CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN MARCOS

THESIS SIGNATURE PAGE

THESIS SUBMITTED FOR PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

MASTER OF ARTS

IN

LITERATURE AND WRITING STUDIES

THESIS TITLE Eve. the Virgin. and the Magdalene:

Constructions of the Feminine ______

AUTHOR: Jennifer Elizabeth Strickland

DATE OF SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE: November 19. 2002

THE THESIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE THESIS COMMITTEE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN LITERATURE AND WRITING STUDIES.

Dr. Madeleine Marshall w~ THESIS COMMITTEE CHAIR (TYPED) a~SIGNATURE DATE

( • ~ < Dr. Dawn Formo t.J:,_, ""' 1 }I /-.__ ~-.r lt- \Cl-(•~ THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER (TYPED) SIGNATURE DATE

Dr. Martha Stoddard Holmes THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER (TYPED) r------~- Eve, the Virgin, and the Magdalene: Constructions ofthe Feminine

A Master's Thesis For Literature and Writing Studies

By Jennifer Strickland Table of Contents

Introduction 1

1. Eve: A Model of Womanhood 7

2. The Virgin Mary: A Model of Womanhood 50

3. Mary Magdalene: A Model of Womanhood 90

Notes 127

Sources 132 Introduction

This thesis examines three women from ancient literature who have become

archetypes of femininity, which serve as lenses through which women have seen themselves for centuries. It raises the questions of how these women of ancient texts

have been perceived and how their representation has influenced women's self

understanding. Each of these women has a myth about her- a significant story which

has grown so powerful that it has shaped people's worldview. As these myths have

been constructed over the centuries, they have resulted in paradigms, which are

patterns or models of the female gender. These patterns of femininity, in tum, act as

lenses through which women view the world, their gender and ultimately, themselves.

Since these paradigms have been created and sustained in a male dominant,

patriarchal society, they have often distorted rather than clarified women's world

view. Furthermore, as women look through these lenses at themselves as in a mirror,

they see a distorted image of femininity. However ingrained in our culture these

myths have become, they have nevertheless proved to distort women's world view

and self image, and they therefore lack value and authenticity. Thus, they call for a

return to the ancient texts to recast their meanings in ways that are less misshapen by

the tradition.

For this study, I have chosen to look at the three most prominent women to

have emerged from the Old and New Testaments: Eve, the Virgin r...fary, and Mary

Magdalene. These women have attracted so much attention from literary, artistic, and Strickland 2

ecclesiastical sources that their images have bad an enormous impact on the way

women view themselves. For example, Eve has been seen as a seductress, while she

was not; the Virgin Mary has been seen as asexual, which is hardly true; and Mary

Magdalene has been seen as a typical ''whore turned saint," which greatly undermines

her role in the early Christian community. These misperceptions reveal how largely

women have been historically misunderstood. Furthermore, because of their

prominence in secular and religious thought, the archetypes of femininity embodied

in Eve, the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene have been for the most part detrimental

to women, because they are both unsubstantiated by the biblical text and because they

are not reflective of women's reality.

Jn this thesis, I evaluate each woman's paradigm as follows: first, I illuminate

its foundational influences; next, I defme it by identifying its central elements; then I

evaluate its positive and negative cultural implications; I follow by unraveling it by

mining the biblical text for the evidence that sustains the myth; and finally, I seek to

reconstruct the myth based on what the literature suggests it should be, in ways that

are inclusive of women's reality.

For this thesis, I have worked between a number of disciplines, including the

arts, theology, literature and biblical scholarship. Because these paradigms are the product of artistic, linguistic and theological interpretation, they have required the resources of a variety of specialties in order to be explored. Using the tools of cultural studies, feminist theoretical perspectives and biblical hermeneutics, I read the text in multiple ways. I rely upon a wide range of biblical scholarship and literary Strickland 3 criticism, as well as anthropological, linguistic, folkloric, mythological and artistic sources. By integrating this variety of sources, I am able to construct a detailed portrait of each woman's paradigm, her impact on women's world view, and the options for rewriting her histocy in more useful ways.

Two theoretical questions must be posed and addressed when it comes to my methodology: first, the use of biblical text as literature, and second, the use of feminist hermeneutics as a means for examining women's history. On the issue of the Bible as literature, I first claim, in the words of feminist hermeneutician and theologianPhyllis Trible, that:

To study the Bible as literature is to recognize, not prove, that it is in

fact literature. I do not argue for its literacy status any more than I

would argue for the literacy character of the Iliad, the Odyssey, the

Bhagavad Gita, the Divine Comedy, or Shakespearean plays. Instead,

I explore the literature to discover its vitality. This artistic pursuit is

neither isolated from nor opposed to a religious interest, neither

superior nor subordinate. (8)

The Bible is literature; in fact it is the most foundational compilation of ancient literature in the discipline. This acknowledgement, however, neither affirms nor denies the presence of religious belief; instead, it functions autonomously from religion and serves as a text to be explored

Writing an academic thesis using the Bible as literature is a delicate task, however, for the writer always seeks to focus on the study of literature, even when Strickland 4 the fact that it is also scripture repeatedly brings itself to the foreground. When one studies the Bible as literature, or conversely, the Bible as scripture, one will discover unexpected resonances and a "common music" between the two (8). Literature and scripture actually work to enrich one another, making it nearly impossible to separate them. Therefore, regardless of one's opinion of its authority, the Bible as literature is the Bible as scripture. And conversely, regardless of one's opinion of its quality, the

Bible as scripture is the Bible as literature (8). Because of its integrated nature, I have made an effort to focus on the Bible's value as literature while not discounting its value as scripture. I have attempted, for example, to maintain a balance between the study of literature (such as seeing Eve as a character), and the study of scripture

(such as seeing the Virgin Mary as the mother of Christ). Because I see both women as characters and historical figures, I have endeavored to maintain this careful equilibrium, but because of the marked resonances between the Bible and real life, this is quite difficult to achieve.

Choosing a translation of the Bible to reference was not difficult for me, for one stands out above all.the rest. While many theologians prefer the New Revised

Standard Edition for its accuracy in translation, I find the New International Version to be j~st as accurate and widely more accessible to common readers. Specifically, I use the Inclusive Language Edition, published by Hodder & Stoughton out of

London, for its painstaking detail in maintaining a precise translation of gender­ specific and non-gender-specific nouns and pronouns. It seems only right that when Strickland 5

the Bible is translated, it is done so with the entire human race in mind, and this

edition does just that. 1

On the issue of feminism, I argue that feminist ideology is not single­

mindedly concentrated on women nor is it opposed to men; instead, it is a useful tool

in understanding the injustices done to women's history by the patriarchy. Theology

is an ideal discipline for examining the affects of patriarchy on the cause of women,

because it is a male-dominant field. The Bible, in addition, is an ideal tool for

critiquing the misogynistic nature of most theology. As Trible writes, "Feminism is

my concluding illustration of involvement between the world and the Bible. By

feminism I do not mean a narrow focus upon women, but rather a critique of culture

in light of misogyny" (7). Feminism, then, is a tool for analyzing the cultural

treatment of women. Using its ideology to re-write women's history, however, does

not discount the valuable contribution men have made to both literary and religious

history. On the contrary, feminist ideology is a means of appreciating the realities of

women's history, the ways their realities have been misconstrued, and the ways we

can perhaps correct those injustices by producing more valuable resources for

understanding women's history.

There is a great need for this revisiting of the histories and symbolism of women in ancient texts. This thesis is just one small piece in the very large puzzle that female writers are putting together to recreate the picture of women in hist.ory. It is my hope that this thesis contributes towards this effort, because I believe it to be an essential one. First, the work presented here recognizes that when women are viewed Strickland 6 through the lens of patriarchy, they are fundamentally misunderstood. Second, this work provides the opportunity to re-think the stereotypes that have been handed down to us and perhaps even recreate healthier models of femininity. Finally, by using such a variety of disciplines to interpret biblical texts, this thesis affirms that there are multiple ways of reading literature that should be acknowledged and valued. For no text, however ancient, lies dormant; there are always new stories to be awakened and retold. Strickland 7

Chapter 1

Eve: A Model of Womanhood

Eve as an Image of Women

In seeking the origin of prototypical images of women, I initially tum to Eve because she is women's original representative in Western culture. As a product of her Creator's hand, she first appears in the book of Genesis, at the side of Adam.

According to the story, Eve is the "first woman," who becomes the first wife and first mother of the human race. In fact, her Hebrew name, Havva, means "life," and Adam himself calls her the "mother of all living." As our earliest image of womankind, Eve has been called a "prototype of all women and her story a paradigm for female existence" (Aschkenasy 39). As the "first being of her kind," in other words the first woman, Eve has been considered a model or pattern of all women to come.

Additionally, if Eve is the preeminent defining figure of what it means to be a

"woman," then her life has extraordinary implications on women's lives. It is vital, therefore, for modem scholars to understand how Eve and her story have been imagined, if we are to understand how women have been perceived throughout history.

In the following pages, I examine the paradigm of Eve as a lens through which women have traditionally seen themselves. As is the case with most myths,

Eve's story does have "historical" origins, but it is primarily a "fictional" Strickland 8 construction. Moreover, it is a patriarchal construction- and I begin by excavating this foundation of her myth. Then, I proceed to examine the different components of the paradigm that has resulted from her myth.' First, Eve's paradigm emphasizes that she was created second, therefore all women are subordinate. Second, although her paradigm constructs her as having been created in perfect beauty, it also suggests that she was somehow inherently flawed; because of her role in the Fall, commentators have framed her as vain, self-absorbed, foolish and morally weak. Third, since Eve was the first to eat the forbidden fruit, her paradigm portrays her as to blame for the

"Fall"- a blame which has been transferred to all women. Lastly, Eve has been cast as a temptress and seductress, which has led to the portrayal of women as the embodiment of sin and sexuality, and has even led to the suggestion that women have a special affinity with the devil. As a lens through which women view femininity and the world around them, the paradigm of Eve has extraordinary consequences for women's self understanding, including the following: the subordination and suppression of women; a backlash against female beauty and sexuality; women's internalization of blame, shame and anger; and finally, a failure on the part of the church to extend vital grace to women. After discussing the effects of her paradigm, I then de-construct it, by re-telling the Creation and Fall in feminist terms. Finally, I dismantle her paradigmatic image and, with the aid of feminist hermeneutics, re­ construct a new, healthier, and more appropriate myth of Eve as a woman created in

God's image, who was the first wife and mother and the first "independent thinker" of womankind. The injustices imposed on her call for a fresh look at who Eve truly Strickland 9 was: a woman made in the image of God, who thirsted for knowledge, made choices, suffered their consequences, and longed for restoration.

Construction of Eve

In order to examine the myth of Eve, we must first begin by illuminating its foundation, which is patriarchy. ••Patriarchy," in its simplest sense, is a society or mode of thinking which is male-oriented and male-dominated (Webster's New World

Dictionary, paraphrase). The Bible was written and compiled in a patriarchal society, and although many of its authors are unknown, the books of the Bible have been attributed to men writers, have been interpreted by men and have been taught by men for the last two thousand years (Mananzan 4). It is to be expected, then, that the women of the Bible have been viewed through the eyes of men, instead of the eyes of women. Although there are many heroic women in the Bible/ there is an absence of the female voice both in the Bible and about the Bible. Women writers are mysteriously absent from Scripture, and female commentators about the Bible have only begun to emerge in the last twenty years or so.

As a result of the silence of the female voice in biblical scholarship, the women of the Bible have been routinely seen through the lens of patriarchy.

Arguably, it is not what the Bible says that is damaging for women; it is the way the

Bible has been interpreted. Feminist scholar Soveig Lara Gudmundsdottir, in an article entitled "Gender and Theology," explains that patriarchy "is not derived from the Bible and its message does not influence patriarchy, but the Bible is surely influenced by patriarchy" (2). Women in the Bible have been interpreted through the Strickland 10

kaleidoscope of patriarchal assumptions and cultural expectations which view women

as secondary creatures; this then places a stigma on biblical women. Commentators,

as partial as all readers, do not draw conclusions on the Bible based on historical fact,

but base their readings on their own opinions and cultural understanding. These

opinions, then, projected on women, have generated the myths about who they are.

Understanding the influence of patriarchy on biblical scholarship helps us

appreciate that it is not who Eve was that makes her subservient, sinful or foolish;

instead, it is the male view of women projected on Eve that casts her as such. Pamela

Norris, in her book Eve: A Biography, writes, "F()r over two-thousand years, male

commentators have plundered [Eve's] history in an attempt to discover and pin down

the nature of Woman, and in Eve's many faces we have a unique record of the male

imagination at work, wrestling with the female other" (403). Eve's paradigm- as

well as the paradigms of many legendary women - is a patriarchal construction; in

other words, it is a secondary creation formed by men to fit the stereotypical role they

see women fulfilling. It is not based on who Eve is, but on the men looking at her.

Unfortunately, over the centuries, men have looked at Eve and told a story that has been a biased interpretation of the text. Consequently, it has been damaging for

women.

Paradigm of Eve

The first aspect of the paradigm of Eve that we will consider is the assumption that since Eve was created second to Adam, she was a "second-classn creature.

Commentators have based this assumption on the idea that there are two creation Strickland 11 stories- the first in Gen 1:27, in which God creates male and female in his image, and the second, more detailed account in Gen 2:20b-25, in which God creates the man from the dust and the woman from the rib of the man. This "second" creation story was often quoted to point out that woman was made after man and therefore women are not equal to men (Gudmundsdottir 1). Even though the first creation story says they were created simultaneously, both in the image of God, commentators have focused on the second account, claiming that since woman was created second, she was ''the second sex." This mode of thinking has accordingly been. characterized in both the myth of Eve and the status of women in society. 3 Commentators have taught that Eve was created "lesser" than Adam, and that all women are not as valuable as their male counterparts.

The paradigm of Eve thus purports that since she was "second" in the order of creation, women should be submissive to their husbands in everything. This idea is reinforced by God's judgment of Adam and Eve after the Fall, in which the consequence of Eve's disobedience is subjection to and desire for her husband. Even though this punishment is clearly a consequence of the Fall and not the original intention of creation, commentators have nevertheless claimed that prelapsarian Eve was created to be second to her husband in everything. Since there is no substantiation from Scripture to support this idea, interpreters have drawn their conclusions from literary and ecclesiastical writing. Perhaps the most influential literary treatment of the Fall, Paradise Lost, emphatically established the idea that Strickland 12

Eve was created unequal to Adam. In the epic, Milton describes Adam and Eve after their creation:

though both

Not equal, as thir sex not equal seem' d;

For contemplation hee and valor form' d,

For softness shee and sweet attractive Grace,

Hee for God only, shee for God in him .... (IV. 295-299)

Here, Milton states that they were created unequal- he for intellect and she for attraction; he for God, and she for him. This echoes Paul's statement in 1 Cor 11:2, where he declares, "The head of the man is Christ; the head of the woman is the man; the head of Christ is God," as well as Paul's famous dictum in 1 Tim 2:11-13, which says that women should learn in quietness and full submission, because Adam was formed first, then Eve. This suggests that since woman was created second, then she was "second in command,~' and subordinate from the s~ rather than the idea that her subjection to her husband was a result of their disobedience in the Fall.

Interpreters have framed Eve- and all women- as having been created to be not only submissive to their husbands, but mindlessly so. In Paradise Lost, Milton uses the voice of Eve to reinforce this idea when she says to Adam:

My Author and Disposer, what thou bidd'st

Unargu'd I obey; so God ordains,

God is thy Law, thou mine: to know no more

· Is woman's happiest knowledge and her praise .... (IV. 634-637) Strickland 13

Early in the epic, long before the Fall, Eve is mindlessly obedient to Adam, as if

submission to her husband is the sum of what she is and needs. Interestingly, Milton

intertwines the attractiveness of her submission with that of her stunning beauty by saying that Adam takes delight in both her "Beauty and submissive Charms" (IV.

501). In this visual depiction of her, he suggests that her attmctiveness stems from

her submission:

Her unadorned golden tresses wore

Dishevell 'd, but in wanton ringlets wav' d

As the Vine curls her tendrils, which implied

Subjection, but required with gentle sway,

And by her yielded, by him best received,

Yielded with coy submission, modest pride,

And sweet reluctant amorous delay .... (IV. 304-31 0).

Eve's flowing golden hair is a symbol of her subjection to Adam; her beauty lies in

her submission to him and desire to ''yield" to him no matter how he directs her. This

aspect of her myth resonates with traditional church teaching; the Church Fathers taught that women's beauty and praise was to be subject to their husbands in

everything. Thus, the idea that women were created to be quiet and submissive became a key feature in the paradigm of Eve.

Eve's astonishing physical beauty is also an essential component to her paradigm. In Paradise Lost, Milton describes Eve as excelling the "fairest of her

Daughters," adom'd in "perfect beauty" (IV. 324, 634). He uses the serpent's voice Strickland 14 to call her the "Fairest resemblance to thy Maker fair," and "Empress of this fair

World, resplendent Eve" (IX. 538, 568). He also depicts Adam as enraptured by her

beauty; when speaking to Gabriel, Adam describes his first vision of Eve: she was"..

. so lovely fair I That what seem's fair in all the World, seem' d now I Mean, or in her

summ'd up, in her contain'd" (VIII.470-473). To Adam, she is so beautiful that everything else seems ugly in comparison, or, he supposes, all the beauty of the world

is summed up in her. He continues, "Grace was in all her steps, Heav'n in her Eye,"

suggesting that her beauty was even beyond the realm of earth; it was a heavenly, celestial beauty (VITI. 488-489). Milton is not the only one who constructed Eve as

gorgeous; by poet and artist alike, she has been pictured with "gleaming golden hair, with a face celestial in loveliness and a fonn strong and immortal" (Deen 5). Bible commentators have called her ''the most beautiful woman in all the world of all time .

. . arrayed in human perfection, radiant loveliness, perfect symmetry and perfect intelligence" (VanderVelde 14). Having been created for Adam's delight, she was thought to be "endowed with every attraction" (Norris 48). Artistic representations of

Eve have certainly depicted her as such.4 While there is no scriptural evidence to support her supposed physical perfection, the paradigm of Eve has nevertheless depicted her as having an incredible god-like beauty.

According to the historical construction of her paradigm, even though Eve was created beautiful, she was also inherently flawed; first of all, she was vain, and her vanity led to her fall. The dictionary defines someone who is ''vain" as "having no real value, meaning, or foundation: empty, idle, worthless ... marked by futility .. Strickland 15

. showing little sense or wisdom: foolish ...", and last, ''having undue or excessive pride, especially in one's appearance .. ."(Webster's 3rd New International). The latter definition is the one that most commentators. have used to describe Eve, given her supposed great physical beauty. There are also ideas in the former definitions that resonate with Eve's paradigm, especially that she was empty, idle and foolish. All of these ideas about her contributed towards the notion that Eve was "partially fallen before the Fall." According to J.A. Phillips, in his book The History ofan Idea: Eve,

Milton and his contemporaries saw Eve as "prejudiced toward Satan's arguments and partly fallen before she actually ate the forbidden fruit" (36). In Paradise Lost,

Milton establishes her vanity through her discourse with the serpent. When Satan first sees her sleeping, he whispers in her ear in order to inspire "At least distemper' d, discontented thoughts, I Vain hopes, vain aims, inordinate desires I Blown up with high conceits ingend'ring pride" (N. 806-809). this suggests that Eve was predisposed to vanity before the serpent even tempted her. The serpent appeals to this native vanity by exalting her beauty, stature and place in the world. He flatters herby calling her "A Goddess among God's, ador'd and serv'd I By Angels numberless," "Sov'ran of Creatures" and "Queen of the Universe" (IX. 547-8, 612,

684 ). Since Eve gives in to the serpent, many have believed that she was "already preoccupied with herself to a dangerous degree," and therefore she was "'influenced' or 'fired' by Satan's flattering terms of address" (Phillips 35). In sum, when Satan offered her the fruit, which would make her "like God, knowing good and evil,·~ she Strickland 16

accepted it because it appealed to her pride, a form of self-love that was a natural

outgrowth of her characteristically "female" vanity.

Eve's dangerous self-love is another dimension of her paradigm that has

persisted throughout history. Despite the lack of scriptural evidence for this idea,

Gregory the Great, one of the Early Church Fathers, described Eve as ''vain,

fraudulent, immodest, and self-seeking" (qtd. in Phillips 22). Not only did

theologians see Eve as selfish, but poets and painters have regularly associated

"unambiguous images of vanity and self-love with Eve" (McColley 79). In Paradise

Lost, Eve's Narcissus-like behavior begins when, fresh from her Creator's hand, she

pauses at the verge of a mirror lake, attracted to her own reflection, and has to be called back twice: first by God, who leads her to Adam, and then, as she starts back towards the image of her face in the lake, again by Adam himself (IV. 449-490).

Scholars have attributed this story as "proof' of her native vanity before the Fall

(McColley 74). In the story, however, Eve turns back towards Adam and chooses

him out of free will, realizing that "other-love" is better than "self-love" (83).

Nevertheless, Milton portrays her love as "more volatile, filtered through a self-love which does not identify itself with [Adam]" (Norris 285). In the story, Eve eats the fruit out of selfish ambition (to become wise, like God). She then vacillates between offering the fruit to Adam and withholding it from him- saying that if she doesn't share it with him, she will be his superior. She then selfishly decides to give it to him so that she can have him with her in both life and death (IX. 816-833). On the other hand, Adam eats the fruit for a noble reason: he would rather die than live without Strickland 17

Eve. Therefore, Eve is faithful to herself, while. Adam is faithful to her (Norris 285).

Eve's selfishness is directly contrasted to Adam's unselfishness. He.r self-absorption. in turn, highlights her weakness, which, when combined with her other faults, lead the couple to the Fall.

Another principle aspect of Eve's paradigm is that she was naturally foolish and weak. Because she was the first to surrender to temptation, both literary and theological interpretations of her have portrayed her as a fool. Milton certainly depicts her as foolish in Paradise Lost, in which God warns both Adam and Eve about the Tempter, then Gabriel warns them, and finally Adam warns Eve personally.

Yet, Eve readily listens to the serpent, calling him "far from deceit and guile" (IX.

772). Hardly resisting him, she rashly takes the fruit and greedily gorges herself without restraint (IX. 791). Later, when she sees Adam, he immediately perceives that the enemy has beguiled her. When he eats the fruit, he does it "against his better knowledge, not deceiv' d, I But fondly overcome with Female charm" (IX. 998-99).

In other words, he takes it because she tempted him to, not because he is also deceived by the serpent. Adam is characterized as a morally strong and wise man who was brought to his destruction by his weak and foolish wife.

An essential component of the paradigm ofEve is that she was plagued with moral weakness. According to Nehama Aschkenasy, in her book Eve's Journey:

Feminine Images in Hebraic Literary Tradition, Eve's story is read as a "parable of the moral weakness and the strong prQ£}ivity for evil that characterize the female of the human species" (40). In Paradise Lost, Milton establishes the differences Strickland 18 between Adam and Eve in early images of the two: "So hand in hand they pass'd, the loveliest pair I ... Adam the goodliest man of men since born I His Sons, the fairest of her Daughters Eve" (4.319·24). Here, he states that Adam is "good," but is silent on Eve's character, only refeJ!ing to her beauty. He goes on to even say that Eve is inferior to Adam "in the mind I And inward Faculties, which most excel," and that in the outward she resembles less "His Image who made both, and less expressing I The character of that Dominion giv'n I O'er other Creatures" (VITI. 54046). Thus, Eve is cast as less like her Creator than Adam; specifically, she is less godly. She is vain, selfish, foolish, and weak, which will all lead her to the Fall.

Itis...avery familiar aspect ofEve's myth that the Fall is the woman's fault.

Adam himself was the first to place the blame on Eve. After the couple eats the forbidden fruit, they hide from God out of fear. When God finds them, he directs his first question to Adam: "Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" Adam responds, "The woman you put here with me- she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it" (3:11·12). Here, the man first blames the woman before accepting his own culpability. This tendency to place the blame on Eve still exists today. J.A Phillips points out that ever since the time of Adam, man has assigned woman the guilt for the loss of the "paradisiacal life" (42). Tertullian, an early Christian writer and "Father" of the Church, transferred the blame to all women in his infamous speech: "You are the devil's gateway, you are the unsealed of that forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law; you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack: you destroyed so easily God's Strickland 19

image, man. On account of your desert- that is, death, even the Son of Man had to

die" (qtd. in Murphy 54).5 Tertullian even blames Eve for "the cross," claiming that

it was her fault that Jesus "had to die," as if she, being the first "sinner,~' were the only

sinner that ever lived. Ignoring the fact that Adam also disobeyed G~ Tertullian­

and many other leaders of the Early Church- blamed the woman for the entire

catastrophe of the Fall.

