (so we know she had problems), but it does not say anywhere that she was a prostitute.
thanks for the heads up peter. I enjoyed the book (a sort of religious john grisham type read), but I will not be wasting money seeing this in the theatres.
Dare I ask, do we even know that the "sinful woman" was necessarily a "prostitute"? Perhaps she was, I dunno, a notorious pickpocket or a pathological liar. Maybe she was even adulterous. But is the underlying Greek (or even Aramaic) term for "sinful woman" necessarily a euphemism for prostitution?
And yes, The Da Vinci Code is not worth anyone's money. Well, maybe mine (if I ever opt to see it again), but I can claim it as a business expense, and then I get paid to write about it, so it's a net gain in my case. (I hate to say it, but this movie will be paying for a few more of my bills than most of the movies I write about... There just happens to be extra demand for articles about this movie in a way that no one ever demands articles about, say, Just My Luck.)
6 comments:
An excellent and captivating review!
This part got me thinking: "Teabing says that Mary Magdalene was labeled a "prostitute" by "the early church" as part of a "smear campaign," and leaves it at that; but in the film, Langdon specifies A.D. 591 as the date when Mary Magdalene was formally identified as a prostitute."
Here's the deal: having heard the hymns sung in holy week about Mary Magdalene anointing Jesus with her hair (and how that beautiful act is contrasted with Judas' scheming), if the early church did "label" her a prostitute, I don't think one ought to call it a smear campaign. Because the fact that she was a prostitute makes her connection to Jesus even more astounding and inspiring.
Actually, the Church's hymnography, describing Mary Magdalene as washing the feet of Christ and all that, are actually inaccurate. That was the sinful woman, mentioned in (I think) Luke 7, and the Church would not dispute this. The hymnographer takes some historical liberty for the sake of poetry, but there is no real confusion in the Church as to who that woman was. Now I'm thinking of it though, do the hymns actually *name* the sinful woman as Magdalene, or do they just call her "the sinful woman", or "Mary"? As Peter's review points out, she is also mixed up with Mary of Bethany on occasion.
No, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. She was a sick woman, out of whom the Lord cast 7 demons (so we know she had problems), but it does not say anywhere that she was a prostitute.
thanks for the heads up peter.
I enjoyed the book (a sort of religious john grisham type read), but I will not be wasting money seeing this in the theatres.
a friend at work's girlfriend saw it last nite at an advance screening and she, and her friends, were not impressed.
on the radio this morning they were reading bad review after bad review.
i'm with you Vic...my money stays in my wallet...until i spend it on something else!
I keep reading that character's name as "Teabag".....;-)
Dare I ask, do we even know that the "sinful woman" was necessarily a "prostitute"? Perhaps she was, I dunno, a notorious pickpocket or a pathological liar. Maybe she was even adulterous. But is the underlying Greek (or even Aramaic) term for "sinful woman" necessarily a euphemism for prostitution?
And yes, The Da Vinci Code is not worth anyone's money. Well, maybe mine (if I ever opt to see it again), but I can claim it as a business expense, and then I get paid to write about it, so it's a net gain in my case. (I hate to say it, but this movie will be paying for a few more of my bills than most of the movies I write about... There just happens to be extra demand for articles about this movie in a way that no one ever demands articles about, say, Just My Luck.)
Post a Comment