Magdalene: Egyptian Priestess and Consort of Jesus (Fourth Posting in a Series on MM)

Last week we saw that the Jesus of Mark 14:4 saw Mary Magdalene’s anointing as somehow central to his mission and to preaching the gospel. But what could that mean especially about Mary Magdalene’s relationship to Jesus?

For Lynn Picknett (author of The Secret History of Mary Magdalene: Christianity’s Hidden Goddess), it points to a pre-anointing intimacy between Mary of Bethany and Jesus. Were they husband and wife? Lovers?  Even more importantly however, Mary’s act has the character of a sacred ritual pre-arranged by Mary and Jesus – an extremely important one, far surpassing the spontaneous act of repentance and pre-burial ritual that ordinarily explains it.

The act says something important both about Mary of Bethany, and was intended to say something even more important about Jesus himself. It shows Mary to be the bearer of a type of priestly power. After all, there is only one anointing of Jesus (the Christos, i.e. anointed one) recounted in the Gospels. And the anointer is this woman who is acting like a priestess. Just before his death, her act finally designates Jesus as the One – the expected Messiah.  It’s like Nathan’s identification of David as king a thousand years earlier. Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. The priestess has spoken. That’s what it says about Jesus.

But how could a woman perform such an act? Why would Jesus allow it? After all, according to Jewish law, women were not even permitted to say ritual prayers at home, much less perform religious rites of such central import as identification and anointment of the Christ. That is, not according to Jewish law. However, according to “pagan” law such election by a priestess was not only permitted but essential for any sacred king. There according to the rite of hieros gamos or sacred marriage, the priestess would anoint the priest-king and by virtue of her act (often consummated by ritual sex), the anointed would be flooded with power of the god. Conversely, without the power conferred by the woman, the king would remain powerless and have no knowledge of himself or of the gods (58). This concept of sacred marriage, Picknett notes, would have been familiar to the pagans of Jesus’ day whose “dying and rising gods” were typically anointed by priestesses and assisted by them across the threshold of death while remaining conscious of the entire process (59).  Pagans would have recognized in Mary of Bethany such a priestess who in the Gospels anoints Jesus as “Christos,” especially if she were also involved in the burial of the anointed one.

It’s that association with the burial of Jesus that suggests a syndrome of connections between Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene. According to Picknett, the two women are identical. To see the author’s point, remember Magdalene’s importance. Luke listed her prominently among the financial supporters of Jesus’ ministry. More significantly, she is the one who took charge of Jesus burial following his crucifixion. This suggests continuity with the priestess functions belonging to the agent of the Bethany anointing.  More importantly still, Magdalene was remembered as the first disciple to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection.  That appearance alone conferred on Magdalene incomparable dignity and implies the type of special relationship the anointing story establishes between Jesus and Mary of Bethany.  Additionally, John the Evangelist outright identifies Magdalene as a woman especially beloved by Jesus. Finally, there exists a long church tradition consistently identifying Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany. On Picknett’s analysis, those characteristics taken together more than justify the conclusion that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are the same person.

Why then the confusion? Why did the evangelists apparently split a single person into three: Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and the unnamed penitent woman? Here the plot thickens. It was because, Picknett says, the patriarchal evangelists wished to obscure the primacy of this woman whom Jesus loved more than them, and who, precisely as woman could not possibly be accepted as superior to men. The trouble was, the events at Bethany were so central and well known that none of the evangelists could omit the story altogether. So they transformed it from a messianic anointing into an act of repentance. Simultaneously, they converted the presiding priestess/paramour into an anonymous sinful woman “from whom Jesus had cast out seven evil spirits.”

And where is the proof for that? Here Picknett refers her readers to the Gnostic Gospels. In The Gospel of Thomas, for example, the tension between Magdalene and the male apostles and with Peter in particular is palpable.

. . . the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved here more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended . . . They said to him, ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’ The Saviour answered and said to them, ‘Why do I not love you as I love her?’