Blaming Eve for the Fall has led commentators to view her as a temptress,

which suggests that Eve used her sensual powers to bring about her husband's

destruction Jean M. Higgins, in her article, "The Myth of Eve: The Temptress"

writes how "Sample comments on Gen 3 :6b from the theological literature of

patristic, medieval and modem periods show deep-seated and wide-spread conviction

that Eve tempted Adam to commit the first sin. Such comments sometimes go so far

as to draw parallels between Eve and the serpent, and even make her the cause

responsible for Adam's fall" (639). Another Early Church Father, Gregory

Nazianzen, writes that Eve '"beguiled her husband by pleasures"' and "'proved to be

an enemy rather than a helpmate"' (qtd. in Higgins 639). 6 In the eighteenth century,

the German theologian Herder wrote, "The first female sinner becomes, after Satan's

fashion, the first temptress" (qtd. in Higgins 640). 7 This thinking has prevailed to this

day: The Jerome Biblical Commentary, a recent and widely acclaimed Roman

Catholic American commentary, reads, mThe woman is tempted and falls first; she then tempts the man'" (qtd. in Higgins 639).8 In her article, Higgins sums up a host of scholarship on the subject: according to commentators, "Eve tempted, beguiled, Strickland 20

lured, corrupted, persuaded, taught, counseled, suggested, urged, used wicked

persuasion, led into wrongdoing, proved herself an enemy, used guile and cozening,

tears and lamentations, to prevail upon Adam, had no rest until she got her husband

banished, and thus became the 'first temptress"' (641 ). The dictionary defines

"tempt" as ''to urge ... persuade, induce or entice, especially to something immoral

or sensually pleasurable," and a ''temptress" is "a woman who tempts, especially

sexually" (Webster's New World Dictionary). Thus, by defining Eve as a temptress,

commentators have suggested that Eve used her beauty and sexuality in evil ways to

bring Adam to his demise.

An important key to Eve's myth is that she seduced Adam sexually to commit

his first sin. Both theological and literary interpretations of her suggest that she was a

seductress, which, like a temptress, is a woman who persuades or lures another into

wrongdoing, particularly of a sexual nature (Webster's New World Dictionary).

Theologians have generally considered Eve a seductress who used her sexual powers

to destroy Adam. Many have even compared her to the "strange woman" of Proverbs

7, who is actually an adulteress seducing a young man while her husband is away:

"With persuasive words she led him astray; I she seduced him with her smooth talk"

(v. 21). The man, in turn, follows her"... like an ox going to the slaughter, I like a deer stepping into a noose I ... little knowing it will cost him his life (7:22-23).

Commentators have associated this adulterous woman with Eve, claiming that Eve also seduced Adam to sin, and cost him his "life." Milton reinforced this portrayal of

Eve by comparing her- even unfallen- to archetypal temptresses from classical Strickland 21 m~ including Proserpina, Pandora, Circe, and Venus on Ida. In his reference to

Pandora, for example, he writes that Eve is "More lovely than Pandora, whom the

Gods I Endow' d with all thir gifts, and 0 too like ... she ensnar' d I Mankind with her fair looks" (IV. 714-718). Although he does not say that Eve is like Pandora, he compares their beauty and points out that Pandora used her attractiveness to bring men to their death. The suggestion, then, is that Eve also ensnared her husband by luring him sexually into disobedience to God.

The paradigm of Eve contains the notion that the Fall was a sexual event, and it was woman's sexuality put to evil use which caused it. As Phillips writes, "All of the supposed weaknesses of Eve- her curiosity, vanity, insecurity, gullibility, greed, and lack of moral strength and reasoning skill- combined with her supposed greater powers of imagination, sensuality, and conspiracy, are present in the sexual interpretation of the Fall, which sees the first transgression as human carnal activity"

(62). In Paradise Lost, after Adam eats the fruit, he is inflamed with lust for Eve, and they have erotic intercourse suggestive of the presence of sin, which is absent in the first consummation of their marriage. Aschkenasy points out that Eve has been interpreted as the cause of male lust (not the object of it), and she uses her erotic appeal to bring Adam down to her "bestial level" (40). Thus, Eve's moral weakness is combined with sexual prowess, which she puts to evil use.

The idea that Eve used her sexuality for evil leads to the next component of. her paradigm: Eve herself has been closely associated with the devil. In her many literaty and artistic incarnations, Eve is portrayed as having a special affinity with Strickland 22

Satan. having worked together with him to bring about the Fall. By assuming that

Eve seduced Adam to eat the apple, interpreters have allied her with Satan, concluding that ''the serpent was the Satan of Eve and Eve was the Satan of Adam." 9

Whereas the serpent was the Tempter, Eve was the Temptress. This interpretation of the Fall has blurred the separation between Eve and the devil, suggesting that after she "ate the apple," she became filled with the power of the devil, and was transformed into "demon-Eve" (Phillips 45~ 55, 64). In many artistic depictions, the devil is even represented as female, and art has often shown the serpent as Eve's double (63). In artistic representations of Paradise Lost, Eve's mirror is the woman­ headed serpent, which closely resembles her (McColley 79). These interpretations not only suggest that Eve had a demonic side to her being, but that she was allied with

Satan; she was his counterpart in the temptation that brought about the Fall.

Results of the Paradigm

The dominant consequence of the paradigm of Eve is the subordination of women Since Eve was created secon~ women have been treated as second-class creatures ever since. In the church, the primary way men did this was by restricting women's lives to family duties. The Apostle Paul laid the groundwork for this by writing, "But women will be saved through childbearing- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety" (2:14). This suggests that it is not a woman's call to discipleship that guarantees her salvation, but her prescribed role as wife and mother (Mananzan 5). In Luther's and Calvin's commentaries on Genesis, they also used Eve's fault as a way to keep women in chains. Pamela Norris observes that both Strickland 23 of them saw women as "servile, to remain at home, unable to participate in affai(s outside the home, which were more suited to the male, who had superior intellectual capacities" (281). By confining a woman's life to maternal duties, men rendered them utterly powerless in the outside world. Thus, the subordination of women in church and society was an indirect result of the paradigm of Eve- which supposed that women were created to be second to men.

Eve's paradigm has also been used to silence women. Even Paul declared that all women should learn in silence, adding, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent .... Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (I Tim 2:11-14). Marina

Warner, in her book The Beast to the Blonde, explains that Paul suggests that "Eve, the pattern of all women to come, sinned through speech, by tempting Adam to eat with her words. So speech must be denied her daughters" (29-30). She writes, "Eve sinned by mouth: she bit into the apple of knowledge, she spoke to the serpent and to

Adam, and she was in consequence cursed with desire, to kiss and be kissed ('Thy desire shall be to thy husband')" (31 ). Eve's folly originates in her speaking- first to the serpent, then to Adam, then to God, trying to excuse herself. T~ng the example of Eve, the Church has taught women that their silence, rather than their speech, is their greatest virtue. But this view has been accepted in far wider circles than religious ones. In the Politics, Aristotle wrote, "Silence is a woman's glory ... but this is not equally the glory of man" (qtd. in Warner 29). While Aristotle's statement does not encompass teachings on Eve, his wisdom was certainly treasured and Strickland 24

preserved by Christian and Islamic scholars, whose attitudes were fonned by the

same antifeminism. Literary depictions of women also illustrate that a woman's best

virtue is the ability to hold her tongue. The Virtue of Prudence, for example, is a

"good housewife" who wears a padlock on her mouth. Likewise, the Wise Woman of

sixteenth-century morality tales wears a golden padlock on her lips, symbolizing

obedience and discretion. Through a mouth firmly closed under lock and key, she

declares that no villainous words shall escape from her lips and she would rather die

than dishonor her husband (32-34). It has been assumed, then, that a woman's speech

is disgraceful and must be guarded closely}0 The idea that women are foolish talkers

originated with Eve, whose speech supposedly led her and her husband into the Fall.

Both secular and non-secular responses to her have been to silence women, robbing

them of their voice in the home, in the church, and in the world.

The fear of women's talk was also deeply entangled with the fear of women's

bodies. In the Vulgate, Jerome uses seducta to describe Eve's offering the fruit to

Adam, using a verb that already has sexual connotations. Woman's talk was

considered seductive and therefore dangerous to men. Marina Warner points out that the primary sin with which the tongue is connected is lust; she writes, "Seduction lies

in talk, and the tongue is seduction's tool" (4 7). The evil of women's talk reflected the evil of their bodies, and the seduction by the tongue meant the seduction by the flesh. Connecting Eve to the "strange woman" of Proverbs 7 reinforced the idea that

Eve was a seductress who used her smooth talk to bring her husband to his destruction. Proverbs repeatedly warns against the words of the adulterous woman: Strickland 25

"For the lips of an adulteress drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; I but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword. I Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave" (5:3-5). The adulterous woman seduces the man with powerful words, leading him to his death. Additionally, Proverbs admonishes men to avoid the "wayward wife," whose "seductive words ... lead down to death and her paths to the spirits of the dead" (2: 16, 18). Associating Eve with deadly seductive talk led interpreters to conclude that ''women's words are mixed up with women's wiles," and their speech led men to commit sins that would destroy them (Warner 31 ). In sum, the stereotyping of Eve as seductive in both words and flesh led to disdain for women's talk as well as disdain for women's bodies.

Because a woman could use her sexuality to bring a man to his spiritual demise, early church commentators treated woman's sexuality as an evil to be avoided. An Early Christian father, Gracian, writes, "Different kinds of temptations make war on man in his various ages, some when he is young and others when he is old: but woman threatens him perpetually. Neither the youth, nor the adult, nor the old man, nor the wise, nor the brave, nor even the saint is ever safe from woman"

( qtd. in Mananzan 5). Because of the power of women's bodies, commentators taught that women were the embodiment of sin, to be avoided at all costs, not unlike the devil. Pamela Norris explains that unfortunately, the view of Eve as a sexually fallible creation ''chimed with ideas about women widely current in religious, recreational and scientific literature, which was written almost exclusively by men, Strickland 26 and was absorbed into the thinking of early Christian commentators, who interpreted

Eve,s character through the distorting prism of their own sexual anxieties and established it as the paradigm for women" (110). Consequently, the patriarchal construction of Eve as inherently carnal, and therefore sinful, actually reflects an inordinate fear of female sexuality. Her allure - her supposed astonishing physical beauty, combined with her great powers of seduction- actually scared men into believing she was demonic. For men, women's bodies ignited the sinful thoughts that challenged their ability to make moral choices. Thus, a result of the paradigm of Eve was an extraordinary fear of the power of female sexuality and a desire to somehow protect and control it.

Another result of the paradigm of Eve was a backlash against women's beauty and adornments, which were natural expressions of their sexuality. One of the most vicious attacks on women's dress, interestingly, comes from the Scriptures. In Isaiah, it is directed towards the haughty daughters of Zion, who are portrayed as walking proudly, "flirting with their eyes, I tripping along with mincing steps, I with ornaments jingling on their ankles" (3:16). The prophet Isaiah does not bash their beauty; instead, he condemns their pride, and the vanity that accompanies it. He goes on to describe their horrible fate:

Therefore the LORD will bring sores on the heads of the women of

Zion; the LORD will make their scalps bald ... the LORD will snatch

away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces,

the earrings and bracelets and veils ... the fine robes and capes and Strickland 27

cloaks, the purses and mirro~ and the linen garments and tiaras and

shawls. Instead of fragrance there will be a stench ... instead of well­

dressed hair, baldness; instead of fine clothing. sackcloth; instead of

beauty, branding. (lsa 3:18-24)

Isaiah writes that God looks upon vanity with disgust, and the Christian tradition, centuries later, upheld the same belief Paul, in 1 Tim 2:9, laid down the law that women should dress modestly, without the show ofjewels or elaborate hairdos, saying that such dress was inappropriate for women who professed to worship God.

In the 3rd century, Tertullian lashed out against women's dress: ~~stylish dress is the scarlet letter that proclaims a woman's bad intentions and confinns her character as daughter ofEve" (qtd. in Norris 197). He continues, "Women, you ought to dress in mourning and rags, representing yourself as penitents bathed in tears, redeeming thus the fault of having ruined the human race. You are the door of hell: you finally, are the cause why Jesus Christ had to die" (qtd. in Mananzan 5). Although this is clearly a misogynistic statement, it reflects the shame which plagued women as a result of the paradigm of Eve. Women were blamed for Eve's transgression, and as a result, women were directed to reject their sexuality altogether and live the rest of their lives re-living the shame of her sin.

WQmen have internalized the blame placed on Eve for the Fall, and that blame has turned into a burdensome sense of shame and guilt. In the moving words of an

Old Irish lament, we can see the blame which women have internalized: Strickland 28

I am Eve~ the wife of noble Adam; it was I who violated Jesus in the

past; it was I who robbed my children of heaven; it is I by right who

should have been crucified.

I had heaven at my command; evil the bad choice that shamed me; evil

the punishment for my crime that has aged me; alas, my hand is not

pure.

It was I who plucked the apple; it went past the narrow of my gullet; as

long as they live in daylight women will not cease from folly on

account of that

There would be no ice in any place; there would be no bright windy

winter; there would be no hell, there would be no grief, there would be

no terror but for me. (qtd. in Norris 238)

This poem communicates the incredible burden the paradigm of Eve has placed on women. Somehow, Eve, and therefore her descendents, are at fault for the Fall,

which has "plunged humanity into the terrors of hell-fire and death" (238). This has

led women to feel guilty for the crucifixion of Christ, the existence of death and hell, and the loss of "paradise" for their children. It is too heavy of a load to bear, and it has left women ashamed and guilt-ridden.

Contemporary women are angry that they have inherited the blame for the

Fall, which has burdened women over the centuries. Rae Ballard, in her 1987 poem

"Eve to Her Daughters," uses the voice of Eve or her modem-day descendent to communicate the sense of what it feels like to be blamed: Strickland 29

He has the hold, of course,

that I proposed the apple.

When he recalls that momentary world­

grass gentle to our feet, even the stones

obedient in their places -

the evening light on wide, calm waters holding

swans and sky-

and everywhere those green, green branches bright

with birds and flowers and fruit

and not one yellowed leaf

Yes, when he remembers all we lost,

the pain's too much,

and his hands must strike at something. (1-15)

The man is angry because humankind lost paradise "on account of her." The object that he strikes at in anger, of course, is woman.

Ballard continues her poem by describing all the agonizing labor the man has done to provide food, clothing and shelter for "his daughters." But at the end of the poem, she writes:

Sometimes, though, when his craving for my flesh

drives him to call me "temptress" and ''unclean,"

I ache to blurt, Strickland 30

"If you're wise and I'm so foolish,

where was your wisdom then?" (31-35)

The words "I ache to blurt" communicate the pain which women feel about having been blamed for the Fall and having been called sinful and foolish. Ballard finishes her poem by poignantly saying that when the man tells his sons that "'The fault was woman,'" she aches to say, "'There were three of us in the Garden"' (36-39). No matter how much a woman may respect her husband's toil and sacrifice, it still hurts to hear him say, "It was the woman's fault," because she feels like man is striking out at her. Even in modem times, women feel defensive of Eve, because when men accuse Eve, they accuse them all.

Teaching women that they are '1emptresses" who destroy me~ that they are the "embodiment of sin," and the Fall was ''their fault" only alienates women from themselves and from the men who point fingers at them. The I 993 poem "Eve" by

Robin Pastorio-Newman, communicates this alienation. She begins with the following refrain that she repeats throughout the poem:

I take down this apple

and hold it out to you

you cando

whatever you wish ...." ( l-4)

Pastorio-Newman proceeds by interspersing the poem with ways that women have been blamed for what Adam chose to do in the Garden: "Blame me for picking it I ..

. blame me for its sweet aroma I blame me for wanting to know this mystery" (19, 21- Strickland 31

22). Sharply, she adds, "blame me for feeling constricted I blame me for my rage ..

." (25, 26). Through repetition, Pastorio-Newman reinforces the injustices the myth of Eve has placed on women: "teach me that I tempt you I ... teach me that I am dirty

I teach me that I am evil" (34, 37-38). She adds, "make me into a bouquet of lies I . .. make me foreign to myself' (35, 39). This blame has made women feel "foreign to themselves'' because they cannot possibly see themselves as evil, dirty temptresses.

Deep down, women know that they were not created "unclean." Therefore, the paradigm of Eve angers, alienates, and confuses them. Finally, it makes them long for men to see their own faults instead of placing the blame on them.

Long before the twentieth century, blaming Eve for the Fall has infuriated women into demanding that men take responsibility for their own actions. Aemilia

Lanyer, a Renaissance poet who wrote "Eve's Apology in Defense of Women," turns the blame back on the men. In her poem, Lanyer uses Adam and Pilate11 as representatives of the male gender, and Eve and Pilate's wife as representatives of women. In an impassioned address to Pilate, she pleads with him to refrain from crucifying Jesus. She proceeds to point out that his fault in condemning Christ is much worse than Eve's fault in the Garden Calling Eve "our mother," Lanyer says that she, "poor soul, by cunning was deceived; I No hurt therein her harmless heart intended" (29·30). In other words, she was an innocent woman who was tricked, and she meant no harm. Conversely, Lanyer argues that Pilate, with malice intent, sent an innocent man to his death. Addressing Pilate, she writes, "Her sin was small to what you do commit" and "Your fault being greater, why should you disdain I Our being Strickland 32

your equals, free from tyranny?" (74, 85-86). Since woman's sin was "smaller" than

man's, Lanyer asks why women shouldn't be free from guilt, abuse and injustice.

She continues by pointing out that Eve may have faltered·in weakness, but the men

who crucified Christ were far more wicked than she: "Ifone weak woman simply did

offend, I This sin of yours hath no excuse or end" (87-88). Lastly, Lanyer reminds

men of woman's value by pointing out that they"... came not in the world without

our pain" and should "Make that a bar against [their] cruelty" (83-84). In other

words, Lanyer tells the men to look at their own sins, free the women from the guilt,

and treat women with the respect they deserve. 12

The ultimate result of the paradigm ofEve has been the inability of men to

take personal responsibility for their own choices, which has resulted in a lack of vital

grace in the Church. Bill J. Leonard, in his article "Forgiving Eve," says that blaming

Eve "may represent the fatal flaw in [the Church] itself .... It demonstrates little

room for grace, judgment or even sin. For if sin can be blamed on demons ... or

ancient curses, then ~onal responsibility for corporate sinfulness is easily

obscured" (1039). He hits a key point: the Church is supposed to be about God's

grace-"grace that will pardon and cleanse within ... grace that is·greater than sin"

(Tesh). But the Church can't seem to forgive Eve, even in a religion whose

foundation and essence is forgiveness. Sadly, the fundamental flaw of Christianity has been a lack thereof. The lesson of Genesis is that blaming others for one's own

mistakes- as Adam blamed the woman and Eve blamed the serpent- does not excuse people from the consequences of sin. The Fall teaches that each person must Strickland 33 take personal responsibility for his or her choices - a point that has been missed by thousands of years of biblical commentators. Fortunately, more recent biblical commentaries do provide this lesson in the footnotes, and most of them reftain from calling Eve the ''temptress. "13 Nevertheless, the Church still has to take responsibility for the way it has handled this subject. In Leonard's words, "If there is not enough grace for Eve, there may not be enough for the rest of us" (1040). He points out that the story of the Fall has less to do with Eve's sin than with our own. He claims that people can't keep placing blame on Eve-their "first mother"- for their mistakes.

Instead, people need to look at themselves to see how they can make better choices that will have lasting consequences for their children. Only then will the Church be able to repair itself by demonstrating the grace and forgiveness it professes.

De-Constructing the Myth

It is clear that contemporary women are ready for a new myth of Eve. Before we consider ways to re-envision her, however, we must first de-construct the old myth. In the following section, we will consider the following: Was Eve second, therefore subordinate, created to be submissive to her husband, even mindlessly so?

Was she inherently flawed with beauty that led to vanity, self-possession, foolishness and moral weakness? Lastly, was she a temptress and seductress who had a special affinity with the Devil, and was she to blame for the Fall? There is little historical proof that Eve was any of these things, and in the following section, we will examine her paradigm in light of the lack of evidence that supports it. Strickland 34

To begin, the notion that Eve was created "second" and therefore is

"subordinate" has no substantiation in Scripture. Phyllis Trible, the feminist

theologian and Old Testament scholar who has done the most foundational work on

this subject, postulates that in the first creation story, God creates an "earth creature"

which embodies both "male and female." She points out that in Gen 1:26, the word

humankind is synonymous with the phrase "male and female," and at this point,

"humankind" has not yet been split into two separate creatures ( 18). She writes that,

"Created simultaneously, male and female are not superior and subordinate,"; instead,

they are "one flesh" (19). Using plural pronouns and verbs forms, God gives both

male and female equal dominion over the earth, but does not give either dominion

over the other (19). According to Trible, in the second creation story, God performs

"surgery" on this "earth creature," splitting it into two separate beings with sexual

differentiation, man and woman. Therefore, Trible concludes, "Their creation is

simultaneous, not sequentiaf' (98). As God builds Eve from the rib of the man,

woman is formed, while the earth creature is also changed, becoming differentiated

from her: thus, male and female are created simultaneously. After "humankind" is

split into two, Adam calls the woman ~'Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,"

which speaks of the couple's unity, solidarity and equality (Gen 2:23). The man in no way depicts himself as superior to the woman, but instead, he speaks of her as his equal. Even in his first naming of her, ''woman,'' he expresses no power or dominion over her, in contrast to his naming of the plants and animals. Both man and woman are equal and unified. Recognizing that man and woman were not created Strickland 35

sequentially but simultaneously, and that they were created equal, we understand the

illegitimacy and distortion of the myth that the woman is the "second sex.''

Since woman was not created subordinate, then she was also not created to be

in subjection to her husband. Instead. her submission to him is a consequence of the

couple's shared disobedience in the Fall. According to Trible, Eve's subordination to

Adam does not come until after the Fall, when God lays out the consequences of their

disobedience. At that point, "one flesh" becomes divided. Trible argues that in

God's speech to the woman, it is made clear that their union is no more: He says,

"Your desire will be for your husband, I and he will rule over you" (Gen 3: 16b ).

Trible explains, "His supremacy is neither a divine right nor a male prerogative. Her

subordination is neither a divine decree nor the female destiny. Both their positions

result from shared disobedience" (128). In other words, Adam and Eve were created equal, but became unequal after the Fall; their division was a consequence of their misdeed Whereas before the Judgment there is no indication that Adam has any precedence over his wife, in the aftermath ofjudgment, the man shows dominion over the woman; he calls her a name: Eve, meaning the "mother of all living." At the end of the story, God makes garments for each of them, treating them equally. The man, on the other band, does not treat the woman as his equal. Consequently, equality in the eyes of God, after disobedience, does not translate into equality between the sexes

(134). In sum, woman's subjection to her husband was not the intention of creation; instead, man and woman were created equal, and woman's subordination arose as a Strickland 36

consequence of the couple's disobedience. While God still views man and woman as

equals, there is nevertheless a division between man and woman in life on earth.

This relationship in which man is the leader in no way implies mindless

subjection on the part of the woman, nor does it imply that the man is a harsh ruler

over her. Scripture reminds men to love their wives, not to be harsh with them, to be

considerate of them, and to treat them with respect (Col3:19, I Pe 3:7). Further, it

does not indicate that a woman only submits to the matt; on the contrary, Paul writes

in Eph. 5:21 that both men and women "should submit to one another out of

reverence for Christ." In the succeeding verses, Paul compares the relationship

between a husband and wife to the relationship between Christ and the Church. He

writes that husbands ought to love their wives, just as Christ loved the church and

gave himself up for it (5:25). Quoting God's declaration that man and wife are to be

one flesh, Paul exhorts men to love their wives "as their own bodies," feeding and

taking care of them, as Christ did for the Church (5:28). He writes, "Each of you also

must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband'' (5:33).

Just as the Church honors Christ, so the wife honors and respects her husband.

Understanding that this is in the context of the way Christ treated the Church is vital.

Christ did not lord his authority over the people; rather, he loved, served, and even died for the people. The man is commanded to treat his wife in the same manner

(5:25·33). When a woman is treated in this way, "submission" to him is neither burdensome nor grudging. The myth that woman is to be blindly obedient to a ruling Strickland 37 husband is just that: a myth. It is a creation men have used to "put women in their place," and it has no scriptural validity.

