Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail - The Woman with the Alabaster Jar

There are numerous works out now exploring the theme and person of Mary Magdalen. Unfortunately this is not one of the better ones. Unconvicing, surprisingly dull and sentimental. Too much goddess worship. A far better work is the one by Susan Hoskins. Mary was truly the disciple to the disciples and an example of the radical rediscovery of women in society, but the rest of this is tiresome.

After reading The Goddess in the Gospels, I read The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, Starbird's first book on Mary Magdalene. This book is more historical and thesis based than narrative. A lot of the material was nearly the same as The Goddess in the Gospels. It is an awesome book though, and a must read for anyone interested in feminist Christianity.

This is just another of those very silly "IF books" from the fantasy tradition that can be traced back to books like "Chariots of the Gods", "The Bermuda Triangle", etc.

The "IF" method of turning fiction into alleged fact is based on the fallacious version of the three step logical argument know as a "syllogism" pioneered by the Greek philosopher, Aristotle.

A correctly constructed a syllogism might look like this:

All men are mortal
All mortals die
Therefore all men die

An incorrectly constructed syllogism would look more like this:

All men die
All grass dies
Therefore all men are grass

"IF books" usually take the restructuring process one step further using the formula:

1. IF A is true

2. And if B is true

3. Then C must be true

4. Therefore D is true.

In "IF books", the statements in Steps 1 and 2 are almost always true. The "sleight of hand" comes as we move on to Step 3 in the process, which is nothing more than an unsupported extrapolation from Steps 1 and 2. And since the veracity of the statement in Step 4 depends on Step 3, there is actually no reason to suppose that either of the last two statements is true, even though it LOOKS as though they were arrived at by the use of logic.

For example, Ms Starbird cites Jesus' instruction to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection, in John's gospel, when Jesus tells Mary not to touch Him. According to Ms Starbird, what Jesus really meant was "do not cling to me."
On the basis of this unsupported reasoning she then goes on to claim that this proves they were married.

In other words, by means of the distorted syllogism ploy:

1. If John's gospel says that there was a meeting in the cemetary between Jesus and Mary (true)

2. And if it says that Jesus commanded Mary not to try to "touch" him (true)

3. Then Jesus "must" really have meant "don't cling to me" (no supporting evidence)

4. Therefore Jesus and Mary "must" have been married (pure speculation which LOOKS as though it follows logically from statements 1 and 2, but which ACTUALLY relies entirely on the unsupported ALLEGATION in step 3).

The tenuous basis for this line of argument is that the original Greek phrase has three meanings: "To touch", "To hold on", "To embrace". Ms Starbird presumably supposes that the correct translation of the phrase in this passage is "embrace" - but on what basis?

There are four different Greek phrases meaning "touch" which are used in the New Testament - and three of them are used only once.
This most common phrase is used 36 times, including passages such as:

"touched the hem of his garment"
"If I may just touch his clothes"
"he came and touched the coffin" and
"he touched his ear and healed him."

Does it really make sense to translate these passages using Ms Starbird's translation, which would give the readings:

"clung to the hem of his garment"?
"If I may just cling to his clothes"?
"he came and clung to the coffin"? or
"he clung to his ear and healed him."?

As a matter of fact, out of these 36 passages, these is only ONE example of the phrase being used in a way that clearly refers to the intimate way a husband and wife would touch each other.
Looks like pretty flimsy "evidence" to me.

As to the claim that Ms Starbird is a "pre-eminent theologian", when an American TV show ran an item on Ms Starbird's claims and "The Da Vinci Code" (which deals with the same theme), Professor Darrell Bock, who teaches New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, totally rebuffed the idea that Jesus and Mary were married, saying that Mary Magdalene's move to touch Jesus was nothing more sensational than "her single act of devotion, given to him without concern about what people are thinking about what she's doing." The show's presenter admitted that the majority of biblical scholars consulted for the program agreed with Professor Bock's assessment.

So, if you're not to worried about the use of illogical "logic", and you prefer to have your Bible stories sexed up and sensationalised, this may well be the book for you.