The paradigm of Eve also suggests that women were created physically beautiful simply to gratify the desires of man. Whereas no one will ever know if Eve had long, golden flowing hair and a strong, voluptuous body, there is no harm in assuming that she was beautiful. The harm that the paradigm of Eve contains is that women were created for beauty and not for intellect. Mary Wollstonecraft, in her

Vindication ofthe Rights of Women, lambasts Milton on this point: "When he tells us that women are formed for 'softness and sweet attractive grace,' I cannot comprehend his meaning, unless ... he meant to deprive us of souls, and insinuate that we were beings only designed ... to gratify the senses of man" (qtd. in Norris 291 ). Valuing a woman's outward appearance as her primary virtue actually demeans the fullness of womanhood by diminishing the value of a woman's more lasting qualities. The highly esteemed Proverbs 31 "Wife of the Noble Character," for example, is not valued for her beauty; in fact, the famous poem says nothing about her outer appearance. Rather, it exalts her for her vigorous work, physical strength and intelligence in making wise investments and gaining provisions for her household; it esteems her for her kindness to the poor, dignified and wise teaching, and fear of God

(31: 10-31 ). Poignantly, it reads, "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised" (31:30). A woman's beauty is a temporal quality, but her dignity and wisdom are not. The value that men have placed on women's physical beauty is simply a degradation of the importance God Strickland 38

places on their minds and souls. Women were created for more than their physical

attraction for men; they were created as intelligent beings who can also bring

compassion and dignity to the human race.

Eve very well may have been a beautiful woman, but Scripture does not

indicate that she was vain or self-possessed, or that her love was more selfish than

Adam's. If''vanity" means "having no real value" or "empty," then claiming that

Eve was vain implies that God's creation was flawed. The truth is manifestly just the

opposite: she was made in God's image, and she was of incredible value. She was the

"helpmeet" without whom Adam was incomplete, and she was also the "mother of all

living"; through her, new life would come into the world Furthermore, if she were made in the "image of God," who has no evil in Him, then she could not possibly

have been overly preoccupied with herself. In addition, there is no scriptural

evidence that she was selfish. Whereas Milton unfairly supposed that she offered the fruit to Adam for selfish reasons, the poet Lanyer suggests that Eve's only fault was

"too much love" (57). Her love for Adam led her to share the fruit with him as a''...

present to her dear, I That what she tasted he likewise might prove, I Whereby his knowledge might become more clear" (58-60). In other words, Eve shared the fruit with him as a gift, so that he would taste its deliciousness and grow in knowledge.

Thus, claiming that her vanity and self-possession led to the Fall is simply a stereotypical interpretation of women. The Fall can just as easily be turned around to interpret Eve as giving and loving. Strickland 39

Feminist theologians also argue that Eve did not fall because she was frail or

foolish, but because she was hungry for knowledge. We can change the perception of

"foolish Eve" by understanding why she ate the fruit. First, it was pleasing to the

palate and satisfied hunger ("good for food"), it was aesthetically pleasing ("pleasant

to the eyes"), and it provided knowledge ("for gaining wisdom") (Gen 3:6). Trible

points out that in Eve's conversation with the serpent, she is intelligent, informed and

perceptive (110). The serpent questions God's edict not to eat from the tree, and Eve

in return quotes God's command. Then the serpent promises that the fruit will give

her wisdom, and she considers its attributes and eats. In Judith Sargeant Murray's

·"On the Equality of the Sexes," she writes that Eve's behavior was motivated by a

quest for understanding: "It doth not appear that she was governed by any one

sensual appetite; but merely a desire of adorning her mind; a laudable ambition fired

her soul, and a thirst for knowledge impelled the predilection so fatal in its

consequences" (23-24). Likewise, Ashk:enasy calls her "an intellectually curious

person whose quest for knowledge ends in the rash act of violating God's law" (11).

Again, Lanyer writes that "If Eve did err, it was for knowledge sake" (53). Eve was

not simply a weak, empty-headed woman who couldn't stand up to temptation;

instead, she was more likely a daring woman who pushed the boundaries of her existence in her thirst for knowledge.

Some feminist theologians even claim that Adam- not Eve- was the weak one in the episode of the temptation, which debunks the myth that Eve dragged Adam into the Fall. Most theological criticism says that Adam fell by the "vice of his wife," Strickland 40 and of course, Milton says he ate the apple to appease her. When one takes a close look at the account of the temptation, however, one will see that Eve resists the serpent and only eats after much convincing, but Adam does not resist temptation at all. Gen 3:6 simply says, she gave some to her husband, and "he ate it," without hesitation or reluctance. Trible writes, "The contrast that he offers to the woman is not strength or resolve but weakness. No patriarchal figure making decisions for his family, he follows his woman without question or comment .... He does not theologize; he does not contemplate; and he does not envision the full possibilities of the occasion ... his one act is belly-oriented" (113). The poet Lanyer also places the fault on Adam's shoulders:

But surely Adam cannot be excused

Her fault though great, yet he was most to blame

What weakness offered, strength might have refused,

Being lord of all, the greater was his shame.... (33-36)

In other words, Adam could have refused Eve, but he did not, and as the first man and

"lord of creation," he showed marked weakness. Lanyer expounds, "He never sought her weakness to reprove I With those sharp words which he of God did hear," meaning that he could have rebuked her and reminded her of God's commandment, but he did not (61-62). In the words of the poet Pastorio-Newman, his response could have been to "drop [the apple] on the ground and bury it," but instead he "pointed his finger and took a bite" (11-12, 61 ). Clearly, both Adam and Eve gave in to Strickland 41

temptation, and either of them can be called "weak." Claiming that Adam fell on

account ofEve~s weakness is incorrect.

It is also incorrect to claim that Eve tempted Adam to commit the first sin.

Nowhere in Genesis does it say that she tern~ begui~ or coerced Adam to eat

the fruit. It only says she "gave some to her husban~ and he ate" (3:6b). Substituting

"tempts" and "temptress" for the literal "she gave him some" is quite a stretch. As

Jean Higgins puts it, "Eve the temptress never performs in the biblical text" (647).

The text never says that Eve became a temptress; it only says that she herself was tempted. In the scene ofjudgment, Eve tells God that the serpent deceived her, but

Adam makes no such claim about Eve. He simply says that she gave him the fruit and he ate it. He does not say that she deceived him. Thus, there is a "seduction of

Eve, but no seduction by Eve" (Kimelman 258). Both of them were deceived by the serpent.

Neither the Creation story nor the account of the Fall provides any indication that Eve was somehow overtly sexual or connected with things of the flesh. The

Genesis account shows no record of her seducing Adam in any way, neither to eat the fruit nor to have sex with her. The common interpretation of the Fall as a sexual event is simply a product of the male imagination at work. Paradise Lost depicts the couple having lustful sex after the Fall, but Genesis makes no such reference. In fact, at that point, the couple were so troubled by their fate that sex was probably the farthest thing from their minds. Nevertheless, ifthey did have sexual intercourse, it could not have been considered "sinful" by Christian scholars, for Adam and Eve Strickland 42

were bound to one another in marriage. 14 So from the Christian standpoint, the idea

that the Fall is the introduction of sinful sex into the world is also without merit.

Lastly, the original text gives no indication that Eve bad a special affinity with

the devil. Ashkenasy points out that in Genesis, "Eve's relationship with the serpent

is not seen as an affiliation with a Satanic power .... The Genesis serpent never

transcends his concrete existence as one of the animals in the primeval garden.

Therefore, within the boundaries of the biblical text, Eve's dealing with the serpent

carries no demonic connotations" (42). In other words, Eve and Satan were two

different characters who interacted but never intersected. On the other hand, an

interesting interpretation of the Fall regards the devil not as an actual snake, but rather

as a symbol for the battle of wills within her. 15 According to Reuven Kimelman, the

conversation between Eve and the devil may represent •'the workings of one's own

inner life, where so often the borders between protagonist and antagonist become

blurred" (259). Their conversation, then, would consist of the human struggle

between human will and divine authority. This reading would certainly correct any

tendency to blame Eve for the Fall. Instead ofjudging Eve for her fault, people might

see themselves in her by recognizing that her struggle is one that all people share.

Finally, no one person is to blame for the Fall. Both Adam and Eve gave in to

temptation; both disobeyed the divine command; and both men and women must take

responsibility for their actions. The issue of individual accountability can be cleared

up by taking a close look at the Judgment When God finds the couple hiding because of their shame, he first questions the man, showing that the man alone must Strickland 43

bear responsibility for his deed (Trible 118). The man blames the woman, blames

God, then confesses. When the woman is questioned, she blames the serpent, then

accepts responsibility; she does not blame God, nor does she implicate Adam; she

speaks only about herself (120-121 ). Nevertheless, God's questions to both Adam

and Eve make it clear that there is no room for blame; they are individually

accountable. Likewise, their confessions also indicate their understanding of mutual

responsibility (126-127). Simply put, the decision to eat the fruit was Eve's alone, as

was Adam's decision his alone (126-127). Hence, each person is accountable for

their own actions, and pointing the fmger at someone else is only a way to avoid

taking personal responsibility. By blaming Eve for the Fall, men have simply

avoided having to answer for the sin of Adam. The Fall was not "Eve's fault," and

women should no longer have to bear this burden of her myth.

Re-constructing the Myth

Now that we have exposed the elements contained in the myth of Eve that find

no basis in the text, we have the opportunity to create a new, healthier myth that can

empower women instead of disempower them. We must keep in mind that creating a

new myth means ridding Eve of the old presumptions about her, and this may take centuries of biblical scholarship on the part of both men and women to accomplish. It

is nevertheless a worthy effort because if we create a new, better myth, then we can some day teach our daughters that the first woman, from whom they have descended, is a woman to be admired. We can also tell them that as their "ffrst mother," Eve has much to teach them. Strickland 44

A new image of Eve might contain the following elements: she was a woman

made in the image of God, who was created to complement man and bring new life

into the world; thus, she was our first example of what it means to be a wife and mother. She was also an independent thinker, and because of that, she suffered the

consequences of her choices. Eve is a woman just like any other; she struggled with

herself, suffered greatly, and longed for restoration.

A new myth of Eve must retain the fact that in the context of Genesis, women

were created in God's image, and that their creation was part of God's great design.

Remembering that an "image" is a "likeness" or "representation of a person or thing,"

Eve was made in God's image just as much as Adam was, and women therefore reflect the likeness of God just as much as men do. While Genesis tells us that Adam was created from the "dust of the earth,~' and Eve from the "rib of the~, Trible reminds us that the woman was not made from the man, any more than the man was made from the earth. Instea

Instead of seeing Eve's creation as secondary to Adam's, we can see it as the climactic moment of Creatio~ which represents the completion of God's work.

Trible calls Eve the "culmination of the entire movement, in no way an afterthought" Strickland 45

(102). In other words, the creation of woman was the ultimate moment of Creation: after creating light, water, earth, vegetation, sky, stars, the sun and moon, living creatures and man, God finishes his work by creating Eve, the "mother of all living," the "life-bearer," who would share as his co-creator by bringing forth new life into the world. Eve is the "culmination of creation, fulfilling humanity in sexuality"

(103). She was created last not because she was last, but because she was necessary­ both to Adam and to God; Adam needed her to complete him, and God needed her to bring forth new life on earth. Without her, humankind would be sorely incomplete.

It is also important to see Eve as a complement to her husband, without whom

Adam was incomplete. After God creates all of the elements, including man, he says for the first time that something is not ~~good": "It is not good for man to be alone," he says, ~~I will make a helper suitable for him" (Gen 2:18). A "suitable helper'' is not one who "proves to be an enemy rather than a helpmate," as Eve has been accused of being. The Proverbs 7 adulteress, with whom Eve has been allied, represents only one aspect of womanhood, not at all the entire realm of it. Instead, the antithesis of the

Proverbs 7 Woman Folly is the Woman Wisdom of Proverbs 31. This woman brings her husband "good and not harm, all the days of his life" (31: 12). McColley writes,

"God made woman not to tempt man but to be the nurse and guide ofthe voluntary virtue on which his happiness depends" (69). Thus, woman was created to be a blessing to man. Proverbs reads that "A good wife is the crown of her husband," and

"He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD" (12:4,

18:22). Proverbs 31 reads that a wife of noble character is ~worth far more than Strickland 46

rubies" and her husband "praises her'' (31: 10, 28). In other words, Eve was a gift to

Adam- one whose price is immeasurable- and she was created to be valued and

praised. In the Genesis story, the man leaves his family in order to be with her. "In

the design and content of the story," Trible writes, "she is elevated as the one to

whom he must cleave" (104). In other words, the man moves towards her, and in her,

he finds fulfillment. Re-envisioning Eve in this light not only affirms women but also

reminds them of the value that women bring to the marriage relationship, and the gift _

that they were created to be.

Adam calls Eve "the mother of all living," and she is the source of life as well as the first mother of mankind While she has actually been associated with bringing

death into the world, Genesis emphasizes that she is the vehicle through which all

new life will come. Aschkenasy points out that Adam does not name her Havva­

''the mother of all living" - until after the Fall, therefore affirming her role as life­

force and mother (43). By viewing Eve as the source of life, we can recognize her value as co-creator with God. Almost a millennium ago, Hildegard de Bingen ( 1098-

1179) wrote, "Woman gives birth to God's image in every child that she bears" (qtd. in Norris 62). There is nothing more valuable and powerful than a mother- she is the nurturer of new life and the shaper of human destiny. Her role as teacher to the children she raises gives her a unique partnership with God, for she shares in his creation and shapes the fate of humanity.

As a mother, Eve experienced the entire spectrum ofjoy and pain that mothers throughout time have experienced Eve's life was a channel through which came the Strickland 47

full sphere of human experience: not only life, but also death. Literally, her life did

bring about both good and evil: death and sin through her sons Cain and Abel, and

life and hope through her third son, Seth. In Genesis 4, Cain murders Abel out of jealousy, and God banishes Cain from the land From Eve's perspective, she loses

two sons: one, murdered; the other, banished. Eve experienced the almost unbearable

torment of being a mother of a deceased son and a wicked son. She was not the

instigator of Cain's evil; instead, she was the victim of it, and she must have suffered

greatly as a result of her double loss. Unfortunately, no one pays attention to Eve as

mother in this regard, but any mother would empathize with her pain. Yet, through

her loss, Eve did have a glimpse of hope. She gave birth to a third son, Seth, from

whose lineage Christ would be bom Eve gave God the credit for this third birth:

"God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him" (Gen

4:25). Here, we can see her need for healing, and her hope that Seth will bring about that healing. Following the record of his birth, Genesis reads, "Then they began to

call upon the name of the Lord" (4:26b ). The pain that Adam and Eve felt led them

to desire reconciliation to God, and she sought to return to her former relationship with her Creator. Seth's birth "ushers in a new, God-centered beginning for humankind" (Korsak 462). Thus, humanity comes to full circle with Eve- the loss of paradise, and the hope of paradise regained. As a mother, she embodies all of the pain, worry, joy and hope that every mother holds in her heart Her children were her life, and if women can imagine her cradling her children in her arms, watching them Strickland 48 grow, suffering their errors and praying for their futures, then women can find the

"true" Eve, who is just like them.

The last component of the new myth of Eve must encompass the tact that even though she was a wife and mother, she was also an independent thinker, who branched out on her own in search of wisdom and understanding. When she chose to

"eat the apple," she acted independently, seeking neither man's permission nor his advice. But she was not secretive or withdrawn about it; in the presence of man, she simply thought and acted for herself (Trible 113). Without disqualifying the error of her deed, we can recognize that she was bold, independent, and unafraid to decide for herself Aschkenasy calls her act of violating God's order the "daring attempt ofa curious person with an appetite for life to encompass the whole spectrum of life's possibilities" (41). Eve "ate the apple" because she wanted to taste as much of life as she could; she wanted to "transcend her limitations and expand her horizons''; she wanted to push the boundaries of her existence (45). Unfortunately, in her·~ to exhaust the whole gamut of human existence," she paid a tremendous price (41 ).

Like many men and women, she chose to know, she chose to experience, and she had to pay the consequence of that choice.

Eve epitomizes the human condition, in that however much people may desire to do what is right, everyone struggles within themselves to make the right choices.

At some point, everyone falls. But it is in the "falling" that people tum around and seek restoration with their "roots," {)ften calling once again upon their Creator. In

Eve's case, God responded to her call with a promise of restoration. When people Strickland 49 fall, they too can hope that just as God did for Eve after her fall - by sewing garments to cover her nakedness - he will pick them up and "cover their shame." He will also tend to their needs and guide them as they walk on in faith that some day, they too will return to paradise.

The "new" myth of Eve is one that encompasses the needs and experiences of real women. She was a woman who lived, loved, made choices, suffered their consequences, and longed for restoration. This is the Eve women need, because this is an Eve women can see in themselves. Strickland 50

Chapter 2

The Virgin Mary: A Model of Womanhood

Tile Virgin Mary as an Image of Women

In studying the genesis of images of women, I next tum to the Virgin Mary.

As an archetype of womanhood, she is the preeminent female figure that bas emerged from the New Testament, arguably from the entire Bible for the Christian tradition.

Indeed, the Old Testament contains many worthy and noble women, such as Sarah,

Naomi, Miriam, Deborah, and Esther. But the figure of womankind that has overwhelmingly dominated ecclesiastical, literary and artistic treatments of women since Eve has been the Virgin Mary. As the "Model for all Her Sex," she has been held up as a standard of excellence to be imitated by all women. As the pattern or model of the female gender, Mary stands for all that is good in womankind. Every positive attribute of femininity is embodied in her. Whereas Eve was the "evil" woman whose infidelity caused the Fall, Mary was the "blessed" woman, whose faithfulness ushered in redemption for humankind. Additionally, as the "Mother of

God," she has become the predominant female figure that represents both God and humanity on earth. She alone is cast in this role, unmatched by any other woman.

In the forthcoming pages, I examine the paradigm of the Virgin Mary as a lens through which women see themselves. I begin by shedding light on her ecclesiastical origins as a construction of the Church. Next, I examine her paradigm as the New Strickland 51

Eve, the Handmaid of the Lord, the Eternal Virgin, the Immaculate One, the Blessed

Mother, the Co-Redeemer and the Queen of Heaven. I proceed by revealing the

damaging results of her paradigm: that women should be passive and subordinate; that virginity, not faith, brings blessing; and that motherhood is the primary goal of a

woman's life. Further, I consider her paradigm as the creation of an impossible ideal for wome~ which has alienated women from one another, idealized the one to the

detriment of the many, and prevented women from relating to Mary. Conversely, I

illuminate a vital reality: the Virgin Mary has provided a way for people to see God as compassionate and loving, which enables them to imagine God in female terms.

After evaluating the consequences of her paradigm, I then unravel it, by revealing the

lack of substance in each of its threads. Lastly, I attempt to weave a new, better myth of Mary as a human woman, whose submission, virginity, and motherhood were

choices. and whose intelligence and sexuality made her fully woman. The Virgin

Mary was a faithful and blessed woman who lived a troubled life and sought peace

amidst her suffering. She is the prototype of all humanity in the capacity that all people have to look their pain in the face and triumph over it.

Coastruetion of Mary

The paradigm of the Virgin Mary, like the paradigm ofEve, is primarily a construction of the Church. It was created to provide an archetype of femininity which esteemed womanhood, therefore fulfilling a need for people to see women in a positive light. According to Pamela Norris, in her book Eve: A Biography. negative interpretations of the Fall troubled both the sexes and left men and women longing for Strickland 52

a more positive role model for women. If women were foolish, vain, weak and evil,

she asks, "What hope of tranquility was there for man or self-respect for woman?"

(237). The symbolism of Eve, which claimed that women were in essence vicious,

l~ft people with a lop-sided view of femininity that could only be balanced by a

positive symbol of womankind. This symbol would come through the Virgin Mary.

In the Virgin, the Church developed a counter-image for women which "provided an

outlet for the recognition and admiration of the feminine that was denied sinful Eve"

(237). In other words, all that was respectable and dignified about womanhood was

represented in Mary. Her paradigm, therefore, is an ecclesiastical construction, which

the Church has used to meet the needs of its people.

Paradigm of Mary

A foundational principle in the paradigm of Mary is her symbolism as the

"New" or "Secoruf' Eve. Both Orthodox and Catholic alike have affirmed that as

Christ represents the New Adam, so Mary represents the New Eve. Norris points out that Eve's name has even been interpreted as confirming her direct link with Mary; the Latin Eva reverses to become Ave, which is the greeting with which Gabriel announced his presence to Mary in the Vulgate version of the Bible (235-36). She writes, "Just as Mary was Eve spelt backwards, so Mary represented the obverse of all those negative characteristics that had become attached to the idea of woman: a chaste, selfless, benignly maternal influence in place ofEve's self-seeking greed and sexuality, her irrationality and lack of self-control" (236). In other words, Mary was everything Eve was not. Mary was humble, Eve was proud; Mary wa.~ obedient, Eve Strickland 53

was disobedient; Mary was a virgi~ Eve was a seductress; Mary was a saint, and Eve

was a sinner. By the Middle Ages, the contrasting images of the two women had been established as criteria for female behavior, and woman's responsibility for bringing good and evil into the world had become commonplace.

I As the "Second Eve," Mary is also called the "Handmaid of the Lord," whose

unquestioning obedience brought the hope of new life into the world According to

Luke l :28-34, the angel Gabriel came to Mary and told her that she would conceive

and bear a son who would be called the Most High. She asked him how this would be possible, and he told her that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and she would be with child. Mary responded with, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it unto me according to thy word'' (Lk 1:38, KJV). 16 Theologians have pointed to her obedience in light of Eve's disobedience: "Eve, through disobedience, brings death into the world; Mary, through obedience, brings Life (Christ) into the world Eve trusts the serpent; Mary trusts the Lord. Her faith reverses Eve's lack of faith"

(Thompson 238). While Eve is responsible for plunging humanity into the realities of hell and death, Mary is responsible for raising humanity to the hope of heaven and eternal life. Furthermore, it is Mary's "submission" that brings forth the blessing of

Paradise. Norris writes how. "Eve through willful curiosity threw away humanity's right to Eden; Mary through selfless acceptance regained its hope of Paradise" (235).

The Church Fathers established this "selfless acceptance" as a main principle in the paradigm of Mary, and called all women to imitate it By doing so, women were to reject their "Eve-nature," and be like Mary, who humbly accepted the will of God. Strickland 54

The image of Mary as the "Blessed Virgin" is another way the Church

Fathers framed her paradigm and contrasted her to Eve. The Church taught that the virginity of Mary canceled out the carnality of Eve. J.A. Phillips, in his book The

History ofan Idea: Eve, writes, "As the human race was sentenced to death by means of a virgin [Eve], so it is now set aright by means of a virgin .... A virgin's disobedience is saved by a virgin's obedience" (133). Thus, Mary's virgin obedience made her triumphant over the curse set in motion by Eve, whose sexual disobedience made her a shame to the female gender. 'fhe Church taught that through Mary's virginity, she would free humanity from the fatal taint of sexuality that had been passed down from generation to generation since the Fall (Norris 232). Phillips writes, "The sexual interpretation of the Fall became validated by the doctrine of the virginity of Mary. Paradise is virginity; the loss of virginity is the fall from grace.

Mary's celibacy is her victory; Eve's disobedience is therefore her sexual defeat"

(135). This teaching led to the idea that women could conquer their "evil" sexuality by professing lifelong chastity. The post-apostolic church taught that virginity was the primary Christian virtue, and Mary its best example ( 131 ). In keeping with this belief, as early as the 4th century, theologians considered virginity the primary ideal of discipleship, and taught that all women should imitate Mary in this regard.

The paradigm of Mary, however, does not only imagine Mary as virginal, but as asexual. While Eve is sexual, Mary is lacking in any sexuality whatsoever. In artistic representations, "while Mary is generally a fully clothed, dignified figure, her sexuality nullified by her significant attributes of purity, maternity and queenship, Strickland 55

Eve is typically portrayed naked or minimally clothed in fig leaf or animal skin, and generally modeled according to contemporary criteria of female beauty.. (Norris 240).

Their opposite qualities are pronounced by their dress: Mary is clothe~ depicting a­ sexuality and dignity, while Eve is unclothe~ depicting sexuality and sruime. Mary is pure and motherly, while Eve is sensual and attractive. In one artistic depiction of

Eve and Mary, the Tree ofLife and Death by Berthold Furtmeyer (1478), Modest

Mary is shown giving communion to the saints, while Eve, opulently nak:~ hands the apple to her unsuspecting victims; darkness and skulls surround Eve, while over

Mary's h~ Christ hangs on the cross (Norris 336). The symbols are clear: Mary's a-sexuality leads to salvation, while Eve's sexuality leads to death. Therefore, both ecclesiastical and artistic interpretations of Mary promoted the belief that the ideal woman was one who denied all traces of her innate sexuality.

The association of sin and sexuality is so powerful that the Church has made consistent attempts to construct Mary as a "Perpetual Virgin," who lived her entire life free from sexual relations. Marina Warner, in her book Alone ofAll Her Sex, writes that because some early Christian authorities aligned women with the devil, "it was therefore essential that [Christ] should not be contaminated by any of this sinfulness, inherent in the whole human species but more pronounced in the female ..

. Thus, [the Church felt a need to] exempt the mother of Christ from tainted sexuality and proclaim her virgin purity... " (59). Mary's theological status, therefore, as a woman free from all sin was causally linked to her freedom from sexual relations

(Murphy 161). In order for the Church to preserve Mary's sinlessness, it claimed that Strickland 56

Mary was a "perpetual virgin" before and after the birth of Christ, an idea which finds

its roots in the apocryphal Book ofJames. Although Jesus had brothers and sisters who are explicitly mentioned in scripture, the idea that Mary had intercourse with

Joseph became repugnant to many in the ancient and medieval Church, so they explained his siblings as cousins or children of a previous marriage of Joseph

(Murphy 161, Hunter 38). In about 400 A.D .., Jerome did away with the other children altogether by making them into cousins and claiming that Joseph too was a virgin (Larsen 4). In 649 A.D., Pope Martin I proclaimed the "perfect and perpetual virginity of Mary- before and after the birth of Jesus," and both Calvin and Luther later retained this belief (Hunter 38, Rogge 26). To this day, Pope John Paul II asserts that Mary was a perpetual virgin whose hymen remained intact even after she gave birth (Larsen 4). Going to such extremes to validate Mary's "perpetual virginity" reveals an intense desire on the part of the Church to prove that she was untainted by sexual relations, thus confirming that both she and her Son were unblemished by sin.

The Church has also claimed that Mary was the product of an "Immaculate

Conception," another idea promoted to prove that Christ was uncontaminated by sin.

In 1854, Pope Pius IX formally declared the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaiming that Mary's mother conceived without human intervention. According to the story, which also finds its origins in the Book ofJames, Mary's mother, Anna, and father, Joachim, were grieved because they were old and childless. When Joachim retreats to the wilderness to fast and pray, Anna stays behind, mourning the double Strickland 57 loss of her husband and the children she is too old to bear. While she is weeping beneath a laurel tree, an angel visits her and tells her that she will conceive and bear a child who will be renowned throughout the world She joyfully promises to dedicate the child to God, and that child grows up to be the mother of Christ (Norris 230-231 ).

This story is the basis for the belief that Mary was the product of a miraculous birth and an "immaculate conception." Clearly, the details of the story resonate closely with the incarnation of Christ, who was also conceived without human intervention, and entered the world uncontaminated by sin.

While Mary has been praised as the immaculate virgin, she has also been esteemed as the model of motherhood. Just prior to the Refonnation, the idea arose that Mary was free from physical weariness, including pain in childbirth (Hunter 39).

This offers yet another contrast to Eve, who was condemned to give birth in travail.

But this did not take away from the traditional viewofMary as a wonderful mother who suffered terribly as she saw her son put to death like a common criminal.

According to the gospels, when all of the disciples fled, only a few select women remained at the cross, Mary among them. Consequently, Mary has been seen as a woman of great courage, whose model of faith is also a model of motherhood. Many artistic representations of her as the Madonna embody this view, notably

Michelangelo's Pieta. Located in the entrance of the Vatican Basilica, the Pieta has been a source of much religious attention. The .massive sculpture depicts the mother

Mary with the body of her crucified son draped over her lap, the voluminous folds of her robe acting as a disproportionately large altar for the Son of God. The following Strickland 58 description of the Piela, which clearly reflects traditional Catholic piety, illuminates the veneration of Mary as the supreme example of motherhood:

... The grief-stricken Mary ... embodies the astonishing resilience,

beyond death, ofthe relationship between a parent and a beloved child .

. . . In her mournful embrace of her crucified child, love and trust do

not wither, but deepen. In Mary's passion the common human

experience of parenthood is forever associated with the experience of

divinity ... of the heavenly father who sacrificed his only son. ("In the

End" 2)

IaCatholicism, Mary has been idealized as the perfect mother:· full of personal grief and loss, yetstill..offering her child as a.sacrifice for humanity. In this facet of her myth, she is the epitome of the heartbroken woman who faithfully resolves to surrender to the will of God, no matter what it may mean for her personally.

As the ideal mother whose love for her son mirrors God's love for humanity,

Mary has taken on many divine characteristics. Although she was human, she has been lauded as a divine figure of maternity, outside the realm of time or death. One way the Catholic Church has framed her as god-like is by claiming that she, like

Christ, did not experience the "sting" of death. As recently as 19:50, Pope Pius XII, proclaimed that Mary was corporeally assumed into heaven and made the

Assumption a formal doctrine of the Catholic Church (Murphy 1:56). 17 Because there is no historical record confirming the burial place of Mary, people told stories about her death, which closely resembled the accounts of Jesus' death, burial and Strickland 59

resurrection. These stories led to the belief that she ascended into heaven in bodily

form and took her place by the side of Christ. Freeing Mary from the notion of death

has been a way to free her from the sin and darkness that characterize life on earth.

Marina Warner writes, "Death belongs to time; freedom from death, like freedom

from sex, overcomes it, (94). In other words,. Mary has been cast as a woman who

was not simply human like the rest of us; she was not part of time or sin; instea

was as divine as Christ himself.

In seeking the origin of the links between Mary and images of the divine,

scholars of early Christian history have pointed to the cults of the Great Mother in the

Mediterranean world into which Christianity was moving. According to Feminist

theologian Elizabeth Johnson in her article ''Mary and the Female Face of God," as the Christian religion spread, it "absorbed many of the assumptions, verbal and visual imagery, and rituals of the surrounding culture," which deified the presentation of

Mary (507). As Christianity infiltrated polytheistic societies, it replaced firmly established ancient female deities with Mary. Shrines and temples once devoted to goddesses were rededicated to Mary, and psalms and songs were re-written for the

Mother of God. In addition, titles and attributes of female deities, such as "all-holy,"

"merciful," wise," "the universal mother," "giver of fertility and blessings,'" and

"protector of women and children" were given to Mary (507). As Mary replaced the goddesses of antiquity, she assumed their characteristics, which contributed greatly to the worship of her as a divine figure of maternity. Strickland 60

An important principle of the paradigm of Mary is her role as the ''Queen of

Heaven," who reigns at the side of Christ. As her following grew over the centuries,

Mary, like many goddesses, developed a queen-like status with quasi-divine powers, which placed her on an equal level with Christ (Norris 242). Feminist theologian

Elisabeth SchUssler Fiorenza explains, "As the 'queen of heaven' and 'mother of

God,' Mary clearly resembles and integrates aspects of the ancient goddess

mythologies .... Therefore the myth has the tendency to portray Mary as divine and

to place her on an equal level with God and Christ" (621 ). Elizabeth Johnson points

out that the more her legend grew, the more Mary was gifted with omniscience and a

certain omnipotence over heaven, earth, and hell ("Mary'' 509). While Jesus has been

called the King of Justice, Mary has been pictured as the Queen of Mercy, restraining

Christ's wrath and commanding him by her maternal authority (S 10). Again,

suggesting that Mary has "authority'' in heaven gives her precedence over any other

biblical woman, and places her on an equal level with Christ. This view of her is

manifested in much of Roman Catholic worship, which includes prayers, songs and

laments all directed towards the Virgin Mary.

So powerful is the need for people to see Mary as divine that still today, many

desire to see her declared "Co-Redeemer" with Christ. Between 1993 and 1997

alone, the Vatican received 4.5 million signed requests demanding that Pope John

Paul II declare the Virgin Mary "Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and

Advocate for the People of God" (Woodard 1). In other words, people desire to see

Mary as a "Defender of Souls," someone who is their uAdvocate in Heaven," who Strickland 61 begs an authoritarian God to have grace and mercy on them. People want to see that there is a compassionate, loving, merciful God (or Goddess) who will be graceful towards them, fight for them, and ultimately, save them. 18 Although there have been political and religious battles over the validity of her title as "Co-Redeemer," it nevertheless reveals the people's desire to proclaim Mary's divinity and see her as the female face of God.

Results of the Paradigm

Because the paradigm of Mary is a patriarchal construction, it is a reflection of the male perception of women rather than an archetype generated by women's experience. Elizabeth Johnson, in her article ''The Marian Tradition," writes that the myth of Mary bears an overload of male projection (123-24). Whereas the paradigm of Eve is the male perception of the "evil woman," the paradigm of Mary is the male perception of the "good woman." As a reflection of the male ideal of femininity perfected, it bears little relationship to the experience of women. Both paradigms are products of male fear, which polarize women into good and evil elements. Johnson writes, "The ideal of the good feminine which is projected on Mary reflects the desire for a woman who is untroubling to the celibate male psyche" (123-24). In other words, categorizing Mary as asexual, passively obedient, and benignly maternal reflects an ideal of womanhood that is unthreatening to men. Furthettnore, it is largely tmtrue to the lives of women. As a result, her paradigm disassociates both sexes from the reality of historical women and functions as a tool of repression rather than liberation. Strickland 62

Whereas one might think that exalting a woman as a model of femininity and

divinity would empower women, the myth of Mary has actually served to subordinate

them. SchUssler Fiorenza writes that the myth "almost never functioned as a symbol

or justification of women's equality and leadership in church and society, even

though the myth contains elements which could have done so" (621 ). The framers of

Christianity had the opportunity to use the image of Mary to esteem the positive

aspects of femininity- by exalting her as a model of independence, intelligence, and

leadership, for example - but they have not. Instead, they have regarded her as a

model of submission. Consequently, the myth "embodies the essential connection

between femininity and subordination forged by the patriarchal mindset'• (Johnson,

~~The Marian Tradition," 120). The element of the myth that has especially

contributed towards the use ofMary to promote the subordination of women is the

adoration of her as "Handmaid of the Lord." According to the myth. -when Mary said,

.. ------·------..Be If unto me according to thy wont" she did so oUt of compliance~er-ttwroutor------n ------

choice (Lk 1:38, KJV). Thus, she has been characterized as subservient. According

to Johnson, she has been constructed as a "model of dependence upon this male

God's initiative, a model of humility understood as a lack of possession of a personal

ego, a model of obedience understood as acquiescence" (126). Theologians have

l!lodeled her as a woman of quiet submission and selfless humility ,Jather than as a

powerful, chosen woman who made a bold and independent choice to be the mother

of the Messiah. Casting Mary as a model of submission renders her both mindless

~nd powerless; thus, interpreters have used the myth as a tool of repression and an. Strickland 63 instrument of male domination ( 118). As a result, women have become enslaved by the paradigm of Mary because she is glorified only insofar as she accepts the subordinate role assigned to her (120).

A related consequence of the myth of Mary is that theologians have interpreted her submission as passive obedience and held this passivity up as a model for all women. Mary's response to the angel has been interpreted to mean "rll do whatever you say," rather than "May your will be done," as Jesus said in the Garden ofGethsemane, when struggling within himself over his crucifixion. 19 In this example, Jesus' submission to God has been interpreted as a chosen act of sacrifice, rather than a mindless act of obedience. Although the meaning of Mary's words is essentially the same, her response has been interpreted as overwhelmingly passive.

Furthermore, the Marian tradition uses the examples of Jesus and Mary to follow the pattern than men are active and women are passive; men take initiative and women respond; men exercise power, and women are submissive to them (124). As a result of this interpretation, Mariology "sanctifies the image of the female as the principle of passive receptivity to the transcendent activity of male gods and their agents, the clergy" (117). The Church has used the Virgin Mary to promote the idea that men are the powerful, active decision-makers, and women are the passively obedient servants to both God and men. Thus, the image of Mary as the "Handmaid" has further served to silence women rather than give them a voice in the world.

Not only has the paradigm of Mary been a result of male fear of the woman's voice, but it has also been a result ofthe fear of women's bodies, manifested in her Strickland 64 image as the "Perpetual Virgin." The Church Fathers used the example of Mary to esteem virginity as the primary Christian virtue (Phillips 131 ). They believed that if

Mary were blessed through virginity, then all women would be. In other words, they taught that virginity brings blessing, not faith. 20 Using the poetry of the Song of

Songs to promote this teaching, they saw the verse "A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse" as a metaphor for Mary's unbroached virginity (SS 4:12, KJV, Norris

245). Referencing this verse, they admonished women to ~·keep their gardens sealed," even though the Song of Songs fully exploits the metaphor of the young woman's "garden" by portraying its abundance and fertility (24 7). According to

Norris, using the Song of Songs to impose celibacy on women proposed "an impossible model for women of sexually uncontaminated fertility whose persistence confirms its appeal to the male imagination, reflected in the church's sustained squeamishness about female sexuality" (247). As is the case with Eve, men used

Mary to condemn female sexuality because they were afraid of it. They commanded women to deny their own natures, and be like Mary because she was "blessed." They assumed, however, that her virginity was the cause for her blessedness, instead of her faith. Thus, the emphasis placed on Mary's virginity denigrated women, because it condemned their sexuality and taught them to deny this trait so central to who they are.

While the veneration of Mary as the Virgin has suppressed women, so has the reverence for her as the "Model ofMothemood." The Church's concentration on

Mary's mothemood has reinforced the perception that mothe:rbood is the main goal of Strickland 65

a woman's life. As Schussler Fiorenza points ou~ the myth of"mother of God"

defined woman primarily in her role as mother, thus reducing women's possibilities

to her biological capacity for childbearing (624). The focus on Mary's motherhood

further confined women by advocating that their place was "in the home," where they

would once again be silenced, unable to participate in a society ruled by men. In

addition, Paul's statement that women would be saved "in childbearing" promoted the

teaching that the ordained role of women was motherhood. Through childbearing,

then, women would fulfill their destinies and reach salvation. This teaching alienated

women ftom Christianity because not all women can bear children, and not all

women choose to bear children. Thus, while esteeming Mary as the "model mother''

may appear beneficial for women, in reality, it limits them.

One of the most damaging consequences of the paradigm ofMary is that the

exaltation of her as the "Virgin Mother" has created opposing ideals for women that

are impossible to emulate. Women cannot be both virgins and mothers at the same

time. Nevertheless, they have been taught that through virginity, they would be

blessed, and through motherhood, they would be saved and achieve their purpose in

life. Pamela Norris writes, "It is the great irony of Christianity that, on the one band,

it laid enormous emphasis on female salvation through motherhood while, at the same

time, venerating a virgin mother as its supreme image of maternity" (232). She

points out that the concept of the virgin birth, combined with Paul's dictum that

women would be saved through childbearing has led to some ''very muddled thinking about female sexuality" (232). It has taught women that they should be sexual in Strickland 66 order to be mothers and that they shouldn 't be sexual because it is better to be virgins.

Teaching women to imitate Mary's virginity and motherhood has left them with an ideal of womanhood that simply denies the physical realities of sexuality and maternity (237). Norris writes, "This irresolvable fissure in female biological destiny meant that women were pledged to an ideal of behaviour that they could never realize, whether they devoted themselves to the burly burly of domestic family life or the cloistered austerities of virginity. It seems a curious, malignant and ridiculous sentence" (226). The exaltation of Mary's virginity and motherhood left women in a no-win situation: if they wanted to be mothers, they had to be sexual, something they were not supposed to be; and if they pledged themselves to a life of virginity, they would never be the childbearers that they were destined to become.

As a result of the dichotomy of virginity and motherhood implicit in Mary's image, women have become alienated from one another. SChOssler Fiorenza points out that the ideal of the Virgin Mary has aetually functioned as a "double-dichotomy in the self-understanding of Catholic women" (622). Tit, paradigm of the virgin mother bas left Catholic women with two options: deny their own desires for marriage and childbearing and become a virgin nun, or choose motherhood, which would require them to be sexual and therefore less "spiritual" than their virgin sisters.

Norris writes, "In the Roman Catholic community, you are either a mother or a nun.

And it is the nuns - those that have forsaken their natwal biology- that are considered the genuine Christians and true 'religious women'" (623). The paradigm of the Virgin promotes the teaching that those who live a life of virginity are closer to Strickland 67

the ideal than those who actively exercise their sexuality (Johnson, "The Marian

Tradition" 128). Therefore, the paradigm has done women a terrible nyustice

because it teaches them that if they fulfill their desires for marriage and motherhood.

then they are not as "spiritual~' as those who do not Furthermore, it teaches them that

mothers are not sexual beings, which causes them to constantly battle within

themselves to achieve an impossible ideal.

Another destructive consequence of the idealization of Mary is that the

tradition has exalted the one to the detriment of the many. The Virgin Mary has been

praised as the "Great Exception" to the rule that all women are naturally inclined

towards evil. In the Marian tradition, Johnson explains, "Men have divided women's

reality into good and evil elements, projecting the good onto Mary in an idealized - fashion and the evil onto the rest of women ..." ( 123-24). In other words, Mary is so

"good" that all real women are wicked in comparison. The Marian tradition has not

seen Mary as a '1ype" of woman, or a symbol of the capacity of women; quite the

opposite, it bas constructed her as the great exception, in comparison to whom all

other women are denigrated. She has even popularly been called the "mirror of female perfection," that shows the 4'deformities" of the women who look into it

(Haskin 176). In other words, when women look at the Virgin Mary, they see their· flaws and imperfections. Johnson writes, "Since no other woman is as obedient or as pure or holy as Mary, no other woman can resemble her. Rather, all other women have more in common with Eve and share her sinful character" (''The Marian

Tradition" 122). Since women cannot possibly live up to the image of Mary's ------~~~~~-

Strickland 68 perfection, her paradigm actually becomes debilitating for them. When she acts as a

lens through which they see themselves, she does not empower them; instead, she reminds them of their sinfulness and makes them feel that they can never be as holy as she.

One of the most detrimental effects the paradigm ofMary has had on women is that since she creates an impossible ideal, women cannot relate to her. 21 In most artistic depictions, she is pictured with a halo over her head, and her face and body show no sign of sexuality or emotion. By defining Mary as a woman without sexual desire and normal human experiences and emotions, artists have left contemporary women with a set of symbols they can never relate to (Larsen S). Innumerable young girls growing up in Catholic schools have found themselves face-to-face with this lack humanity in her image. One such woman, Frances Kissling, in her article "Mary

Co-Opted as Co-Redeemer," writes that when she reached the age of sexual desire, she wrestled with the meaning ofMary: "Mary, a fully human woman, but without sexual desire or passion. Mary, the teenage mother, married to a sweet, gentle, older, also asexual man. Mary, always depicted with sad, circumspect eyes, her hair partially covered with a blue veil, lips barely parted, never open·mouthed with laughter. A quiet woman, a woman who knew her place ... (1 ). When young

Catholic girls reach an age of maturity, they often question how realistic this image of asexuality, obedience and perfection really is. After a lifetime of worshipping her, they cannot see themselves in her. Sadly, when they find her unrelatable to them, they cease to learn from her example. Strickland 69

The last and possibly most damaging effect the paradigm of Mary has bad on women is that because it creates an ideal that women cannot ~elate to, it robs them of their opportunity to learn from her. Because women cannot relate to a set of symbols based on asexuality, flawlessness and divinity, they cannot see her as their fellow woman whose attributes are worthy of imitation. Therefore, while defining the shape of the feminine ideal for centuries ofbelieving women, the portrayal of Mary as

"Handmaid," "Virgin," "Mother," and "Queen" has actually deprived women of her example. Rather than emulating Mary as the potential of womankind, the paradigm ofMary has taught women that since they cannot be like her, they must wallow in their own sinfulness. Therefore, they have been robbed of the opportunity to imitate her worthy characteristics and see her faith and other virtues as models for their everyday lives.

Despite the detrimental effects it has had on women, the paradigm of the

Virgin Mary has also been of tremendous benefit. For one, Mary has made what people have perceived as a powerful and domineering God accessible to the common people and has possibly done so to an equal or even greater degree than her Son.

Marjorie Thompson writes that while Jesus was the Son of God incarnate, Mary was human, yet filled with God. For this reason, people have found it easier to relate to her than to him (242). The lack of humanity in her paradigm, interestingly, has not caused people to find her totally irrelevant for them. On the contrary, people have fervently sought a relationship with Mary. It is possible that people have felt it is easier to have a relationship with simple, innocent Mary than with a God who reigns Strickland 70

over a complicated and suffering world. Feminist theologian Barbara Gruzzuti

Harrison, in her article ''My Eve, My Mary," writes that Mary is ''Hope~': "She does

not have to explain or defend herself, as a suffering God does, against the charge that

evil is permitted in the world, which makes our relationship with her so much less

troubled than our relationship with him" (2). Thus, Mary's simplicity has attracted

people to a relationship with an otherwise intimidating and complicated God. By

constructing her as a simple woman who was both human and divine, her myth has

endeared people to her. It has attracted them to a God who may not have been able to

win them over simply by virtue of his power and dominion.

The paradigm of the Virgin Mary has also taught people that there is a loving

"Savior" in heaven who is readily attentive to their needs. The innumerable songs,

legends, devotions and pilgrimages in her honor prove that people have preferred to

go to her for consolation rather than to a majestic-authoritarian God (Schtissler

Fiorenza 621 ). People have looked at her as their Savior, whose special concern,

according to PopeJohn Paul, "extends to the personal and social aspects of people's

life on earth (qtd. in "In the End" 3). Catholics everywhere lay at Mary's feet all the troubles of the world: international crises, poverty, unemployment, hunger and so on

-believing that she will put them before her Son and ask him to alleviate the suffering. People believe that she is ready, available and listening to hear the cries of their hearts. This deep-rooted faith in Mary is evident in the countless "sightings" of her that have been reported all across Europe, Latin America and the Untied States

(Larsen 2). Each year, people hike to remote shrines built in her honor, claiming that Strickland 71 she appears to them. According to the reports of the many visions ofMary that

people have had, she has actually "intervened" on behalf of those who love her and saved them "from the fires of hell at the last possible moment by allowing them a

deathbed confession" ("In the End" 2). Indeed, these visions of Mary-whether real

or imagined- reveal the fact that people believe that she is present, accessible, and

attentive to their needs. As an agent of God, she has shown people that she is poised

and ready to save them. Finally, Mary has aided people's notion of God by teaching

them that "She" or "He" is everpresent in their lives, physically, spiritually and

emotionally.

One of the greatest benefits the paradigm ofMary has had is that she has

helped people to see God as compassionate. This is profoundly evident in the cult of

Our Lady of Guadalupe, developed among the Latin American people as they have

suffered tremendously at the hand of European invaders. For them, the Virgin of

Guadalupe mediates the "compassionate reality of God" and personifies relief from

their suffering (Johnson, "Mary" 514-SlS). In his book The Maternal Face ofGod,

Leonardo Boff reveals the essence of Mary as a loving, affectionate mediator of God,

who cares for the suffering of his people as they live lives characterized by injustice

and oppression. 22 He calls the domination and cruelty that mark the lives of the Latin

American people the "sound box that amplifies the echoes of Mary's prophetic hymn,

with all its challenge ... and liberation" (192). In her famous Magnificat, Mary

praises God for his mercy upon the oppressed people of the world and for his justice

upon the oppressors: Strickland 72

... His mercy extends to those who fear him,

from generation to generation.

He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;

he bas scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts,

He has brought down rulers from their thrones

but bas lifted up the humble.

He has filled the hungry with good things

but has sent the rich away empty.

He bas helped his servant Israel,

remembering to be merciful

To Abraham and his descendants forever .... (Lk 1:S0-55)

The Magnificat bas in many ways become an anthem for the Latin American people.

It reveals that God is merciful, hears the cries of the people, takes the side of the poor,

and loves the world, but protests its injustices and oppressions (Boff 194).

Consequently, the Magnificat offers people a better understanding of the true nature

of God. It makes known his desire to bring relief to the oppressed people of the world and bring justice to its oppressors. Thus, Mary reveals the divine as extraordinarily loving and caring.