If, on the other hand, you prefer at least a modicum of intellectual rigor, you'll likely find a whole host of books far more worthy of your attention.

I appreciate Margaret Starbird's book on Mary Magdalene. It is one of the many recent attempts to return her centre-stage in Christian tradition. However, there is little literal or surface evidence to show Yeshua married Mary. The indirect evidence put forward in her book goes the right way: Yeshua married Mary. Although confessing churches loathe to accept this point, there is a growing consensus today that Yeshua was more intimate with Mary than they had ever suspected.
The alabaster jar with its perfume and the service rendered by Mary to Yeshua in Bethany before his 'death' seem not so much mystical, esoteric or ritual marriage practices of the Roman goddess cult, but actual practices of the Essenes and Qumran ascetics, and early Christian communities led by Yeshua and others. The latter separated themselves from the ascetic priestly and royal sect and created their own 'Christian'communities of lay and Diaspora Jews and 'gentile' proselytes. In their common heritage the alabaster jar needs to be returned within the Song of Songs tradition and its marriage ritual associated with perfume ceremony held by the bride for the bridegroom. Miriam would have held it for her 'Lord' with the perfume in the alabaster jar.
Mary, in my view, needs to be related to the first Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron. Re-enacting this Miriam we have so many Miriams around Yeshua, which could go to ascertain the fact that Miriam is a title, and less a personal name. Probably Miriams made up a female monastic and ascetic group within Essene and Qumran community, later went over to the Chrisitian party. In both communities they re-enact the exodus drama in 'these last days' re-playing the female role of the original Miriam, the prototype.
From this historical point of view of Jewish and Christian life in the first century AD, the mystical and grail story to which Starbird links Mary Magdalene could be an interesting later Christian tradition built around Mary Magdalene, but it will not do sufficient justice to the historical 'Miriam.' She was, it looks to me, a fine, sensitive woman; very much attached to her 'Lord.' But the upheaval and stormy life of the Jews under Romans could have led to strained relationship between them. This might be reflected in repudiating Mary in the second century and casting out her 'Gospel' together with other 'Gospels' from the canon of the New Testament. The 'Gospels' have now been recovered and published; the Dead Sea Scrolls too have been recovered and published. Together they open the closed New Testament canon and submit it to new historical scrutiny.

I find speculative history as interesting as the next person, but the problems with Starbird's work are fatal. For one, she presents a "straw man" church against which to rail. Obviously, the church has had flaws, but Starbird ignores its complexity. Also, she presents a picture of the Cathars that they would not recognize. As a gnostic movement, they rejected the physical and the bodily completely. How such an idea is transformed into liberation for women is mystifying. Ironically, the strongest women of the age were those who embraced the body and affective piety--Margery Kempe, Julian of Norwich. Her "evidence" that Jesus married Magdalen is, to say the least, highly creative but hardly comvincing. Most bothersome is the way she has posited herself as an orthodox Catholic who finally saw the light for half a dozen books now. How many times can you lose your virginity? Once seems plenty.
Finally, as interesting as I find these kinds of speculations, I am always somewhat troubled by the elitism. There is always, in any brand of gnosticism, the suggestion that a select few get to know and understand the "real" history, the "real" message, the "real" Jesus. If Starbird is right, billions of Christians have been wrong, and only an impossibly small clique in only a few brief moments have had access to the truth. Of course, she is one of them. As are you, the reader. Does that make you feel special? For all of orthodoz Christianity's problems--and they are legion--at least it insists that the gospel is open to all people, everywhere, and in all ages.

To think that Jesus had a child, what a wonderful thing to know and believe and that his bloodine is here with us. He married and loved and known his beloved Mary Magdelene. This is the good news.

Why have we not known this all this time? Shame on those for hiding the truth.