One of the most significant ways Mary has influenced people's understanding of God is that she has helped people see God with a "female face." Boff writes, "A discovery of the feminine in God, the invocation of God as Mother, would not bind us to the conceptualization of God as sexual. We would only be acknowledging that the Strickland 73

feminine and maternal qualities are realized in God absolutely" (83). God is neither

gender-specific nor is God sexual; on the contrary, God encompasses both male and

female, contains both masculine and feminine characteristics, and acts as both Father

and Mother to the human race. 23 The symbolism of Mary represents God's feminine

~~race," which is necessary for people to balance their masculine concepts of God

(Johnson, "Mary" 518). As a female representation of God, Mary "bears images of

the divine otherwise excluded from the mainline Christian perception of God the

Father, Son, and Spirit" (500). While God is seen as rational and assertive, Mary is

seen as tender, gentle, comforting, and reassuring. Without these components,

people's understanding of God is incomplete. Johnson writes:

Female images of God, arguably necessary for the full expression of

the mystery of God but suppressed from official formulations, have

migrated to the figure of this woman. ... For innumerable believers

she has functioned to reveal divine love as merciful, close, interested,

always ready to hear and respond to human needs, trustworthy, and

profoundly attractive, and has done so to a degree not possible when

one thinks of God simply as a ruling male person or persons. (518)

The Virgin Mary is the personification of grace, compassion, and the redeeming love of God. In fact, to profess that Mary is "full of grace" is to profess that she is full of

God- full of the goodness, gentleness, and kindness of God (Boff 131 ). Thus, she fulfills a need that people have to see God as a tender and loving Creator, she gives

God a ~~emale face." Strickland 74

Finally, Mary has helped people better understand the fullness of God by providing them with an image of a loving "Mother'' in heaven. Psychologically, people have needed to believe that they have a heavenly "mother'' who lo~es them and cares for their needs. In the Catholic tradition, Mary has been called the "Mother

Suffering, Mother Nourishing and Mother Pleading for the whole human family"

(Woodard 1). These titles provoke images of a divinely maternal figure who suffers for her children, pleads for their salvation, provides for tbetn, and loves them unconditionally. According to Boff, "God chose Mary so that this maternal aspect of his love might be represented in her person" (78). In other words, Mary, as an icon of

God, is a representation of his "motherly love." As his representative, she is pictured just like a mother: readily available, attentive, caring, nurturing, empathetic, and desiring above all else the very best for each of her children. Johnson points out that this image of her has helped people's experience of worship. She writes, ~'In devotion to her as a compassionate mother who will not let one of her children to be lost, what is actually being mediated is a most appealing experience of God" (518). Mary has helped people commune with God by teaching them that he is not distant, but close.

Consequently, she has built "emotional bridges between heaven and earth"

(Haarmann 5). She has taught people that God loves them and cares for them and hears them, and her maternal love has reached their hearts.

DeeoDStructing the Myth

In light of the powerful impact the paradigm ofMary has had on the religious and secular worlds, people are often surprised at what little evidence there is in Strickland 75

Scripture to substantiate her·myth. The paradigm of the Virgin Mary bas very little to

do with the historical woman Mary of Nazareth. The "real" Mary, surprisingly, plays

a small role in the Gospels and isn't even mentioned in the epistles, aside from the

listing of her name among others present at Pentecost There are only five or six

relevant passages about her, and in most of them she is mentioned only in brief.24

Intriguingly, none of these passages portray her as the "chaste,long-sufferin& all­

forgiving and unfailingly maternal" woman that her myth does (Larsen 2). Her myth,

like the myth of Eve, is a cultural, ecclesiastical and social construction that does not

reflect the historical woman upon which it is based.

First of all, the historical woman Mary of Nazareth was in no way a

mindlessly submissive woman. In Luke's account of the Annunciation, she does not

simply acquiesce to the will of God In fact, she questions the angel. When Gabriel

tells her that she will give birth to the Most High, she asks, "How will this be, since I

am a virginT' (Lk 1:34). He explains to her that the Holy Spirit will come upon her

and she will give birth to the Son of God, and he reminds her that nothing is

impossible with God. It is only then that she agrees to the plan by sayin& "I am the

Lord's servant. May it be to me as you have said'' (Lk 1:38). In this instance, Mary

shows herself not as mindless, but mindful, carefully considering the meaning of what

the angel says. She then makes an active, not a passive, choice to accept the will of

God for her to be the mother of the Messiah (Murphy 169, Thompson 239). In other

words, she willingly chooses to be a part of God's plan. Similarly, in the Magnificat, she shows herself to be thoughtful and outspoken; she proclaims the mercy of God Strickland 76

and declares that he will punish the merciless rulers of this world. Even Pope Paul

VI, in his 1974 Maria/is Cu/tus, wrote that "Mary was anything but passive,

submissive, pious to the point of being out of contact with reality. No, here was a

woman who did not hesitate to assert that God would come to the humble and

oppressed and cast down the mighty of this world from their thrones (Luke 1:5 1-53)"

(qtd. in Boff 33). The Magnificat asserts that Mary was not a passive woman, but an

active one, who cried out for the plight of the oppressed people of the world Thus,

the perception of her as a mindlessly humble and silently obedient woman is not only

demeaning for women, but it is also a misconstrued interpretation of Scripture.

The idea that Mary was "sinless" is also unsubstantiated by Scripture. She

was a simple,. poor young maiden who was chosen to be the mother of the Messiah,

but the gospels say nothing to suggest that she was born ofan immaculate conception

or lived a life somehow free from sin. In fact, the idea that she was sinless is negated

in the Magnificat, in which she calls on God her "Savior": "My soul glorifies the

Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior., (Lk 1:47). If she had been born

without sin, she would have had no need of a savior. Importantly, the claims about

her "immaculate" state are rooted in the Church's attentpts to prevent Christ from

being associated with sin; they do not find their foundation in the biblical account.

This image of her "sinlessness" is not only historically unsubstantiated, but it is also an improbable image of the real woman that Mary of Nazareth was.

Much has been said to argue for and against the case ofMary's virginity,25 but most importantly, the meaning of her virginity has been misconstrued. Boff points Strickland 77 out that in the culture in which Mary lived, virginity was considered an impoverishment (138). In the Jewish society of Mary's day, motherhood meant fulfillment, so "not to be a mother was not to be fulfilled as a woman" (138). Thus, a woman in a state of virginity was considered destitute ( 138). Rather than being a technique for controlling the impulses of the body so as to rise to a state of divinity,

Mary's virginity was actually a state of poverty and a source of her humility (138). In the Magnificat, when she says that God has "looked upon the humble state.ofhis servant," she does not celebrate her virginity; instead, it is cause for her lowliness.

Boff writes, "Jesus was born of a virgin. God wished to be born of a woman of low, despised condition. This is God's way" (139). Hence, Mary•s biological virginity had no biblical value. Instead, it served as a source of humility and openness to

God's will (139). The interpretation of her virginity as her "greatest virtue" neither considers historical context, nor does it correctly interpret the state of the young woman Mary of Nazareth.

There is also no validation in Scripture that Mary was a "perpetual" virgin before and after the birth of Christ. There has been great controversy over whether or not Jesus' "brothers and sisters" mentioned in Scripture were actually his cousins.

But there are several places in which his brothers are mentioned and listed by name, and it seems unlikely that such a crucial error in translation would have persisted.

Regardless of whether they really were his siblings, the idea that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus certainly casts her marriage to Joseph in a strange light

In the culture of her day, it would seem rather odd that Mary, a fully human and fully Strickland 78 sexual woman. would not have sexual relations with her husband and would only bear one child In short, the claim of her perpet1ial virginity is an unrealistic assessment of a married woman. and more importantly, Scripture doesn't substantiate it

Interpreting Mary of Nazareth as the "Model of Motherhood" is also based on little Scriptural evidence. Certainly, the historical Mary was a blessed woman who. was chosen to play an undeniably vital role as mother of Christ But she experienced all the joys, sorrows and anxieties that all mothers throughout time have experienced.

In fact, Scripture indicates that Mary may have had a strained relationship with Jesus.

In Jerusalem, when Jesus was only twelve years old, she and Joseph lose track of him for three days, until they find him with the teachers of the Law at the temple (Lk

2:41-52). When Mary finds him, she questions him and lets him know in no uncertain terms that he had worried his parents. At the wedding at Cana, she asks him to help the host, who had run out of wine~ Jesus responds, "Dear woman. why do you involve me? My time has.not yet come." He then performs his first mimcle of changing the water into wine {In 2:1-11). It is possible that in this situation, Mary, knowing that Jesus was the Messiah, was trying to push her son into public ministry by prompting him to perform a miracle. There is tension in Jesus' words, and he clearly resists her, but in the end he follows her lead. The situation in Capernaum was even tenser. Jesus had been traveling, healing and teaching for days while the crowds followed him. Obviously concerned about him, Mary follows him to a house, where he is surrounded by so many people that he and his disciples can not even eat

Worried that he is out of his mind, she and his brothers call for him (Mk 3:20-21 ). Strickland 79

When he hears that they are there, he does not go out to greet them. Instead, he says to the crowds, ''Who are my mother and brother? Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother" (Mk 3:31-34). Here, Jesus illustrates a point to the crowds that as the Messiah, all of God's children are equally his. But Mary must have been hurt at his apparent dismissalofher. The passage reveals that as a mother,

Mary followed Jesus with growing anxiety and concern over his well-being because of his long, exhausting days with the crowds of people who never left him alone. She experienced all the fear, worry and heartache that every mother understands. Her relationship with her son was certainly not perfect. It was loving, 26 yet marked by the pitfalls ofhuman nature; she made mistakes, she worried, and she and her son did not always~ eye-to-eye. This aspect ofMary's humanity as a mother is arguably more accessible to women than the image of her as the perfect, sinless mother raising a perfect, sinle$8 child, which is an image women simply cannot relate to.

Lastly, Scripture gives no indication that Mary is the "Queen of Heaven," or that she reigns as "Co-Redemprix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate for the

People of God" On the contrary, the gospels picture her as a very human woman who was extraordinary only in her faithfulness and revelatory significance. The textual support for the belief that she is "Queen of Heaven" is Revelation 12:lb, which reads, "A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth." Since Revelation is an allegorical and metaphorical book, the belief that this woman is Mary can not be Strickland 80 proven; however, if it were she, it certainly does not substantiate any claims of her role as a "Co-Redeemer'' or "Queen.'' Her queen-like status is more likely a social and ecclesiastical construction which finds its roots in ancient goddess mythology.

As Johnson puts it, when Mariology goes beyond Scripture, it is "an overcompensation for an overmasculine and harsh concept of God" ("Mary" 51 0). In other words, the incredible claims about Mary are an overcompensation for the fact that people have not seen those loving, caring, motherly attributes in God, and so they have placed these characteristics on Mary and given her divine status. Notably, it has been a useful image for people, but nonetheless, it is a mythical one.

Reconstructing the Myth

Whereas the paradigm of Mary has been quite useful for people's understanding of the nature of God, it has not been a valuable symbol for the cause of women. The harmful elements of her paradigm lead women to call for a re-definition of her myth in ways that are inclusive of women's reality. Many brilliant theologians are at work in this arduous and overwhelming task of re-defining andre-imagining the women of the Bible in more productive ways. But the re-construction of the myth of the Virgin Mary is an enormous process, which will take many generations of women to accomplish. 27 Yet, it is a necessary task, because legends evolve with the changes of culture. And if there ever were a time in which women desire a myth that is meaningful and empowering for them, it is now.

Re-writing such a deeply rooted myth is like walking a tightrope. The danger is twofold: we must not degrade women by considering them rightly placed under Strickland 81

male domination, and we must not exalt women to such heights that their role in this

world loses its reality. In the case of Mary, we must oppose the idealization of her by

men because it is only a veiled form of discrimination (Boff 33). On the other hand,

we must also be careful not to dethrone her to the point that she becomes useless for

us. A re~vision of Mary must be what Johnson calls a "non-stereotypical

understanding of the nature of woman" ('The Marian Tradition" 135). We need to

re-write her image in ways that liberate rather than enslave, and in ways that

encourage women's dignity, self-expression and wholeness, rather than discourage

these traits so vital to the feminine well-being.

First of all, in re-writing the myth of Mary, we must return to the essence of

her humanity. The ''real" Mary did not at all live a glorified life. On the contrary,

she was a "woman of the people, poor, faithful, expectant; a woman with her own life

history, her own very real struggles, and her own journey of faith ..." (130). Mary's

earthly life was as difficult, troubled, monotonous and painful as our own. She was a

real woman who experienced all the joys and sorrows that all people face in life, and

she suffered no less than the rest of us (Boff 132, Cunneen, "The Real News" 2). She

experienced her own share of fear, humiliation and heartbreak; not only did she

expose herself as an unwed mother in· a culture that condemned her state, but her first

son was despised, mocked, and unjustly killed before her very eyes. As a young

woman and a mother, Mary underwent incredible trials that would be heart­

wrenching and challenging for anyone to face. Consequently, as were-imagine who the real Mary was, we must set aside all the fantastic claims about her and return to Strickland 82 her historical humanity: she was a real woman in real human histoly whose life was as challenging and painful as our own, but who, because of her faithfulness, sought to do the very best with what she was given. As Boff says, "Instead of diminishing her life, the human condition charged it with potential" (132). Mary's challenges led her to call upon a God who she believed would hear her and help her; her trials urged her forward in life. Since all women experience trials, all women can relate to this image of her.

Secondly, in re-envisioning Mary, we must establish that as a human woman, her submission to God was a choice. Her statement "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord" is in no way the statement of an acquiescent and powerless young woman; quite the opposite, it is an "act of willed assent that would have been withheld, an act whose free expression was necessary before .God's will would be done" (Murphy

169). By choosing to bear the child, Mary exposed herself to shame and put herself in jeopardy because she lived in a society whose laws deemed that women taken in adultery were to be stoned (Burkhart 15-16). But without regard to other people's opinions- including her husband's -Mary made her own choice about her body, her sexuality and her life. The decision to have the child was solely between her and

God. Her relationship to God was direct, unmediated, and acceded to with great­ souled courage (15-16). Furthermore, her receptivity to God was not at all passive, but active. She chose to be a part of the plan. Not at all a silent, submissive servant,

Mary was independent and decisive, and she made a very risky decision for a woman of her time. This re-vision ofMary as a freely choosing "servant of the Lord" does Strickland 83 not silence women, but instead emphasizes their freedom and dignity as human beings. In this image of her, contempormy women can see themselves and seek to imitate not her subordination but her courage to obey, regardless of the repercussions for her personally. This is not a mindless obedience, but a mindful, courageous choice to go out on a limb of faith, which can be a great inspiration for women as they make chancy decisions in their own lives.

Just as Mary's submission was a choice, it is important to recognize that her virginity was also a choice. Howard Kainz writes, "It is unfortunate that so much emphasis has traditionally been placed on Mary's physical virginity ... as if virginity

[only consists] of an intact hymen" (1020). In re-writing the myth of Mary, Kainz defines virginity as a physical symbol of a spiritual reality-. in other words, the

"virgin soil" of the heart that hears the Word of God and grows from it. Certainly, if in Mary's culture, virginity was a symbol of a lack offulffilment, then virginity can also be a symbol of openness and humility before God On another note, Elizabeth

Johnson redefines virginity as embodying at least one aspect of a holistic goal for the contempormy woman- where virginity is a woman's chosen independence from husband and children, and motherlwod is her chosen role to integrate others into her life ("The Marian Tradition" 134). In this vision of Mary, we can see that women have the power to make their own choices, and independence is one of those choices.

Furthermore, what a woman does with her body is a personal choice, not one that should ever be imposed upon by the edicts of the Church. On the contrary, just as Strickland 84

God made human beings with free will, so also God made women with the liberating

ability to make independent choices about their own lives.

The re-vision of the myth of Mary also re-casts her role as mother not as a sort of biological determinism, but as a free choice. Kainz writes that it is also

unfortunate that so much emphasis has been placed on Mary's physical motherhood to the Messiah, " ... as if motherhood consisted in forming and delivering a new

human body rather than in fostering, educating, and giving moral example to the

human person that emerges from the womb" (1020). Motherhood is not simply a physical act; instead, it is an act of the heart and mind, in which women choose to

foster in their children the morality, intelligence, spirituality and independence that are so vitaJ. in the world In addition to recognizing that motherhood is not simply a biological destiny, a re-vision of Mary must also reject making the role of

motherhood the exclusive or even necessarily primal role in a woman's life. Instead, it must see the actual free bearing of children as a thing to be prized, and Mary's freely chosen motherhood simply another aspect of her character which creates solidarity with other women (Johnson, "The Marian Tradition" 134). Re-envisioning

Mary in this way empowers women by freeing them of the mandate that motherhood is their only source of fulfillment. In addition, it allows other mothers to relate to her as peers. Johnson points out that ifwomen see Mary's virginity and motherhood as choices, they can relate to her by virtue of their ability and need to make similar choices for themselves. She writes, "With the joining of the two [virginity and motherhood], the emphasis is placed neither on bodily generativity alone nor on the Strickland 85

value of the purely independent woman, but affinnation is given to the woman who

combines both, home and career, if you will, or interrelationship and autonomy:

mother and virgin~' (134). ·This combination is not an easy one, but it is the one that

most modern women seek, and one that women can relate to- the need to keep some

things for themselves, and the need to give themselv~.to others.

A re-vision of Mary must also recognize that as a mother, Mary of Nazareth

was an intelligent, wise woman who acted as a teacher to her son. A close

examination ofthe Magnificat reveals. Mary as a learned woman who was well versed

in Old Testament prophecy. In her famous poe~ she thoughtfully and succinctly

traces the angel's message all the way back to Abraham and relates Old Testament

prophecy to the plight of her nation Israel. In keeping with this vision of her as a

learned woman, Milton interestingly casts her in a central role in Paradise Regained

He portrays her as her child's "first and best teacher" and a ~~Mediator of the Word,"

- first to Jesus, then to the New Testament writets, and ultimately to Christians in

every age (Haskin 180). In this vision of her, Mary conveys her keen insight into the

Scriptures to her student Jesus, who, at the temple in Jerusalem, "amazes" the

Pharisees with his insight. From Mary, Jesus learns "a whole nmge of virtues,

including the ability to ponder texts patiently and persistently, searching out their implications for life" ( 180-181 ). As his mother, Mary conversed with Jesus, prayed with hi~ exchanged ideas, shared concerns, and so on, which had direct bearing on the development of his moral sensibility. Boffwrites, "Behind Jesus' profound human goodness, behind his extraordinary religious sensitivity, behind his existential Strickland 86 wisdom, was ... Mary, who knew how to communicate to her child her own reflection" (157). In other words, she was not only Jesus' biological mother, but she was also his instructor in everything he needed to prepare himself for his ministry on earth. By re-casting Mary as an intelligent and wise teacher in her own right, this re­ vision of Mary presents a side of womanhood that is valuable and dignified.

One of the most crucial elements of a new myth of Mary must also be the recognition that·as a mother, Mary was still a fully sexual woman. The established paradigm does not regard women's independence and sexuality as valuable gifts; on the contrary, it consi

is only present as part of the definition of Mary as a woman. "Awareness of her

female eroticism is the acceptance of her femaleness but the grave nobility of her

bearing .... places the erotic in its context of her larger humanity; Mary is fully

human, in full possession of both the bodily authority and the spiritual intelligence of

her humanity" ( 164-165). Women need this vision of Mary-a mother who is

intelligent, beautiful, dignified and sexual as well. This re-vision ofMary-one that

Michelangelo understood long ago- empowers women by affirming that their

sexuality is intertwined with their nobility. Furthermore, it recognizes that their

sexuality is integral to their wlwleness as women and mothers.

A new myth of Mary must also pronounce that she was a bold, valiant woman,

who used her voice to speak out as a prophet of the people. In the Magnificat, Mary

raises her voice to praise the mercy of God and beg for his liberation of the lowly and

starving (Boff 192). For a young, poor teenage girl in an obscure village, who was

about to be found pregnant out of wedlock, to assert with such profundity.the

faithfulness and justice of God and to have such a deep, abiding understanding of the

plight of the oppressed people of the world is almost inconceivable. Her famous

Magnificat, in fact, is considered to have been based on the Song of Miriam in

Exodus 15, which also praises God for shattering the oppressors and delivering the

oppressed- referring to the deliverance of the enslaved Israelites from their Egyptian captors. Mary's Magnificat echoes the courage and wisdom of Miriam's song, and

reveals her to be a bold woman and a great prophetess. Boff asks, "Who but a strong, decisive woman will call down God's justice on the heads of the oppressors ofthe Strickland 88 poor?" (201 ). Full of confidence, faith and hope, Mary was a humble young woman who rose up and spoke out against oppression, past present and future. 28 She proved herself to be "valiant" by demonstrating loyalty both to God and to the aftlicted people of the world. Furthermore, she established herself as a prophet because she had her ear open both to God and to the plight of the poor and eXploited. Concerning the desire that people possess for the listening ear and the prophetic voice ofMary,

Boff writes,

It is our task, then, to develop a prophetic image of Mary-an

image of Mary as the Strong, determined woman, the woman

committed to the messianic liberation of the poor from ,the historical

social injustices under which they suffer. And today we see this image

taking shape, deep in the heart of an oppressed people, who long for a

voice in society and liberation from its evils. (189)

Mary was one of the first of God's lowly and poor to cry out for the justice of the powerless. Today, she remains a prophetess, who promises that the oppressed people of the world will be delivered from their suffering. She truly was a courageous, valiant young woman who can offer inspiration to anyone who desires to see the world changed for good.

Lastly, a new myth of Mary does not regard her as an exception to the "rule" that women are generally evil; instead, it esteems her as the prototype of all humanity and a symbol of the capacity of women worldwide. All human beings face trials, and each person bas different ways of seeking to overcome them. Indeed, Mary suffered Strickland 89 greatly, especially when she looked on while her own son was beaten, mocked, whipped and fmally, crucified The pain of seeing her child despised, hated by the crowds, and dying in agony must have been unbearable. Yet, Mary was brave enough to remain by the cross; in some narratives, to go to the tomb; and finally, to join at the gathering in Jerusalem after Christ's ascension. In the midst of her terror and shame, she remained faithful to her son and looked to God for strength. Indeed, she did what we all hope we can do- face our anguish with the intention to transcend it, and seek peace on the other side.

In essence, the new myth of Mary must proclaim that she is actually a symbol of the capacity of the human spirit. She is the prototype "of all women, indeed, of all humanity for achieving a depth ofjoy, hope, and faith that. can endure, accept, and transform unspeakable suffering" ("In the End" 2). Seeing Mary as a symbol of the capacity of women, rather than the exception, instills her paradigm with dignity and strength. She lived, she loved, she lost, she agonized, and she remained faithful that a better day would come. In this "new'' myth of Mary, women can look at the fibers of their being and see their great potential for facing the tragedies of life with courage, faith and hope. In this Mary., women can see the incredible potential of their spirits; women can see themselves. Strickland 90

Chapter 3

Mary Magdalene: A Model of Womanhood

Mary Magdalene as an Image of Women

The next biblical archetype of femininity that has had a tremendous influence

on women's world view and self image is that of Mary Magdalene. 'Besides the

Virgin, she is the most commonly represented New Testament female figure in

artistic, l~ty- and ecclesiastical sources. As the infamous repentant prostitute, she

represents an archetype of femininity that combines the symbolisms of both Eve and

the Virgin. Mary Magdalene is both carnal and spirituaL sinful and righteous, sexual

yet pure. As the classic "whore turned saint," she represents a model of womanhood

that turns from her fleshly nature in search of the virtuous life. She is an icon of

femininity, representing both its inherent evils and potential for good Because of her

remarkable prominence in secular and religious thought, women have been

bombarded with images of her as the sensuous woman who denies herself a life of

carnality for one of spirituality. As a result, Mary :Magdalene has become a lens

through which women view themselves, a lens which once again has distorted their

self understanding.

In this section I examine the myth of the Magdalene, which is a result of two thousand years of patriarchal teaching and its concomitant, the erroneous fusion of at least three different biblical women who make up her image. First, I identify the Strickland 91 essential components of her paradigm: that Mary Magdalene was a beautiful woman whose vanity and pride led her into a life of sexual sin which was understood to be prostitution; that she was demon-possessed, a direct consequence of her licentious lifestyle; that she was the unnamed ~'sinful woman'' of Luke 7 who fell at Christ's feet, weeping over her sins; that she is a model of repentance, symbolized by her infamous tears, long years of penitence and title a.s the "New Creation~; and finally, that she was also the first to see the risen Christ and announce the Resurrection, for which she has been esteemed the "Apostle to the Apostles." I proceed to examine the beneficial and detrimental effects the myth of Mary has had on women. On a positive note, l·discuss the great accessibility and usefulness of her symbolism. But negative ramifications of her paradigm also abound: the myth of the Magdalene has stereotyped women as sinful, blamed them for their suffering, and further demeaned the value of their sexuality, thus reinforcing their subordination. Next, I de-construct her image and re-construct a new, more beneficial one based upon what the remaining evidence suggests it should be. In brie( a new myth of Mary must embody the following ideas: the true Mary Magdalene was a prominent woman healed by Jesus, who ministered to his needs and remained loyal to his end; she was the Herald of the

Resurrection, the "Apostle to the Apostles;" and an Early Church leader; she was a woman who suffered, but faced her pain with courage, and emerged triumphant. If adopted into cultural and ecclesiastical circles, this new myth ofMary can serve as a source of empowennent for women. Strickland 92

Collstrudion of Mary Magdalene

The paradigm of Mary Magdalene has been constructed upon the foundation of three different biblical women who have been combined U1lder one name. This bas resulted in what is known as the "composite Mary," who embodies the traits of differing women who have traditionally been seen as one and the same. The

Christian theologian· Gregory the Great was the first to establish this teaching. He leant his authority to the belief that the unnamed "sinful.,' woman of Luke 7, who fell weeping at Christ's feet, was the same woman who anointed Christ's feet in Jo~ and who, according to Mark, bad been exorcised of seven devils by Jesus. Gregory writes, "She whom Luke calls the sinful woma:11; whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark" ( qtd. in

Haskins 97). Following Gregory, tradition has maintained that the unnamed sinful woman of Luke 7 who threw herselfat the feet of Christ, the named Magdalene of

Luke 8, who had been exorcised of seven demons by Jesus, the sister of Martha in

John 11-12, who anointed Jesus' feet, and the Mary Magdalene present at varying accounts ofthe cross, tomb, and Resurrection are one and the same.29 Accordingly, the composite Mary embodies the following traits: she was a prostitute whose life of sin led her to become a devoted follower of Christ; he healed her of seven demons; and she later had the profound experience of being the first to see the Risen Christ and announce the. Resurrection. Strickland 93

Paradigm of Mary Magdalene

As a patriarchal construction, Mary Magdalene's paradigm is primarily

founded on her symbolism as the repentant prostitute. By esteeming her as a model

for women to tum from their fleshly desires tQ spiritual ones, literary, cultural, artistic

and ecclesiastical representations of her have emphasized her life of sexual sin more

than any other feature of her paradigm. Even though the image of the composite

Mary contains the element of her being the first to announce the Resurrection,

historically, interpreters have glossed over that fact. According to Susan Haskins, in

her book Mary Magdalen, "it is as Luke's sinner, the putative prostitute, embodying

sexuality, sin and womankind, incarnate and redeemed, that she has achieved her

overriding importance ..." ( 141 )~ Over the centuries, Mary Magdalene's role as the blessed woman whom Christ chose to announce his Resurrection has radically been

obscured by her more prominent reputation as the ''whore turned saint." The Church

in particular has promoted her paradigm in order to teach women to reject their "Eve­

like" sensuality and embrace the purity of the Virgin. More than any other function

Mary Magdalene has had, she has served as the supreme example of the fallen nature

of womankind and the opportunity that each woman has to tum in repentance.

Foundational to Mary Magdalene's infamous reputation as a lusty prostitute is

her legendary physical beauty. From the very beginnings of Christian-inspired art,

she has been portrayed as a beautiful, sensuous harlot, often bare-breasted and clothed

in red, the color of passion (Schlumpf7).30 Typically, she is depicted with long, flowing red hair that she uses either to wipe Jesus' feet or cover her nude body. Strickland 94

Susan Haskins describes how in the 1600s alone there were Mary Magdalene images with enough erotic undercurrents to be labeled "pious pornography" ( qtd. in

Masterman 1). Cullen Murphy, in her book The Word According to Eve, writes that in Titian's famous painting that hangs in the Pitti Palace in Florence, Mary is "full­ bodied and sensuous," and that after her supposed long life of repentance, she still appears "capable of physical love" (197). Artists, especially reljgious painters, have enjoyed depicting her as a figure of beauty and sensuality. In this regard, she has fulfilled the desire for artists to express the power of sexuality in a religion marked by ascetic demands to deny this natural human trait.

According to her myth, Mary Magdalene's beauty led to its perilous consequence, vanity. Historically, vanity was considered one of the manifestations of the sin of pride. Since Eve's pride was reputed as having led to the Fall, pride was considered a grave sin with vast consequences (Haskins 163). Just as Eve was accused of being vain, so was Mary Magdalene, particularly because she was believed to be a prostitute. As prostitutes dressed themselves up with makeup and flaunted their appearances, people accused them of "criticizing their Maker and subverting Nature, which had been created by God" ( 163). As Shakespeare's Hamlet puts it in his impassioned address to Ophelia, "I have heard of your paintings, well enough. God hath given you one face, and you make yourselves another.... It hath made me mad'' (III.i. 143-145, 146-147). Hamlet suggests that cosmetics are like masks which alter the image that God created, and therefore cover the true person.

This follows Plato's theory that beauty equals truth, and when women change their Strickland 95

God-given appearances with makeup, they are guilty of deceit; in essence, they are

pretending to be someone they are not. 31 Accordingly, the Church Fathers believed

that when women "donned their finery, and wore cosmetics- in the process

appearing as 'idols and masks'- they were taking it upon themselves to question and

alter the image and likeness of God" (163). Prostitutes in particular were accused of

such idolatry, deceit and presumption. In the case of the Magdalene, her heavy

makeup, flaming red hair and sensuous dress were all considered physical

manifestations of her inward vanity, which would lead her into even deeper, sexual

stns.

As was the case with the paradigm of Eve, Mary Magdalene's paradigm

contains the notion that her beauty and vanity were dangerous because of the

temptation they posed to men. Rather than seeing the Magdalene's beauty as a gift,

interpreters have cast it as a curse. Haskins writes that theologians have traditionally

believed that "If ... fornication was the prototypical feminine crime, the weapon with

which the female lured the male was her beauty. Earthly beauty seduces the eye, and

is ... A perilous thing, deceptive, and a divine malediction" (153). The relation

between Mary Magdalene's beauty and her threatening power still persists today, as

contemporary interpretations of her continue to depict her as "sinfully'' female. In a

1986 art exhibition held at the Florence Exhibition Centre, entitled "The Magdalene

between Sacred and Profane," the catalogue describes Mary Magdalene as "full of all

the sins of femininity, first of all that of sensual beauty, disturbing and dangerous for the temptation she continually poses for men" (qtd. in Ricci 39). 32 Even in the Strickland 96 modem day, her feminine qualities of beauty and sensuality are considered "sinfur' and "dangerous." In another recent exhibitiQn entitled "Marie-Madeleine. Figure inspiratrice dans Ia Mystique, les Arts et les Lettres, the catalogue speaks of the still titillating "beauty, the seductiveness, the penitence of Mary Magdalene," and calls her a dangerous object of desire with the "corrupting power of temptation (qtd. in Ricci

39). 33 In other words, her beauty is her power to corrupt. tempt, and destroy. The catalogue names her ''the Magdalene of sin, red with the blood of shame, the antithesis of White Mary the mother of God" (qtd. in Ricci 40). Even in the modem day, her beauty is considered sinful and evil. Furthermore, it is regarded as shameful because it represents the obverse of all that is esteemed in the Virgin.

According to her paradigm, Mary Magdalene's beauty not only posed a threat to men, but also led her into a shameful life of sexual sin. As the infamous prostitute,

Mary Magdalene is sin person!fied: she is beautiful, vain, worldly, sexual and proud of it. Contemporary depictions ofher continue to embody these traits. Feminist film critic Jane Schaberg looked at the figure of the Magdalene as represented in five contemporary films, including, The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), Jesus Christ

Superstar (1973), Jesus ofNazareth (1977), The Last Temptation ofChrist (1988) and

Jesus ofMontreal (1989). Her review of these films, "Fast Forwarding to the

Magdalene," describes Mary Magdalene in each f:tlm: she is "the conflated figure of legend, the repentant whore" (35). As the typical village prostitute, she is seductive and sensuous, walking in a proud gait, her face smeared with makeup. She is not just a prostitute, however, she is a whore, which means that she is not considered the Strickland 97 victim of male lust, but the cause of it. Her destructive powers of beauty and sexuality make her the predator and men her prey. In this light, she resembles the much-feared adulteress, described in the tll Chapter of Proverbs" who uses her beauty and sensuality to trap men into sexual sin and bring them to their destruction. As the source of sexual sin, therefore, Mary Magdalene is the embodiment of sin, which brings her into a close relation with the source of evil, the devil himself

The construction of Mary Magdalene as a woman whose beauty and vanity led her into a life of sexual sin bears an interesting relation to the legend of her demon-possession. Since scriptural commentators have viewed the sinful woman who fell at Christ's feet as a prosti~ and have conjoined her with the Mary

Magdalene "from whom Seven devils had come out," they have concluded that her

"demons" were her sins. Gregory the Great maintained that the seven devils that

Jesus cast out of Mary Magdalene actually signified the seven vices (Haskins 96).

From this teaching arose her reputation as a prostitute. Contemporary theologian

Jack Lundborn, in his article "Between Text and Sermon: Mary Magdalene and Song of Songs 3:1-4," writes that "It was thought the demons were those of unchastity, for which reason tradition has grown around Mary that she was a harlot" ( 173 ).

Historically, people have assumed that ~'demon-possession" was a result of one

"inviting" sin into one's life, and when those sins took over, the person became

"possessed." In Mary's case, it was believed that her dei1lon-possession was a direct result of her licentious lifestyle. The association between demons and sins was in fact so strong that she has even been portrayed in artwork as weeping at the feet of Christ, Strickland 98

while seven devils danced out of her. This interpretation of her experience combines

the scene of the sinful woman of Luke 7 and the Mary Magdalene ofLuke 8, from

whom seven devils were ejected Thus, it bas been believed that the.devils were her

sexual sins, from which Christ freed her when she fell at his feet

In order to understand the paradigm of Mary Magdalene, it is useful to look closely at the sinful woman ofLuke 7:36-50 because this woman has been identified

as she. Luke places the scene at Simon the Pharisee's house, where Simon has

invited Jesus and some other guests to dine. While Jesus is reclining at the table, a

woman "who had lived a sinful life in that town" enters the house, carrying an

alabaster jar of expensive perfume. Having heard that the Messiah is there, she stands behind Jesus, and in an emotional outburst, she begins crying and wetting his feet

with her tears. She then anoints his feet with the perfume, wipes his feet with her hair

and covers them with kisses. Feminist theologian Carla Ricci, in her book Mary

Magdalene and Many Others: Women who Followed Jesus, describes the scene: ''The

image that emerges is of someone totally immersed in her quest, totally absorbed by

her thirst which is the source that gives her strength to face up to her situation" (82).

Regardless of what it may have cost her both personally and financially, this woman risked the judgment of the Pharisees, her reputation, and the great cost ofthe perfume because of her inner desperation to find the one who could heal her. Her discovery of

Jesus absorbs her entire being. As one of the great passionate characters of the Bible,

Luke's "sinner" listens to the instinctive cries of her own heart. She boldly seeks that Strickland 99 which she desires - forgiveness, love, acceptance, peace -and she finds each of these in Christ.

The identification of Mary Magdalene as the sinful woman of Luke 7 makes her paradigm first and foremost a symbol of repentance. .She symbolizes the turning from one's sins to the throne of God in utter contrition. In a traditional interpretation of her, Gregory the Great describes the Magdalene as the repentant whore:

The eyes which she had used to lure men now wept, that glorious hair

which she had bedecked with gold to entice young men she now used

in humility to dry Christ's feet, the mouth which had so delighted her

seducers now in sorrow kissed the soles of his feet, and the body

which had lain prostrate with many men now lay at Christ's feet. (qtd.

in Haskins 153)

For the Church, this image of the Magdalene was the P?Ifect picture- Eve's representative on her knees, begging to be forgiven, pleading to have her slate wiped clean. The Magdalene represented "love profane, at once erotic and mystical, and transformed into spiritual love through penance and forgiveness" (91 ). By turning from the excesses of sensual love to the heights of spiritual love, Mary Magdalene symbolized the transformation tbatall women could experience through the rejection of a sinful life and the embrace of a spiritual one.

As a changed woman, Mary Magdalene was transformed from having a fleshly beauty to having a profound spiritual beauty,.which was symbolized by her tears. According to her composite character, she wept profusely at Christ's feet in Strickland 100

Luke 7 and remained weeping at the tomb after his death in John 20. She is often

portrayed as weeping or with eyes red from having wept (Kiefer 1). In Titian's painting of her, for example, she is pictured as sensuous and beautiful, but desperate:

"her red-rimmed eyes are raised to heaven and beseech forgiveness" (Murphy 197).

Traditionally, Mary Magdalene has been called "The Weeper," whose tears signify her remorse over her past lifestyle and desire to change her life completely. In

Richard Crashaw's poem "Saint Mary Magdalene or the Weeper," he uses her tears as

symbols for her newfound spiritual beauty. He describes them as stars falling from heaven, and conversely, streams going up to heaven, making it beautiful and feeding the cherubs with their sweetness (7-8, 26-28). He writes, "Nowhere but here did ever meet I Sweetness so sad, sadness so sweet" (35-36), suggesting that her contrition makes her attractive in a whole new dimension. He describes her tears as pearls that bedeck her as a queen, and as dew, balm, flowers and wine that enrich her. He then considers the question of whether a sexually passionate woman can go on to live a spiritual life, but he concludes that her tears will go "to meet I A worthy object, our

Lord's feet" ( 185-186). He decides that her sorrow is more powerful that her sensuality, and her love for Christ outweighs any pleasure she received from her previous lifestyle. Lastly, he writes that while others are remembered by "moments, months, and years," Mary Magdalene will be remembered by her "Tears" (155-156).

Her sorrow for her past lifestyle is nearly as renowned as her infamous sexuality and is one of the great hallmarks of her character. Strickland 101

According to her legend, after Christ's ascension, Mary Magdalene spent the

rest of her life in penitence, fasting in the wilderness and denying herself carnal

pleasures. In her book From the Beast to the Blonde, Marina Warner writes that after

Mary Magdalene's conversion, "The holy whore ... strips herself of the finery which

gave her worldly status and wanders naked out into the wilderness, where by divine providence her hair grows miraculously long to cover her. She is a figure of

repentance that accepts her sinfulness, by performing it over and over again in gesture

and dress" (358). Realizing the uselessness of worldly pleasures, she rejects the

world altogether and lives in the woods, fasting and praying. Her nakedness signifies

her conversion; she recognizes the "folly of the world," and sheds all "former vanities and trifles" (358). In the Museo deO 'Opera del Duomo in Florence staiJ.ds

Donatello' s statue of Mary Magdalene, the perfect depiction of a woman whose sins

have marred her beauty, whose "demons" have ravaged her soul, and whose later life was one ofstrict self-denial. James Baker, in his article, ~·The Red-Haired Saint: Is

Mary Magdalene the Key to the. Easter NarrativesT' describes Donatello's Mary:

"emaciated, mad. with long hair that merges with skins, ravaged by a life of dissipation and then long repentance ... the pet:fect example of the grotesque made beautiful" (331 ). Cullen Murphy describes Donatello's Mary as the "ravaged slattern, her face pocked with age and hollowed by sin, her hair stringy and gnarled, her tom tunic hanging loosely from a malnourished frame, her hands about to join each other in penitent supplication" ( 197). This Magdalene is the epitome of the fallen woman redeemed: the formerly demon-possessed, sexual, vain woman who repents by living Strickland 102 an ascetic, asexual, spiritual life. Drawn passionately to God, she abandons everything for her Savior. She lives out the rest of her life in prayer and supplication, as if continuing to pay for her sins through painful self-denial.

An essential component ofthe paradigm of Mary Magdalene is that she, more powerfully than any other New Testament figure, 34 represents the New Creation. She symbolizes the turning from the old life to the new, the very message that Christ preached. As the symbol of the prostitute who turned from a life ofsin to a life of spiritual devotion, Mary Magdalene is the living symbol of the death of sin and the birth of new life in Christ. She is the "sign and symbol of the sacramentality of the body reborn in the spirit and in the flesh" (Apostolos-Cappadona 2). More than the

Virgin Mary evet could, Mary Magdalene represents the potential for all humankind to be "re-born" through faith in God. When she turned from her past mistakes, her life of deprivation became filled with hope. In this, Mary Magdalene is the epitome of the New Creation, a woman radically transformed by God who had "hope and a future" where there was none before (Jer 29:11). Because of this, she represents the potential for all human beings to change their lives through a restored relationship with their Creator.

The last component of the paradigm of Mary Magdalene discussed here is her role as the"Apostle to the Apostles.,., While her paradigm focuses on her role as

Luke's sinner, the putative prostitute, it also contains another image. According to tradition, the same woman whom Luke called "sinful," the same woman who had been healed ofdemons by Jesus, was also the same woman who was the. first to meet

Strickland 104

The myth of the Magdalene has also given women a role model that

symbolizes their ability to change their lives for the better. After herencounter with

Christ, Mary Magdalene "got up and walked" like the lame man healed. Her sins,

demons, or illnesses had paralyzed her, and Christ freed her ofher suffering. Women

understand this because women are oppressed by so many cultural and physical

causes- rape, molestation, abuse, infertility, illness, disability, adultery. divorce, loss

of children, prejudice, and so on. Every woman has her "demons," those things that

haunt her and grip her motionless. As a result, every woman can look at the paradigm

ofMary Magdalene and find someone that gives them the hope that they, too, can

transform their lives in positive ways.

Yet, the particular accessibility of the Magdalene paradigm does not relieve

her myth of having several negative ramifications. As a product of a compilation of

interpretations about women in and out of the Bible, her myth says much about

femininity that is incorrect First and foremoSt, it has perpetuated the stereotype that

women are sinful. In Scripture, Mary Magdalene has been identified·as the woman

caught in adultery (John 8:3-11) and the woman at the well (John 4:4-29), compounded with the woman who anointed Jesus' head (Mark 14:3-9; Matt 26:7-13),

and the woman who washed and anointed his feet (Luke 7:36-50). These are all

unnamed women, yet they have been rolled into one image: Mary Magdalene, the whore. While most scholars recognize that the links between the woman at the well, the woman caught .in adultery, and Mary Magdalene are too weak to justify their connection, they still perpetuate the idea that the unnamed sinful woman of Luke 7 is Strickland I 05 she. The ramifications are clear: by combining the women under one negative heading - the prostitute - interpreters have reinforced the stereotype that women are especially sinful. This has a profound effect on how women view themselves. It tells them that if they are not madonnas, then they are whores, and, most likely, they are whores, and they will be treated as such. This perception does nothing to empower women; instead, it denies the markedly respectful and honomble treatment that Jesus gave women. Not only did he treat them as equals, but he often crossed social and religious boundaries to reach out to women. He didn't regard them as sinful and impure, as many of his contemporaries did; instead, he treated with the utmost consideration. Thus, the assumption that women are particularly sinful is harmful to women because it sets them back in achieving the equality and respect that Christ taught that they deserved.

The paradigm of Mary Magdalene also has the detrimental effect of associating women's sexuality with sin. Because Mary Magdalene was assumed to have been a prostitute, it is useful to note the view of the Church Fathers on prostitution. According to Rita Nakashima Brock in her article "Casting Stones: The

Theology of Prostitution," the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas regarded prostitutes as important to protect the "good" women of the family from the demands of male sin. 36 With the Reformation, however, Luther shifted the focus of evil from male lust to the prostitute who had been sent by the devil to "corrupt poor young men" (4). The Refomters deemed prostitution evil due to woments disobedient nature manifested in the behavior ofEve (6). In the case of the sinful woman of Luke Strickland 106

7, theologians blamed her for her excessive sexual sins which had supposedly led her to such a wretched condition. 37 Assuming she was a prostitute, the Chw-ch Fathers associated her sinfulness with her sexuality, rather than seeing her as a possible victim of an industry based upon the exploitation of young girls. Brock writes, .. Far from illuminating the reality of the sex industry as a system of exploitation of the vulnerable, young and poor, the Christian pathologizing ofsex has obscured its dynamics" (5). In other words, the Church's association of sex with sin has diminished the true nature of the suffering of those women trapped in sex industries. 38

By correlating sex with sin, and women with sex, theological commentators have led, women to believe that their sexuality is sinful. Again, this has a profound effect on .. the way women view themselves. For prostitutes, it teaches them that they are the cause ofsin, rather than the repository ofit; and for average women, it teaches them that ifthey are sinful, then they are sexually so. These stereotypes only perpetuate the blame that women have received since the Fall for their sexuality.

The paradigm of Mary Magdalene also implies that women are to blame for their suffering, an idea inherent in the belief that Mary's demon-possession was a result of her sexual sins. The belief follows this train of thought: women wbo are sinful are sexually so; since sin leads to suffering, then women suffer because they are sinful I sexual. This leads to the conclusion that a woman's suffering is a result of her moral weakness in the face of sexual sin. Thus, if women suffer, particularly prostitutes, then it is their own fault because they could not resist the "temptation'' of sexual sin. The paradigm ofMary Magdalene perpetuates this idea even further by Strickland 107 naming the "sinful woman" and the woman "healed of demons" as one and the same.

Associating demons with sins implies that Mary Magdalene suffered because of her sexual sins, not because she was a victim of a curious disease that in her day was called "demon-possession." In essence, then, whatever Mary Magdalene suffered on account ofher demon-possession was her own fault; she invited sexual sin into her life by way of prostitution, became demon-possessed as a result, and suffered the consequences of her "sins." Therefore, she was to blame for her own suffering. The repercussion for common women is that their infirmities have often histori~ly been seen as a result of their sins, and they have traditionally been blamed for their suffering.

The focus on the image of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute has been unreservedly damaging for women. Even with all the societal advances that modern women have made, Mary Magdalene is still not remembered as the "Apostle to the

Apostles;" instead, she is known as the village whore. In Jane Schaberg's analysis of

Zeferilli's contemporary film Jesus ofNazareth, for example, she descnbes the scene of Luke 7: shot from the perspective of Jesus and the spectators, the woman snivels at

Jesus' feet- representing "fearsome, innnoral female sexuality [being] forced to participate in a masochistic fantasy: the Magdalene blamed and blaming herself, internalizing her guilt, from which she is then released by a paternal Jesus .... [She] is a powerless, victimized figure reinforcing a sense of worthlessness and sexual shame" (40). In all the contemporary films in which she is depicted, Mary

Magdalene is not seen as a follower of Christ, but as someone on the outskirts of the Strickland 108 movement, who only pops up as a whore "sniveling" at his feet (40). Even when she announces the Resurrection to the apostles, she then disappears from the films and is never seen again. Schaberg writes that the Magdalene is 'just a flash; she is not a continuous character of any importance~· (42). Unfortunately for women, this popular view of Mary Magdalene as the "town whore" further demeans their status in society.

It reduces them to helpless victims who fall at the feet of men, then are relegated to the sidelines of society, with neither impact nor import. On the contrary, her paradigm should empower women to come up off their knees and walk erectly, as figures of dignity, purpose, and worth, as the real Mary Magdalene did - but, it has not. Instead, it has perpetuated their subordination and their shame;

The traditional focus on Mary Magdalene as the penitent prostitute has significantly contributed to the subordination of women. By emphasizing her sexual sins instead of her role as "Apostle to the Apostles," interpreters have greatly undermined the role and value that Mary Magdalene had for Christ. Instead of exalting her as a model of a woman blessed by God, our culture has demeaned her as a sexual pervert who only fell at Christ's feet in utter remorse. This image does not value Mary Magdalene's role as a woman who was given the privilege of proclaiming the Resurrection. As a result, women have not traditionally been reminded of their value as speakers, leaders, and teachers. It is only in recent years that the leadership role of women in church and society has even begun to be valued Even so, the

Magdalene myth persists, and few women even realize who the real Mary of Magdala was. Strickland 109

Deconstruding tile Myth

In order to re-define the myth of the Magdalene as positive and useful, we must first de-construct it by examining its origins. Like the myths of Eve and the

Virgin, the myth of the Magdalene was created and sustained in a patriarchal society.

The symbolic Magdalene represents the dangers of the female flesh instead of the benefits of faith; she is the symbol ofthe New Eve rejecting her sexuality instead of the New Creation accepting her spirituality. This formulation of her myth is a patriarchal construction, reflecting the thoughts and attitudes ofthe men who created it. Like her predecessors, Mary Magdalene is "a victim of centuries of male­ dominated biblical scholarship" (Sanders 1). In addition, her paradigm is a cultural creation, influenced greatly by the patriarchal structure of society. Carla Ricci writes that there is an "enormous quantity ofexegetical, literary, homiletic, poetic, pictorial and other artistic material describing, not the reality of Mary Magdalene, but the most hidden psychological traits of men who have represented her in all sorts of ways"

( 149). Manifest in her image are countless male perceptions of women which have been deposited under one name. Cullen Murphy writes:

The Mary Magdalene of legend is one of the more remarkable female

phenomena deriving from Scripture, her reputation and symbolism in

subsequent ages held up by a rickety scaffolding of interpretation

erected on a meager foundation of text ... [She] comes readily to

mind when feminist biblical scholars consider the fate of scripture in

the hands of men. (196) Strickland 110

When one studies the history of patriarchy in the Church, it is not surprising to

discover that the Mary Magdalene of repute is not at all the same woman found in

Scripture. Katherine Ludwig Jansen, in her book The Making oft/1£ Magdalen, writes:

Vanity, lust, prostitution: how did these things pertain to the sketchy

facts of Mary Magdalene's life as recorded in the gospels? In a word:

they did not. . . . Preachers made them conform to the rather vague

biographical facts of her life in order to address exigent questions

about the nature of Woman, women's place in society, the need for

female protection, and the problem of prostitution. In other words,

preachen; and moralists invented a Magdalen in order to address what

they perceived as a woman-problem. (147)

Understanding that the paradigm of Mary Magdalene is rooted in myth can aid women in the essential task of re-processing her meaning for the modem day.