Margaret Starbird rocks! No doubt about it. This book is truly a gem in the arena of the reimergence of the Sacred Feminine. Her exploration of the preservation of Mary Magdalene as the sacred bride of Jesus and the 12th century symbolism (watermarks)of the Albegensians/Cathar lineage is really amazing. You'll discover the true meaning of the watchtower and the true purpose of minstrals and Tarot symbolism to weave the tale of the Dark Madonna in censored times. The beauty of the Song of Solomon in the Bible is also explored. It's functional purpose in the Hieros Gamos is revealed and discussed by Starbird. I really got a lot out her discussions on the true meaning of unicorn symbology too. I'm lucky enough to have visited the Cloisters museum in NYC a few years back and saw these amazing tapestries in person. I am forever mesmerized by the search for the sacred feminine in our world today. I have been on a quest to discover this myself way before the whole Da Vinci code phenomenon. Dan Brown has his place to alert the masses, but if you are a true seeker of knowledge about the tale of the Magdalene and her flight to Gaul and her importance in our understanding of our divine heritage well...this book is for you. Not too be missed!!!!! Here's to the unification of the Chalice and Blade and the return of the Holy Grail to the Wasteland. Reach out and take her hand Fisher King, your babe is coming home to rest in your arms once more!

She presents interesting research but her writing style is somewhat disjointed. This makes it difficult at times to follow her train of thoughts. There have been a few instances where she has gone back to the initial theme with an "oh yes I need to tie it in" attitude. It has taken me a while to finish it because it is not enthralling as I had hoped having read several other books with this theme.

Margaret Starbird was one of the first to elaborate at length about the idea that Mary Magdalen was more than just the irrelevant aquaintance of Jesus that the Bible tries to make her. Like Margaret Starbird, I feel that these thoughts do not reduce my faith or ar in any way blasphemous. The God I believe in wants us to question, to learn and to grow. Margaret Starbird and her book helps us to do so. 4 stars for the writing style, which could be more exciting.

Reading this book makes you wonder how much control we really have. Control over history, religion and society. "peeling a label off a medicine bottle and realizing you've been taking the wrong medication all your life" how does one react to something as shocking as that.
Everyone should read this, buy, borrow swap if you have to!

I bought this book with great hope, because I had heard that it was a literate book, written by a scholar.

What I heard was wrong.

Unfortunately, most of Ms. Starbird's references are, at best, tertiary -- meaning that they are survey books which rely on other people's works, which in turn are based on other people's or, perhaps, original sources. In the case of this book, her references are, at best, based on books that rely on other books; and sometimes, she has relied on materials that are completely devoid of knowledge of her subject.

Her knowledge of history is poor. Many times the circumstances of which she writes are misinterpreted and other times the information is just plain wrong. Witness Ms. Starbird's discussions of what historians call the "Courtly Love," which she changes from a pleasant game developed in Eleanor of Acquitaine's court into a celebration of Mary Magdalen which is contributed to by King Rene, three centuries later. This bodes ill for her theory, since it is a critical leg. She makes other errors regarding about the beliefs of an alternate religion to Christianity, the Cathars (or Albigensians or sometimes Gnostics) for which they were persecuted during the Albigensian Crusade soon after the death of Eleanor and her son, Richard the Lion-Heart. Further, she claims that this incident happened in the eleventh century when, in fact, the Crusade occurred from 1209 to 1255 (not all crusades were pressed against the Muslims). Much of her misinformation, in fact, can be confirmed and/or refuted by simple searches of the Web.

The author also depends heavily on Baigent, et al's Holy Blood, Holy Grail. This book depends on the _Dossiers Secret_, which the authors believe must be taken on faith, since it just suddenly turned up in the French National archives, with no information of who put it there or when, as well as information on the sources of the information contained in it. While this might be considered as a decent source for _The DaVinci Code_ (which is was), it is not a source for a scholarly discussion of a fascinating topic.

I am quite willing to take some things on faith -- I have long believed in the theory of the Magdalen-as-Grail. Unfortunately, with its historical errors and misconceptions, this book does poor service to that theory.