Furthermore, recognizing the misperceptions inherent in her legend can lead women to the vital task of returning to the Scriptures, where they can find the true Mary of

Magdala.

When one takes a close look at the episodes in which the women who followed Jesus are mentioned, one. discovers that the gospel writers clearly felt an embarrassment over the role of women in Jesus' ministry. According to Luke 8:1-3, a substantial group of women, including Mary Magdalene, followed Jesus throughout

39 his ministry, from its beginning in Galilee to its end at the cross. These women Strickland Ill ministered to Jesus and supported him out of their own means. Yet, when one reads the other gospel accounts, there is no mention of this group of women until the crucifixion and tomb narratives. Ricci regards these late references to the women as

"indicative and revealing pieces of a far wider reality that lies hidden and, like an underground stream, from time to time trickles out of the written texts, then comes up to the surface and so reveals its permanent presence" (23). In other words, the scant naming of the women in the gospels actually reveals that they were there, by Jesus' side, all along. The gospel writers simply gave Mary Magdalene and Jesus' other female disciples very little space, naming them only when it was necessary to do so

(Baker 329). Matthew, Mark and John, for example, wait until their narratives are nearly finished to mention that the women present at the cross and tomb had been with Jesus since Galilee. At that point, the writers had to name the women because they were the only ones there; all of the male disciples had left. Likewise, the writers had to include Mary Magdalene's testimony of the Resurrection because she was the only witness to it. Certainly, for a woman to be the first one to testify to the validity of the Resurrection was scandalous at the time, and the public recognition of her put the male leaders of the Early Church in an embarrassing and awkward position This, in turn, led them to play down the role of the women in the events of the Easter faith

(Schussler Fiorenza 626). 40

Instead of recognizing Mary Magdalene as the faithful witness of Christ's death, burial and Resurrection, history has instead focused on her image as the sinful woman of Luke 7. Consequently, one of the essential steps in dismantling Mary Strickland 112

Magdalene's paradigm is separating the scriptural Mary ofMagdala from the woman

of Luke 7. The confusion over the identities of the two women is easily cleared up by

taking a closer look at the gospel account First, we note that the identification of the

sinful woman of Luke 7 as Mary Magdalene is not supported by Scripture. The

confusion stems from the simple proximity of Luke 7, in which the sinful woman

anoints Christ's feet, to Luke 8, in which the author names Mary Magdalene as a

woman cured by Jesus, "from whom seven demons had gone out" (1-3). In Luke 7,

the author does not reveal the sinful woman's identity, nor does he call her Mary

Magdalene; he only identifies her as "a woman who had lived a sinful life in that

town" (7:38). Further, in Luke 8, he does not connect Mary ofMagdala in any way to

the woman of Luke 7. Nor do any of the other gospel accounts connect the two

women in any form. Therefore, there is no proof that the unnamed sinful woman of

Luke 7 was Mary Magdalene.

Not only do the two women bear no relation in Scripture, but there is

additional evidence that casts doubt on whether they were one and the same. The

Mary of Magdala of Luke 8:1-3 helped support Jesus and the apostles out of her own means. She had to have been a wealthy woman to have done so. Furthermore, she had to have been independently wealthy, which was rare for a woman of her day. In addition, Mary Magdalene followed Jesus' ministry from beginning to end. The woman of Luke 7, on the other hand, appeared as a local woman of no particular means, who was a stranger to Jesus and the Pharisees. After her encounter with

Jesus, he sent her away (Lk 7:50b ). There is no mention that Jesus cured her of Strickland 113

demon-possession, as he bad done for Mary Magdalene, nor is there any indication

that she continued to follow his ministry after their meeting (Lk 8:2). Biblical scholar

Moody Stuart, in his book The Three Marys, points out, "Magdalene had wealth, which [the sinful woman] could scarcely possess; Magdalene ministered to Jesus,

while she was sent away; Magdalene was a demoniac, which she was not; yet

Magdalene's name is given to her... ~· (20). Simply put, Mary Magdalene has been called someone who she could not have been

Separating the identity of Mary Magdalene from the sinful woman of Luke 7

is not the only work to be done in dismantling her image; the question still rests whether or not she was the other unnamed women in the Bible, and whether she was the same woman that John calls "Mary." To begin, the reports in Matthew, Mark and

John of other women anointing Jesus have been misread as being the sinful woman.

In Luke 7, after the woman falls at Christ's feet, Simon the Pharisee objects, saying that ifJesus were the Christ, he would know that the woman who is touching him is a

"sinner." Jesus rebukes Simon by telling him a parable, then forgives the woman and tells her she may go in peace. In Matthew and Mark, a similar story is told, but it takes place in Bethany, at Simon the Leper's house, not Simon the Pharisee's house, and the woman is also unnamed. In this story, she pours perfume on Jesus' head, rather than his feet, and his disciples, rather than the Pharisees, object based on the cost ofthe perfume, not on the woman's status as a "sinner. " Jesus rebukes his disciples and commends the woman, saying that she had done this to prepare him for his burial, not because she desires to be forgiven. John, on the other hand, places the Strickland 114 event at the home of Lazarus, and the woman who anoints Jesus is Lazarus' sister

Mary. This is Mary ofBethany, not Mary ofMagdala. This Mary anoints Jesus' feet, rather than his head, and wipes them with her hair, but again, it is in preparation for his burial, not out of contrition over her past sins. Like the women in Matthew and

Mark's accounts, this woman does not weep, is not named "sinful," nor does she anoint Jesus in the presence of objecting Pharisees. Nevertheless, these women have been connected to the sinful woman and called Mary Magdalene. There is no

Scriptural proof, however, to conclude that they are the same woman. In fact, the evidence suggests that they are distinct women in distinctly different circumstances.

Lastly, there is no indication that any of the women who anointed Jesus were prostitutes. The sinful woman ofLuke 7's reputation as a prostitute has no scriptural validity. Luke neither says that she was sexually sinful nor that she was a harlot.

That this woman has traditionally been called a prostitute is the result .of the patriarchal construction of her myth, intertwined with a case of mistaken identity.

James Baker sums it up: "There is not the slightest shred of hard evidence that

[Luke's sinful woman] was Magdalene or that Magdalene was any of the Gospels' other Marys or unnamed ~bad' women. There is certainly no biblical basis for saying that she was a reformed prostitute or that she had long red hair... " (330). Indeed, the identities and connections between these women are blurry, but with careful deconstruction of the texts, we can at least conclude the following: Mary Magdalene was not the sinful woman ofLuke 7, nor was she the woman at Simon the Leper's house, nor was she Mary the sister of Lazarus, nor was she a prostitute. Then, who Strickland 115 was she? The Bible names her enough times for us to construct a new myth of the

Magdalene.

Reconstructing the Myth

Reconstructing the myth of Mary Magdalene means that we must set aside all of the preconceived ideas about her and return to the woman ofthe Bible, from whom we can attain a more legitimate portrait of who she truly was. She is mentioned by name twelve times in the New Testament- the second most mentioned woman after the Virgin Mary. Nine out of the ten times that she is listed with other women, she is named first. According to Moody Stuart, this primary placement of her denotes some

"excellence of grace in her above the others" ( 15). By naming her first among the women, the gospel writers indicate that she was both an important figure in Jesus' ministry and a leader of the women. She is the only female disciple of Christ, in fact, who had the "audacity" to be no man's wife, mother, or sister. Whereas the other women are most often named as "the wife of," "the sister of," and the ~~mother of,"

Mary Magdalene is always named as an independent woman with no attachment to any man, which was rare for her time. Therefore, not only was she a leader of the women, but she was independently so.

In looking closely at the twelve biblical references to Mary Magdalene, we can make the following conclusions: she had seven demons cast out of her by Jesus; she ministered to Jesus and his disciples; she was present at the crucifixion and the burial, and she went to the tomb on Easter morning and saw the risen Christ.41 In order to reconstruct her image, we can look at the following aspects of her character: Strickland 116 she was healed of demons; she ministered to Christ; she was a loyal follower; and she was the Herald of the Resurrection, the "Apostle to the Apostles," and a leader ofthe

Early Church. Furthermore, she was a woman of great courage, who bas the potential to stand as a source of inspiration for the contemporary woman.

Reconstructing her myth begins with a better understanding of what it means to have been "healed of demons." Demon-possession, in the first century, usually referred to some. sort of mental illness (Baker 329). Carla Ricci provides a broader view: "The evils of life that were not due to great natural catastrophes were attributed to the wicked influence of demons" (132). Mary Magdalene had a particular disease, attributed to certain spirits, the natural causes of which people were unable to discover. She was "a victim of a disease not easily understandable, which took her over physically and psychically, completely ... and which took her into the category of those possessed by demons'' (133, 135). Stuart points out that the words used to describe Mary Magdalene's possession literally signify"crowded," and express "the tossing, tearing and distracting of the soul, as by a multitude of conflicting forces"

(31 ). Whatever overtook her body and soul was extremely powerful and disturbing to her psyche. Ricci postulates that Mary Magdalene may have even been a woman of strong sensibilities, whose mind and body had not withstood the impact of the painful problems life can bring (135). Whether she was troubled by mental illness or emotional pain, or a combination of both, no one knows. We do know, however, that according to the definition of demon-possession in her time, her illness was neither a Strickland 117 reflection of her sins, nor was it any fault of her own. Indeed, it was an unexplainable illness that took her over, and she had the incredible fortune of being healed of it.

A new myth of the Magdalene must also emphasize the transformation she underwent through her relationship with Christ. She was a woman who went from being mentally ill to being healed,Jiberated, and part of an extraordinary ministry.

Those from whom Jesus had ejected demons- and Mary Magdalene was certainly not the only one - went from being "out of their minds" to being in their "right minds" (Lk 8:35). Mary of Magdala was accordingly a liberated person; her encounter with Jesus freed her from her emotional, mental and physical pain. She left everything to follow him, which may reflect hypersensitivity and emotional imbalance on her part, since it was such a radical decision for a woman to make at that time (Ricci 137). Clearly, she did not care what people thought of her or what danger traveling with Jesus might bring; she left everything to follow the one who had healed her, to help him and experience the joys and sorrows of his ministry (137).

As Ricci points out, her relationship with Jesus would have opened up "a course of growth, of'healing,' of'retum to self,' which, even if it had its crucial moments, was to extend to the Resurrection ... and beyond" (139). She was a woman

"dispossessed of herself," and she became a woman "restored to herself, to the depths of her own being" (138). Understanding that Mary Magdalene was a liberated woman, freed from her suffering, healed and experiencing emotional and spiritual growth as a human being, helps us to see her myth in a new light: her life changed Strickland 118 from sorrow to joy, from wandering to purpose, from dark to light, just as many

women's lives may be transformed by the empowering choices they make.

The fact that Mary Magdalene ministered to Christ during his ministry reveals her independence as well as her value to him. After her deliverance, she left her home town behind, without the approval or consent of any man, which was a very bold and independent decision for a woman of her day. In order to do so~ she had to have the ability to live free oflabor or of obligation to others, and to minister to Jesus and his disciples during a long, arduous three-year journey (Stuart 18). As an aftluent woman, she was in the company of other well-off and independent women who supported Christ fmancially (Joanna the wife ofHerod's steward was such a woman who occupied a position of influence) (Schlumpf2, Stuart 20). These well-off women devoted themselves to service for Jesus, his apostles and his numerous disciples. They took on the critical role of serving and feeding the people while they were traveling, by providing nourishment and support that was essential to the journey. As the day-in and day-out providers of food and the 4'warmth ofhome," these women were invaluable to Christ. For the contemporary woman, they also serve as a reminder of the importance of domestic service, as it provides the love and care that people need to encourage them in their labor.

In addition to Mary Magdalene being a servant of the Lord, she was also his faithful follower to the very end of his ministry. According to Baker, "She was perhaps the single most important person in the new faith's most crucial three days"

(329). Although the details in the gospel accounts of the cross, the tomb and the Strickland 119

Resurrection differ, all four gospels agree that Mary Magdalene was a continual witness to these events. According to the gospels, she and a few other women remained at the cross even when all the male disciples fled She then followed his body tO the tomb and was present at his burial. After returning home to observe the

Sabbath, Mary Magdalene, possibly accompanied by a few other women, returned to the tomb on the first day of the week to anoint his body with spices. According to the

Book ofJohn, the women realize that his body has disappeared from the tomb, so they run to tell the other disciples. Then, after the astonisheQ disciples realize what has happened, they return home, but Mary goes back to the tomb and remains there, weeping (Jn 20:10-11 ). Two angels appear to her and ask her why she is crying.

"They have taken my Lord away," she responds, "and I don't know where they have put him" (20:13). She then turns around and sees Jesus standing there. "Woman," he asks, ''why are you crying?" Assuming that be is the gardener, she asks again where they have put her Lord Then Jesus calls her by name. ~'Mary," he says, and she turns toward him and cries out, "Rabboni!" which in Aramaic means "teacher." He tells her not to hold on to him, but to go and tell the disciples that he has risen.

Terrified and overjoyed, she runs and tells them the news. In this account, it is clear what a critical role she played in the Resurrection story; she was its only continual witness. It was her persistence in seeking Christ that led her to be rewarded the high privilege of being the first to deliver the news of the Resurrection.

Mary's love for Christ, which led her to pursue him faithfully even after his death, is one of her most remarkable attributes which must be embodied in the new ..

Strickland 120 myth of the Magdalene. Symbolically, her search in the Easter garden is represented by the great love song of the Bible, the Song of Songs. The parallel between Mary

Magdalene's search for Jesus and the young woman's search for her lover is remarkable:

Upon my bed at night

I sought him whom my soul loves;

I sought him, but found him not;

I called to him, but he gave no answer;

"I will rise now and go about the city,

In the streets and in the squares;

I willseek.him whom my soul loves,"

I sought him, but found him not.

The sentinels found me,

As they went about in the city.

''Have you seen him whom my soul loves?"

Scarcely had I passed them,

When I found him whom my soul loves.

I held him, and would not let him go ....'' (SS 3:1-4)

When Mary can not find Jesus, she seeks him earnestly, while everyone else goes home. But when she still can not find him, she weeps at the thought that be is gone.

The discovery of the empty tomb is a symbol for the emptiness she feels the world is without him. Whereas the arrival of the Messiah on the scene of her misery gave her Strickland 121

hope, now his absence represents hope vanished, a "paradise lost." Nevertheless, she

persists in her search, without letting go, without giving up, and her detennination to

seek the Christ leads her from this place of sorrow to a place of hope.

When Christ appears to her, she turns towards him, and her turning represents

an inner turning, from the darkness of the empty tomb to the light of a new life. 42

According to Dorothy Lee in her article "Turning from Death to Life: A Biblical

Reflection on Mary Magdalene," Mary's turning represents a metamorphosis. She

"moves through grief and longing towards the joy and hope awaiting her. Then, she

responds as one who has 'lost, searched and finally found' (SS 3:1-4)" (112). When

she realizes that· he is not the ·gardener, but the risen Jesus, she responds with a hope­

filled ery: "Rabbont!" In this brief instant, Mary has a taste of"paradise regained."

As Adam and Eve had been with God in the garden, so Mary meets God in the garden

once more, and the union between human beings and their Creator is restored. When

sin entered the Garden ofEden, Adam and Eve were sent out, representing the loss of

paradise, but then, "sin pardoned," personified by Mary, meets Christ in the garden

once again, and the hope of paradise is restored Jack Lundbom writes that at this

moment, "Death has given way to life and separation from God has given way to

reconciliation to God" (174). ·Mary's relationship with Christ symbolizes that perfect spiritual union between human beings and God (Haskins 41 ). In this case, she does represent the New Eve, but not in the sense that she has rejected her sexuality­ rather, in the sense that she has accepted God's grace. By receiving this grace, she experiences the forgiveness that human beings have longed for since the Fall. Yet, Strickland 122

Mary's ''paradise'' is only a glimpse of what is to come- because Christ tells her not to hold on to him. She must let go and walk by faith, and she must now tum from

Christ towards the world with the news.

In "resurrecting" Mary's image, women must re-write Christian history in order to reclaim Mary's role as the Herald of the Resurrection. That she was the first to see the risen Christ and announce the Resurrection is certainly the pivotal role that

Mary played in the New Testament. It must be emphasized that Christianity has its foundation in a message proclaimed by women. Without the proclamation of the women, there would be no Christianity, for there would be no faith in Christ and no witnesses to his Resurrection. In Carla Ricci's words, the women were:

... Chosen by Jesus as the means of taking to the disciples, after the

sorrow and darkness of the passion, the proclamation of the

overcoming of death and the victory of life, ofjoy, of light; chosen as

'messengers of glad tidings' who proclaim, after the prevalence offear

and weakness ... courage and tranquility; after defeat and suffering,

victory and exultation; after betrayal and iJ:Uustice, solidarity and

justice; after lying and torment, truth and peace; after the sorrow and

dark silence of death, joy, light, the Word, life; after the wound of

separation, the happiness of a new reality of union; after living through

the suffering of 'loss,' the joy of 'finding'; after hatred, love. ( 148)

The most crucial moment in Mary's life came when Jesus told her to go and tell the other disciples that he had risen, and she went and told. For this, Mary should forever Strickland 123

be remembered as the woman whom Christ honored with the singular privilege and

responsibility of announcing the essence of the Christian faith.

A new myth of Mary must also embody her role as the "Apostle to the

Apostles." Even Saint Bernard ofClairvaux (1090-1153), a highly influential Early

Church leader, granted Mary this title because she fulfilled the definition of an apostle

- she had seen the risen Christ and was sent by him to share the good news (Schilssler

Fiorenza 625). The honor bestowed on Mary and the other women certainly offered

them purpose and status otherwise denied them in a patriarchal society (Haskins 85).

That Jesus chose to appear first to women reveals his profound respect for them as

leaders and proclaimers of the faith, despite the patriarchal customs of the time. Thus,

as contemporary women seek to recast the myth ofMary in more positive ways, they

must emphasize her role as the first to proclaim the faith to the apostles themselves.

As SchUssler Fiorenza puts it, "If as women we should not have to reject the Christian

faith and tradition, we have to reclaim women's contribution and role in it. We must

free the image of Mary Magdalene from all distortion and recover her role as apostle"

(625). Women must recognize and emphasize the value Christ placed on Mary as a

leader and reclaim that value for themselves. By re-envisioning Mary as an apostle,

women can then discover the important function and role which they have not only

for the Christian faith and community, but as leaders in society as well (625). Instead of teaching women that they should be silent, a new paradigm ofMaty Magdalene

would instead teach them to speak. By recovering her role as an apostle, women can Strickland 124

''give back a face and a voice" to the true Mary Magdalene (Ricci 15). Furthermore, they can give women today a role model who spoke and acted as Christ inspired her.

A related role that Mary Magdalene had after Christ's ascension was that she also became a leader in the Early Church. While her myth frames her life after the gospels as one of seclusion and penitence, the apocryphal and Gnostic writings establish her as playing a central role in the first community (Ricci 146). According to The Golden Legend, a hagiographic text compiled centuries later, Mary and some other disciples suffered persecution after Christ's ascension and were cast out to sea in a rudderless boat (Mary Magdalen: An Intimate Portrait). They landed on the shore of Marseilles on the coast of France, where they found the inhabitants engaging in idol worship. Concerned for the people's well-being, Mary began to preach about the life and teachings of Christ Many artistic depictions of her stemming from the first century portray her as a preacher and teacher. While no one will ever know what her life after the gospels really contained, it is clear that Mary was sent to proclaim the "Word." As Carla Ricci puts it, "The representation of Mary Magdalene preaching is in Jesus' words: 'Go to my brothers and say to them ... ' (Jn 20: 17) and the statement that she 'went and announced ... ' (20: 18)" (154). Ricci continues:

"Beyond the immediate ... point provided by images ofMary Magdalene preaching, they awaken suggestive echoes in me as a woman. A woman expresses the word

Where the word has been denied to women in various ways in the texts and in exegesis, she takes the responsibility of claiming it back for herself and uttering it"

(155). There is no doubt that Mary was a leader in the Christian movement because Strickland 125

Christ himself bestowed that honor upon her. Re-envisioning her in this light may help men and women see Mary Magdalene as a powerful figure of leadership despite the customs of her time.

The new myth of Mary Magdalene provides women with an image of a courageous, powerful woman who can teach, inspire, and remind other women that on the other side·oftheir suffering, there can be peace. Her persistence, courage, and leadership make her a woman to emulate. She has rightfully been called the "most powerful and beautiful image of what is holy in the feminine" (Bucar 1). Her undying love for Christ stands as an example of what it truly means to love intensely, in joy, in sorrow, in life and in death. If women look to her as a source of inspiration, they can connect with her love and her pain as she searched for Christ when all around her was separation and loss. Women can hear her grief-tom cry, "They have taken away my Lord!" when they fear that they may lose something precious; they can hear her cry over and over again, if they feel the foundations shifting and don't know where to tum (Neff 1-2). Mary Magdalene's courage in spite of fear can inspire women to face their "demons": to tum towards their own suffering, to their own places of pain, no matter how dark they may seem (Lee 113-115). She can inspire women by reminding them that in her darkest hour, she found the light. By facing the fears that haunted her, she learned to transcend them. She can remind them that "as in Dante's Divine Comedy, there is no short-cut to the gaiden of bliss and love; we must take the long road that passes through hell and purgatory" first (Lee

115). Mary Magdalene passed through her own spiritual, physical and emotional Strickland 126 hells before reaching a place of peace. And then, after a long and tiresome journey, she seemed to lose hope again. But all was not lost; she was reunited with the one

"whom her soul loved." Like her, women can hope to reach this place of restoration after the suffering and loss that their lives may bring. Hopefully, like her, they can then "let go," and find the courage to step out again on their own personal journeys of faith.