I believe anyone who discredits this book & any other of Margarets publishings is simply not at the level of openness (because of fear based reactions) to awaken to the truth of the Goddess Mary Magdalene. Its a mindbending feeling to accept the Bible doesn't contain all the facts;Christ's teachings & true message of the Light is within Each of us and equally Mary & Jesus tought we are all capable of transcending to that level of Christ consciousness. I recommend 'Magdalene's Lost Legacy' as this book contains even more factual information to awaken, share & celebrate.It's time to shatter the walls of lies and conformacy. Follow your gut instincts on all of this, for it is within each living soul on this Earth the spark of these Truths flicker within.

The first part of the book is exceptionally well done and provides insight and depth into a challeging concept. The latter half of the book, concerning with artistic theory, legends, and tales requires the reader to expand his/her horizons and bounds preconcieved notions. Overall, this is a good book to support one's personal library on the subject on gnostic gospels and Mary Magdalen.

"the woman w/ the alabaster jar" paints a story of who the real mary magdalen may have been. the author explains her research without trying to sell you her opinion. i found it informative and refreshing.

I have been doing research into the overlap between the Old Religions and Christianity, and this book certainly presents some valid items for consideration! I have not checked out her references yet - after I do that, perhaps I'll raise the rating to 5 stars.

Margaret Starbird was the pioneer of this material and should be acknowledged as such. Anyone who wants to gain a greater understanding of the controversies surrounding Mary Magdalene should use this as their starting point. This was the first book of its kind. It stands on its own as a work of wisdom, insight and pure art.

Pretty poorly written, repetitive, confusing, seems slightly bootlegged and almost too contrived. The author is too deeply rooted in orthodox Christianity in order to even make a run for the alternative. I love the subject matter though - that's why I bought this book. I am slightly disappointed to say the least.

and yes, notice how many peole thought your review was hlepful? the tide is turning...back to where it belonged...

please see (here at the store) the book, Black Market Pneuma for true gnostic anti-litany!

and the statue here at the store of mary magdalene is BEAUTIFUL.

otherwise, read the detailed reviews above and below. this book is needed in every Parish and all baptist et seminaries/semen-aries.................hail the unveiled bloodline of mortal yeshua and mary magdalene!

The book is an exponent of Starbird's feminist theory. The reason the book has been well received is because the subject is taboo although not new. It is also a great source of revenues.

Many other authors have presented the same idea in more eloquent terms. Her writing is one of fragmented thoughts put together and repetition of ideas.

Despite the fact that the book begins very nicely it goes downhill after the first chapter. Those of us that have closely studied the makings of the Catholic Church find the book a weak proponent of a theory without actual support. Hence, the proof provided is weak, vague, and has no merit.

Once again the research done to connect Mary and Jesus is done out of blind background history. The entire scope of research here is nothing more than possibilities based on acceptable tradition at the time of Christ. From the research done here there are absolutely no direct solid connections to Mary and Jesus, it is all specualtion at best and dismal. I recommend a good read concerning the Grail, SB 1 or God by Maddox

One of the reviews refers to Starbird as a "preeminant theologian and New Testament scholar." On what planet? I promise you not a single Theologian or New Testament scholar of any merit even knows who this woman is. Not because some evil church empire is suppressing the knowledge; rather, her work is fantasy. If you just read the Da Vinci Code and think this is some kind of scholarly backing and you've never read any real scholarship in the field then I sympathize with you for being duped. Read something like N.T. Wright's "Jesus and the Victory of God" to get an idea what real engagement with the New Testament and early church literature is like.

Unfortunately the author has her history and theology wrong. Mary Magdalen was not the women who anointed Jesus and she was not a prostitute she came from a prominent family and was possessed by demons. (Luke 8 2and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out;) Even in the Synoptic Gospels, Gnostic Gospels and Christian Apocrypha she was not the woman who anointed Jesus' feet with oils, perfume and her tears. This woman has never been identified and is not Mary Magdalen:
Matthew 26:7
a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
(Whole Chapter: Matthew 26 In context: Matthew 26:6-8)
Mark 14:3
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.
(Whole Chapter: Mark 14 In context: Mark 14:2-4)
Luke 7:37
When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume,
(Whole Chapter: Luke 7 In context: Luke 7:36-38)
The only history any where about Mary Magdalen involved in the anointment of Jesus is at the Tomb:
Mark 16The Resurrection
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.
This brings questionable validity to her discovery which is unfortunate because I do believe there is proof that a very deep relationship existed between Jesus and Mary.

Is it possible that Jesus could have been married and conceived children?

This is the question at the center of most of the controversy around The Woman With The Alabaster Jar, which provided the impetus for the Da Vinci Code phenomenon. Entire television documentaries have been devoted to examining the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. I will not spend too much time here trying to refute this outrageous claim, but a few points ought to be considered.

1. Mary Magdalene was not the woman with the alabaster jar! This was Mary of Bethany the sister of Lazarus. Right away, the so-called scholarship of Margaret Starbird is suspect. Has she even read the biblical texts? In the four canonical Gospels, several prominent woman are mentioned among Jesus' disciples. Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus, is more prominent than Mary Magdalene. John chapter 11 tells the story of Lazarus who was raised from the dead by Jesus. In verse five we are told, "Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister, and Lazarus" (John 11:5). In all of the New Testament, Mary and Martha of Bethany are mentioned as the only women disciples whom Jesus loved. Mary of Bethany is also identified as the woman who "took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair" (John 12:3) in order to prepare Him for the crucifixion. One could just as easily concoct another conspiracy theory involving Mary of Bethany. Yet Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code rely on a few obscure passages from the Gnostic Gospels to claim that it was Mary Magdalene who was loved by Jesus "more than all the disciples." And therefore, in a quantum leap of logic, Mary Magdalene must have been his wife.

2. Many of Jesus immediate family are mentioned in the New Testament. James and Jude, authors of the two general epistles were both called brothers of the Lord; John the Baptist was his cousin; John's parents were Elizabeth and Zechariah; and several of Jesus' siblings are mentioned as part of the so-called Holy Family. In Matthew 13:55,56, when Jesus teaches in his home country of Galilee, the people hearing him are astonished and ask: "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matthew 13:55,56). It is unlikely that if so many immediate family members are mentioned in scripture, that someone as important as a wife would be left out.

3. One might counter that the Catholic Church wanted to cover-up evidence against the celibacy of Jesus, and decided to suppress the fact that Jesus was married. But if so, they also would have suppressed the the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters since it contradicts the life-long celibacy of Mary, the mother of Jesus - another Roman Catholic teaching - one so universal in the history of the church, by the way, that it was also held by Protestants such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Zwingli and John Wesley. Yet the scripture mentioning Jesus' brothers and sisters was not removed from the text of the New Testament.

4. Eusebius, the fourth century church historian wrote that at the time of Jesus birth in the year 4 B.C.

... there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them.

Eusebius goes on to mention that King Herod, and the first king of Judea not of Hebrew descent, had the genealogical records burned. But a few Jews, even in the time of Eusebius writing in the fourth century, had kept careful records of their lineage. He goes on to write that some of these were Christians who claimed lineage from the family of Jesus.

... among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Savior. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory, and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.

Nowhere in Eusebius or in any other record up until this time, including the Gnostic writings, is there any mention of direct descendants of Jesus.

5. Finally, there is a bride of Christ mentioned in the book of Revelation. One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, came to me and talked with me, saying, Come, I will show you the bride, the Lambs wife (Revelation 21:9). John then sees in a vision the city of Jerusalem, a type of the church, coming down from heaven. While scripture promises that the victorious and risen Christ will one day wed a spotless bride in the form of spiritual Israel, the Church, Margaret Starbird imagines an earthly Jesus joined to a woman in the flesh. While Jesus did live on earth as a flesh and blood man, the marriage supper of the Lamb described in the book of Revelation tells us who the bride of Christ truly is.

I just finished reading this fast-paced action adventure novel, and found it spell-binding. It was hard to put down. With well-defined characters and twists and turns to the plot, Sherrill really keeps the attention of the reader. And it's filled with metaphors, something I have a particular interest in. It was the first of his books that I have read, but it certainly won't be the last. Highly recommended.