Finally, women can look to Mary Magdalene and see a woman who, like Eve and the Virgin, spoke out, cried out, and sought that which her soul desired. For every wonum who desires to communicate, whether through speech, writing, preaching, or art, Mary Magdalene stands as an example of a woman whose words altered the very history of the world As women look to her and other biblical females, they can be reminded that they, too, have gifts of expression. When women freely share these gifts, they can only enrich the world in which we live. Strickland 127

1 The Inclusive Language edition makes it clear that women and men are both included in such statements as "Blessed is the man who ... " (Psalm 1:1) by translating itas "Blessed are those who ... ". It also ensures that such expressions as "brothers," which in Old and N~ Testament societies referred to members of social units broader than the nuclear family, is replaced with a more gender-inclusive expression for the modem day. In addition, pronouns that are intended to be inclusive of both men and women are translated as "everyone" or "whoever," rather than being gender specific. Whenever the original language gives specific references to either mates or females, the translation is left unaltered. For more, see Holy Bible. New International Version, Inclusive Language Edition, vi-viii. 2 Despite the limitations on women imposed by the Bible and its interpreters, there are many prominent women after Eve that emerge in the Old Testament: Deborah, the mighty prophetess; Esther, who saved her people; Ruth, a symbol of fidelity; Judith, who was considered "an honor to her people and the glory oflsrael"; Delilah, Tbamar, and more (Mananzan 4). Although the paradigm ofEve suggests ill ofwomen, there are many Old Testament figures who are powerful women who can offer both !nsPiration and encouragement. .. · 3 This can clearly be seen in all issues surrounding the woman's libeta1:ion movement, including woman's right to vote, own property, take part in the workplace, etc.. This is still an underlying truth in many cultures which to this day treat women as secondary creatures; such as Islam. Finding its origins in the Old Testament, Is1am mandates that women cover themselves in public and only leave the house at certain times of day. This is just one example that illustrates women's second-class status in the world. 4 H~. Pamela Norris rhapsodically describes Eve as represented by the painter Lucas Cranach the Elder: A beautiful woman with the milky skin and rippling golden hair of a Pre-. Rapbaelite 'stunner' stands beside an apple tree and bands a glossy red ftuit to a young tnan who is scratching his head as if perplexed. Both are naked except for the springing leaves ·of a vine that conveniently cover their genitals. At their feet, animals and birds feed peacefully together, the lion and the wild·boar with the doe and the lamb, in a rural landscape which suggests tranquil abundance. Above the woman's head a snake coils half-hidden in the tree, which is heavy with foliage and inviting ftuit. The woman's elegant self-possession offers an amusing contrast to her partner's lack ofease. She could be Venus whiling away a lazy summer's day by seducing a shepherd, or Aphrodite dallying with Anchises. But this nubile nymph is no classical deity; she is Eve with the garden Adam at the pivotal moment before time began. (lS) s See Gorden J. Melton, The Churches Speak on Women's Ordination: Official Statements from Religious Bodies and Ecumenical Orpnizations (Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1991 ). 6 See Gregory Nazianzen, "Oration 18: On the Death ofHis Father," A Select Library ofthe Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers ofthe Christian Church vol. 7, ser. 2 (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1894) 257. 7 See Peter Johann Lange, A CoJm.nentaty on the Holy Scriptures. trans. Philip Schaff: vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1874) 249. 8 See Eugene Maly. "Genesis." The Jerome Bibliad CommeiJtaO', vol. 2 (Englewood, New Jersey: Prentice-Hat~ 1968) 13. 9 The demonic side to Eve's nature becomes more cpmplex when one delves into the Hebrew origin of her name. According to Reuven Kimelman in his "The Seduction of Eve and the Exegetical Politics of Gender," she is named Havva for being mother of all living, but if this were all, she would have been named Hayya, life-bearer. What havva adds to hayya is an allusion to the serpent; in Aramaic and other cognate languages "serpent" is hivya (251). He writes, "This fusion ofhivya and hayya bas led to the Hebrew comment that 'the serpent is Eve's serpent and that Eve is Adam's serpent'" (257). Strickland 128

1°Furthermore, women who are "gossips" and "foolish prattlers" abound in literature. An example is the Nurse in Romeo and Juliet. who embodies the babbling fool Women have had the reputation for being busybodies, gossips, and idle talkers ever since Eve first spoke to the serpent and led her and her husband to their destruction. 11 Pontius Pilate, the Roman official who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus. 12 Lanyer echoes Christ's response to the erowd ofmen who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery. "Ifany one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her," Christ said to the men, and slowly all ofthem walked away (NIV, Jn 8:7). They did this because he made them realize that they were sinful creatures just like she, and her sins were no worse than theirs. 13 For more on this, see: Life Ap.pligtion Study Bible. New International Version (Tyndale House Publishers, 1991) commentary on Gen 3:11-13, p. 12. 14 In Gen. 2:22-25, after Eve's creation, the man names her "woman'' and the text reads, ''For this reason a man wm leave his fittber and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (v 24). Following that verse, Eve is referred to as Adam's "wife." The first record ofthem engaging in sexual intercourse comes in Gen. 4:1: "Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became W:,· thl:relates to the origin ofEve's name- a combination ofhayya (life-giver) and hivya (serpent). Eve, or havva, can also denote "speech" or "declare." Kimelman Writes, "An allusion to speech in havva would make it possible to hear 'a speaking serpent' in her name. This ... can spark the idea that the serpent is ... Eve's other and that the scene is one ofEve struggling with her own 81,1SCePtibilities" (258). . 16 Lk 1:38 in the NIV reads: "'I am the Lord's servant,' Mary answered. 'May it be to me as you have said."' 17 The textual support for the doctrine of the Assumption is Revelation 12:1, which discusses the ''woman clothed with the sun," whom theologians as early as the 5111 century saw as the Vtrgin. But according to Wamer,.this is a strained interpretation that has caused bitter controver$y. While the Catholic Church has sought to '\'alidate the doctrine of Mary's deified status, Protestants have balked at the idea of putting her on an equal level with Christ. As a result ofthis controversy, the Pope promised at Vatican Council ll to downplay worship ofMaty. 18 Assigning the title ofCo-Redeemer to Mary, however, is quite a doctrinal stretch. Protestants fervently object based on 1 Tim 2:5, which in strict orthodoxy says that there is one mediator between God and humans, Christ Jesus. Fairly, however, the Pope has given no indication that he intends to respond favorably to the petition. For more on this, see: Joe Woodard, "Honour for the Mother of God," Alberta Report I Newsmagazine. 24.37 (25 Aug 1997) 35-37, EbscoHost online, 30 Jan 2002. . 19 See Matt 26:36-45; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46 for Garden ofGethsemane accounts. In each of them, one can see that Jesus, like Mary, was a human person who made a conscious choice to obey God and fulfill his will, even though it was a difficult decision to make at the time. 20 This belief is repudiated by Jesus' many statements that the most important laws of Christianity are to love God and love one's neighbor. Furthennote, he never mentions virginity as an important virtue for men or women, nor does he promote it as an important tenet ofthe faith. Instead, he promotes fidelity within marriage and repeatedly emphasizes that it is one's faith- not one's righteousness­ which brings salvation. 21 The Bible was Written about common people, and its strength lies in the ability ofcommon people to see themselves in its "characters." Whether in literature, scripture, drama or art, when an observer sees him or herself in the cbaracters, then that observer can learn from them. 22 For more information, see Bofl: "Mary, Prophetic Woman ofLiberation," Ch 12, p. 188-192; an excellent source for understanding the role Mary plays as mediator of compassion to the Latin American people. Most notably, Doff poignantly summarizes their plight: We in Latin America live a life characterized by injustice and oppression. The vast Strickland 129

majority of our sisters and brothers are affected by it. The cries ofour poverty­ stricken people rise to the heart of our God, pleading for the dignity, basic human rights, equal societal relationships, and the means for the most effective possible societal participation on the part ofall. A tiny elite, possessed of a monopoly over the power, knowledge, and wealth Deeded to dictate the universal destiny, are in a position to confiscate the lives ofwhole peoples and appropriate them for their own sole advantage. They institutionalize Christianity itsel( with all its symbols and concepts, and reduce it to the service oftheir selfish cause. Internal colonialism - the only name for the "progress" under which we suffer- is nothing more than the reproduction in microcosm ofthe great neocolonialism under which we in the Western world must live. The nations of the Center-the countries ofthe North Atlantic - maintain a ring ofsatellite nations, dominating and exploiting them for the maintenance and acceleration ofthe opulent nations. This is a wicked, iniquitous "progress," built on the blood of millions ofbrothers and sisters. (191) 23 In the Bible, God is not only revealed through masculine language; the fetninine, too, is a vehicle of God's revelation: i.e., God and Christ are personified in the feminine figure.ofWisdom (Prov 8:22-26; 1 Cor 24:30);. God as Mother imagery also abounds: God is likened tp a woman who comfOrts (Isa 66:13); the mother who cannot forget the childofher womb (Isa49:15; Ps 25:6; 116:5); Jesus compares himself with a mother bitd who seeks to gather her children to herself to protect them (Luke 13:34); in the end, God will perform the classic gesture of a loving mother in wiping the tears ftom our ~es (Rev 21:14). For more, seeBofl: p. 76-77. 2 The most significant passages in which she appears are the Annunciation (Lk I :26); her visit to Jerusalem (Lk 2:41); the wedding at Cana (Jn 2:1); her visit to Capernawn (Mk 3:31); the crucifixion ofChrist (Jn 19:25); ~the ''upper room" (Acts 1:14). · 25 One of the main arguments against the validity of her virginity is based .on a shaky interpretation of the original texts. Whereas Mark and John do not mention her virginity, both Matthew and Luke do state that Mary was a virgin. Luke ealls her a virgin outright,· while Matthew only says it in the context ofthe virgin birth being a ftllfillment oflsaiah 7:14, which says, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel;" The trouiJle with this is that Isaiah used the Hebrew word 'almah. meaning a young woman eligible for marriage, which was interpreted as the Greek word parthenos, which has much stronger implications Ofphysical virginity. The dogma ofthe virgin birth has been founded oo this ftagile foundation oftexts (Nonis 232). 26 His abiding love for her is seen in Jn 19:26-27, when. while hanging on the cross, he presents her to JOhn, asking John to watch .over her and .ae care ofher in Jesus' absence. 27 Perhaps the process involves a radical revision ofthe Christian understanding of~ gender ofGod. Re-imagining God in an inclusive fashion can aid the understanding that God possesses both masculine and feminine. attributes and acts as both Mother and Father to the human·race~ .Understanding the inclusive nature ofGod may go a long way towards understanding Mary as a human woman who was blessed by the divinity. 28 Read mythically, the Magnificat is aery against all oppression, including that of the ancient Israelites, the Jews under the Roman empire, and the present-day situation in Latin America. 29 For further study, see the following references in which the "composite" Mary appears: Luke 7:36- 50 (the sinful woman); Luke 8:1-3 (Mary Magdalene, formerly demon-possessed); Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40; Jn 19:25 (the Cross); Mt 27:61; Mk 15:47 (the Burial); Mt 28:1-10; Mk 16:1-9; Lk: 24:1-12; Jn 20:1-18 (the Resurrection); Jn 11; Jn 12:1-8 (the sisterofMartha) . 30 As the second most frequently portrayed New Testament figure in ChriStian iconography (next to the Vrrgin), she is portrayed as the first witness to the Resurrection, the Apostle to the Apostles and a preacher-evangelist, but most often as the archetypal penitential saint (Murphy 197, Apostolos­ Cappadona 1-2). 31 Hamlet also tells Ophelia that beauty makes one dishonest: "Ay, truly, for the power of beauty will sooner transform honesty from what it is to a bawd ..." (Ill.i. 110-1ll). Strickland 130

32 CfM. Mosco (ed.) La Maddalsma tra sacro e profime (Milan-Florence, 1986); G. Testori and G. Ravsi. Maddalena (Milan. 1989). 33 E. Duperray and C. Loury (eds), Marie-Madeleine (Fontaine-de-Vaucluse, 1988). The exhibition was organized by the Petrarch Museum at Fontaine-de-Vaucluse. 34 In this role she is rivaled only by Paul. who was considered a murderer of Christians before becoming a premier apostle and writer of more than two-thirds ofthe New Testament. 35 It should be noted here that Mary Magdalene has also been reputed as having had a sexual relationship with Christ, an idea supported by some of the Gnostic gospels. This idea has no historical or scriptural validity, and is more likely the result of a modern-day desire to see Christ as a sexual man than it is of any historicity. 36 According to Brock, medieval canon lawyers regarded women as having a different sexuality from men that went as far back as Eve: "Since it was Eve who led Adam astray in the garden, women were regarded as having no self control, particularly in regard to sexual matters" (3). Thus, medieval church lawyers didn't condemn the prostitute for her activities, because they believed she was merely acting out sexuality that good women repressed. Instead, they blamed the brothel owner, the procurer, the f~imp or the customer- the men (3). 7 What the Reformers didn't recognize was that ifLuke's sinner actually was a prostitute-which the Scripture does not confirm - then she was a victim rather than a perpetrator. Young girls certainly did not choose prostitution out ofsexual desire; on the contrary, they were usually forced into it for financial reasons. 38 The very occupation that sustains most prostitutes eventually destroys them. Susan Haskins points out~ if Luke's sinner was a prostitute, then she was "prey to the pimps and panders who exploited· her, to whom she paid a large part of her income, and by whom she was often maltreated" (171 ). She goes on to succinct1y describe the plight ofthe prostitute: Surrounded by snares, the most artfully and industriously laid; snares laid by those endowed with superior faculties and all the advantages of Education, and Fortune; what virtue can be proof against such formidable Seducers, who offer too commonly, and too profusely promise, to transport the thoughtless Girls, from want, Confinement, and Restraint ofPassions, to Luxury, Liberty, Gaiety, Joy? And once seduced, how soon their golden dreams vanish! Abandoned by the Seducer, deserted by Friends, contemned by the World, they are left to struggle with Want. Despair, and Scorn, and even in their own defense to plunge deeper and deeper in sin, till Disease and Death conclude a human Being. (110) Realistically, the life ofa prostitute is a downward spiral, in which the young girt. seduced by the hope of "the good life," becomes sucked into an endless cycle which dissipates her dreams and destroys her self-worth. In the end, she is alone, abandoned, and in desperate need ofthe unconditional love that has been denied her. The Church should stand up and offer that love to such women- and in some cases, to be fair, it has - but it has also often turned away from them, pointing its finger at their sins. 39 Luke names these women as "Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife ofChuza, the manager ofHerod's household, Susanna; and many others." Matthew, in his account of the crucifixion, says that many women were there, among them "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother ofZebedee's sons" as those who had followed Jesus from Galilee to "care for his needs" (27:56). Mark, in his account ofthe crucifixion, says that some women were there, among them, "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother ofJames the younger- and ofJoses, and Salome" (Mk 15:40). He also mentions that these women had .followed Jesus from Galilee and cared for his needs. He continues that "Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there," but does not name them. John, on the other hand, does not mention that the women had been following Jesus all along. but simply names them as Jesus' mother, his mother's sister. Mary the wife ofClopas and Mary Magdalene (Jn 19:25). 40 The gospel writers had a clear tendency to play down the role ofMary Magdalene and the other female disciples: Mark says that after the women saw the risen Jesus, they "said nothing to anyone for Strickland 131

they were afraid (16;8); Luke says the women's story seemed to the apostles "an idle tale and they did not believe them (24: 11 ); John says that he, not Mary Magdalene, was the first believer in the Resurrection (20:1-18); later, Paul, in 1 Co 15:3, names Cephas and the Eleven as the Resurrection witnesses, and doesn't refer at all to the women (this was probably due to the custom ofthe time which held that .any truth must be founded on the testimony oftwo witnesses. A woman's testimony was not considered valid, so Paul named others as the chief witnesses ofthe Resurrection). 41 For further study, see the following: her healing and ministry (Lk 8:1·3); the crucifixion (Mt 27:56, Mk 15:40, Jn 19:25); the burial (Mt 27:61, Mk 15:47); the tomb and Resurrection (Mt 28:1-10, Mk 16:109, Lk 24:1-12, Jn 20:1-18). 42 For more on this, see Dorothy Lee's profound "Coda: a meditation on turning," in her article "Turning from Death to Life: A Biblical Reflection on Mary Magdalene (John 20: 1-18)," Ecumenical Review vol. 2, ser 50 (Apr 1998) 117-119. Strickland 132

Works Cited

Apostolos-Cappadona, Diane. "Saint and Sinner: Mary Magdalene in Art History." U.S. Catholic. Claretian Publications: Apr. 2000. Internet. Online. 24 Oct. 2001.

Aschkenasy, Nehama. Eve's Journey: Feminine Images in Hebraic Literary Tradition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986.

Baker, James T. "The Red-Haired Saint: Is Mary Magdalene the Key to the Easter Narratives?" The Christian Century 94.12: (2001): pp. 328-332. ATLA. Online. 9 Jan 2002.

Ballard, Rae. "Eve to Her Daughters." Christian Century 106.14 (7 Nov 1987): 436. ATLA. Online. 9 Jan 2002.

Boff, Leonardo, O.F.M. The Maternal Face of God: The Feminine and Its Religious Expressions. Trans. Robert R. Barr and John W. Diercksmeier. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987.

Brock, Rita Nakashima. "Casting Stones: The Theology of Prostitution." On the Issues 6.3 (Summer 1997): pp. 21-25. Contemporary Women's Issues. Online. Gale Group. 21 Jan 2002.

Bucar, Donna. "Mary Magdalene- Wild Woman of the Bible." Internet. Online. 24 Oct. 2001.

Burkhart, Marian. "In the Paraclete I Trust: Women, the Priesthood, & the Patriarchy." Commonweal121.9 (6 May 1994): 15-16. EbscoHost. Online. 30 Jan 2002.

Burns, Robert E. "Rhapsody in Blue." U.S. Catholic 62.5 (My 1997): 2-3. EbscoHost. Online. 30 Jan 2002.

Crashaw, Richard. "Saint Mary Magdalene or The Weeper." George Herbert and the Seventeenth-Century Religious Poets. Ed. Mario A. Di Cesare. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987.

Cunneen, Sally. In Search of Mary: The Woman and the Symbol. Ballantine Books: New York, 1996.

---. "The Real News About Mary." America 177.11 (18 Oct 1997): 19-21. EbscoHost. Online. 30 Jan 2002. Stricldand 133

Deen, Edith. All the Women of the Bible. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1955.

Dixon, John W., Jr. "The Carnal and the Spiritual: Michelangelo's Madonnas." Cross Currents 41.02 (Sum 1991): 148-167. ATLA. Online. 6 Feb 2002.

Gudmundsdottir, Soveig Lara. "Gender and Theology." Women Magazine 24.7 (June 1997): 7 pp. Contemporary Women's Issues. Online. Gale Group. 21 Jan2002.

Haarmann, Harald. "The Kinship of the Virgin Mary: Profile of a Cultural · Archetype." ReVision20.3 (Wint 1998): 17-33. EbscoHost. Online. 30Jan 2002.

Harrington, Patricia. "Mother of Death, Mother ofRebirth: The Mexican Virgin of Guadalupe." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 56.01 (Spr 1988): 25-50. ATLA. Online. 6 Feb 2002.

Harrison, Barbara Grizzuti. "My Eve, My Mary." Newsweek 130.8 (25 Aug 1997): 56-57. EbscoHost. Online. 30 Jan 2002.

Haskin, Dayton. "Milton's Portrait of Mary as a Bearer of the Word." Milton and the Idea of Women. Ed. Julia Walker. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988.

Haskins, Susan. Mary Magdalen. New York: HarcourtBraceandCompany, 1993.

Higgins, Jean M. "The Myth of Eve: The Temptress." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 44.04 (1976): 639-647. ATLA. Online. 9 Jan 2002.

Holy Bible: New International Version. Inclusive Language Edition. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1999.

Hunter, Jim Ernest. "Blessed Art Thou Among Women? Mary in the History of Christian Thought." Review and Expositor 83.01 (Wint 1986): 35-42. A TLA. Online. 6 Feb 2002.

"In the End, A Mother's Love." U.S. Catholic 64.10 (Oct 1999): 40-43. EbscoHost. Online. 30 Jan 2002.

Jansen, Katherine Ludwig. The Making ofthe Magdalen. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000. Stricldand 134

Johnson, Elizabeth A "The Marian Tradition and the Reality of Women." Horizons 12 (Spr 1985): 116-135. ATLA. Online. 6 Feb 2002.

---. "Mary and the Female Face of God." Theological Studies 50.03 (1989): 500- 526. ATLA. Online. 12 Feb 2002.

Kainz, Howard P. "Mary the Paradox." The Christian Century 88.35 ( 1 Sept 1971 ): 1020-1022. ATLA. Online. 6 Feb 2002.

Kiefer, James E. "Mary Magdalene, First Witness of the Resurrection." Biographical Sketches. Online. 24 Oct. 2001.

Kimelman, Reuven. "The Seduction of Eve and the Exegetical Politics of Gender." Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader. Ed. Alice Bach. New York: Routledge, 1999.

Kissling, Frances. "Mary Co-Opted as Co-Redeemer." On the Issues 7.2 (Spr 1998): 15-17. Contemporary Women's Issues. Online. 20 Jan 2002.

Korsak, Mary Phil. "Eve, Malignant or Maligned?" CrossCurrents 44.04 (Winter 1994-95): 453-462. ATLA Online. 9 Jan 2002.

Lanyer, Aemilia. "From Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum: Eve's Apology in Defense of Women." The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 6th ed., Vol. 1., Ed. M.H. Abrams. New York: W.W. Norton& Company, 1993.

Larsen, Elizabeth. "Searching for Mary." On the Issues 3.1 (Wint 1994): 43-46. Contemporary Women's Issues. Online. 21 Jan 2002.

Lee, Dorothy. "Turning from Death to Life: A Biblical Reflection on Mary Magdalene." Ecumenical Review 50.2 (Apr 1998): pp 112-119. ATLA Online. 9 Jan 2002. . . Leonard, Bill J. "Forgiving Eve." Christian Century 101.34 (7 Nov 1984): 1038- 1040. ATLA. Online. 9 Jan 2002.

Lundborn, Jack R. "Between Text and Sermon: Mary Magdalene and Song of Songs 3:1-4" Interpretation 49.02 (2001): pp 172-175. ATLA. Online. 9 Jan 2002.

Mananzan, Mary John Sr. "Old Texts, New Images." Woman and Religion 1.9 (1998): 7 pp. Pt. 2 of a series. Contemporary Women's Issues. Online. Gale Group. 21 Jan 2002. Strickland 135

Mary Magdalen: An Intimate Portrait Stuart Television Productions. Videocassette. V.I.E.W., Inc., 1996.

Mary Magdalene: The Hidden Apostle. Prod. Biography. Videocassette. A & E Television Networks, 2000.

Masterman, Patsy. "Mary Magdalene Changing Her Image." Amarillo Globe-News: · Beliefs and Ethics (22 Mar. 2001 ): 3 pp. Internet. Online. 8 Jan 2002.

McColley, Diane Kelsey. Milton's Eve. Chicago: University oflllinois Press, 1983.

Michelangelo. The Creation of Adam. The Sistine Chapel. Rome, Italy. Michelangelo and Raphael in the Vatican. Vatican City: Ufficio Vendita Pubblicazioni e Riproduzioni, Monumenti, Musei e Gallerie, 1993.

Milton, John. "Paradise Lost." Complete Poems and Major Prose. Merritt Y. Hughes, Ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1985.

Murphy, Cullen. The Word According to Eve: Women and the Bible in Ancient Times and Our Own. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998.

Neff, Lavonne. "They Have Taken Away My Lord." U.S. Catholic 61.7 (1996): 38- 41. Academic Search Elite. Online. 15 Nov. 2001.

Norris, Pamela. Eve: A Biography. New York: New York University Press, 1998.

Padilla, Angela L. "Christianity, Feminism, and the Law." Columbia Journal of Gender & Law. 1.1 ( 1991 ): 107-111. Pt. 8 of a series. Contemporary Women's Issues. Online. 21 Jan 2002.

Park, William. "Why Eve?" St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 35.0203 (2001): 127-135. ATLA. Online. 9 Jan 2002.

Pastorio-Newman, Robin. "Eve." Feminist Studies 19.1 (30 Apr 1993): 51. Genderwatch.. Online. 20 Jan 2002.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

Phillips, John A. The History of an Idea: Eve. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1984. Strickland 136

Ricci, Carla. Mary Magdalene and Many Others: Women who followed Jesus. Trans. Paul Bums. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

Rogge, Rev. Louis P. "The Woman Named Mary." Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 4.02 (Fall1982): 19-32. ATLA. Online. 12 Feb2002.

Sanders, Eli. "Catholic Women Challenge Idea Mary Magdalene was a Prostitute." The Seattle Times. (16 Jul. 2001) 4 pp. Internet. Online. 8 Jan 2001.

Sandidge, Jerry L. "A Pentecostal Response to Roman Catholic Teaching on Mary." Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 4.02 (Fall1982): 33-42. ATLA. Online. 12 Feb 2002.

Schaberg, Jane. "Fast Forwarding to the Magdalene." Semeia. 74.1 (1996): pp. 33- 34. ATLA. Online. 9 Jan 2002.

Schlumpf, Heidi. "Who Framed Mary Magdalene?" U.S. Catholic. Claretian Publications: April2000. Internet. Online. 24 Oct. 2001.

Schtissler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. "Feminist Theology as a Critical Theology of Liberation." Theological Studies 36.04. 605-626. ATLA. Online. 13 Feb 2002.

Setzer, Claudia. "Excellent Women: Female Witness to the Resurrection." Journal of Biblical Literature 116.02 (1997): 259-272. ATLA. Online. 9 Jan 2002.

Shakespeare, William. "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark." The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton Miftlin Company, 1997.

Stuart, A. Moody. The Three Marys. Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1984.

Terwilliger, Monnica. "Christianity Requires Gender Equality and Respect for Life." Feminism and Nonviolence Studies (Fall1998): 7 pp. Pt. 1 of a series. Contemporary Women's Issues. Online. Gale Group. 20 Jan 2002.

Tesh, John, with Point ofGrace. "Who am I?" GTSP Records, 1998.

Thompson, Matjorie. "God, Woman, Man: Reflections on Mary and Jesus." Worship 55.03 (My 1981): 237-243. ATLA. Online. 6 Feb 2002. Strickland 137

Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality: Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978.

VanderVelde, Frances. Women of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregal Publications, 1957.

Warner, Marina. Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976.

- - - . From the Beast to the Blonde: on Fairy Tales and Their Tellers. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994.

Webster's New International Dictionary. 3rd ed

Webster's New World Dictionary. 3rd college ed., 1988.

Woodard, Joe. "Honour for the Mother of God." Alberta Report I Newsmagazine 24.37 (25 Aug 1997): 35-37. EbscoHost. Online. 30 Jan 2002.