As Picknett notes, the word for “companion” here is koinonos which refers to a consort of a sexual nature. That description alone could easily explain the alienation of the disciples from Jesus’ companion as well as the desire of the evangelists and church fathers to demote her to an anonymous, penitent and distinctly fallen woman.  More reason for antipathy on the part of Jesus’ apostles emerges from the Pistis Sophia (Faithful Wisdom), a Gnostic source discovered before the unearthing of the 1945 cache of Gospels. There Magdalene emerges as Jesus’ star pupil and the center of attention (85). He praises her as “one whose heart is raised to the kingdom of heaven more than all thy brethren.” He predicts that she “will tower over all my disciples and over all men who shall receive the mysteries” (89). Most gratingly of all, Jesus calls her the “apostle of apostles” (157). Jealousies arising from such preferences on the part of the Master are entirely understandable.  Moreover following Jesus’ ascension, it is Magdalene who comes to the fore to encourage the disheartened apostles to man-up and get on with the business of understanding and living out the teachings of Jesus (215). In view of all this, it is not surprising that again in the Pistis Sophia, Magdalene accuses Peter of threatening her because, she says, of his own hatred of women (86).

Additionally, in the light of Jesus’ praise of the “apostle of apostles,” it is not surprising that Mary of Bethany should be called “the Tower,” “The Great,” “The Magnificent” – possibly in itself another cause of jealousy vis-à-vis the apostles.  As Picknett argues, the real meaning of “Magdalene” might well refer to rank of this sort rather than to place of origin (82). For if this Mary came from Bethany, “Magdalene” would not refer to her supposed hometown in Galilee. In fact, no town with any name resembling “Magdalene” is to be found in first century Galilee. (There was, however, a place in Egypt by the name of Magdolum and also a Magdala in Ethiopia. So the term might have referred to either of those locations as Mary’s place of origin – adding additional credence to the theory that she was an Egyptian priestess and perhaps even black).  Picknett concludes however that the term “Magdalene” most likely refers to Mary’s preeminence among Jesus’ disciples. In any case, it has some connection with terms for “Tower” and greatness. Jesus’ own reference to her in the Gnostic sources as “the All” and the “One who know all” seems to support this.

Next week: Pulling It All Together

Published by

Mike Rivage-Seul's Blog

Emeritus professor of Peace & Social Justice Studies. Liberation theologian. Activist. Former R.C. priest. Married for 45 years. Three grown children. Six grandchildren.

14 thoughts on “Magdalene: Egyptian Priestess and Consort of Jesus (Fourth Posting in a Series on MM)”

      1. I’ve thought of you and Pegggy a lot over the years. I hope I have thanked you enough! Your blog about an untanked but influential teacher’s passing away was beautiful….but made my ears turn a little red. I have a “Lord’s Supper” wood carving in my office, and while entering data on the computer, my clients often remark about it, deciding who is who. The face turned away from Jesus is obviously the traitor, but one next to him is carved to look VERY feminine. This blog is really opening my eyes to her importance, which I always thought was just Christian-bashing talk. I’d like to hear your take on “The Last Temttation of Christ” movie sometime!


      2. There is no argument. The smear campaign was in full force. The only way that Mary could work her “magic” remains the same for all those connected to their inner knowing, and other senses to this day. Show a false front to the world (Mary as Jesus desciple), even though she, like so many women was the force behind the man. And to this day 2021, women work behind the scene in every facit of life and industry for fear of ridicule, violence, murder, sexual oppression (which is violence).. Mary witnessed all of these things in her day. Women were forbidden to read and recite Talmud A white male would in no way be able to know how women keep their intuition, healing abilities and perceptions hidden away. As back then, nothing has changed. There is no point in arguing. My inner knowing had already led me to believe that Mary was a mentor to Jesus. Everything is the opposite of what it would seem. It is Ego, Greed, Selfishness, fear, and pride that have led the way. Eve the soul, Adam the body. Mary the preistess sought safety through a man who obviously had been birthed by a woman who was connected to her inner knowing. which in turn supported his evolution.


      3. Such a wise comment, KJ. Have you seen the film “Mary Magdalene” with Joaquin Phoenix and Rooney Mara? It brings out many of the points made in your comment. It seems to me that the feminine spirit is so much more naturally spiritual than its male counterpart. Ironic, then, that churches treat women as subordinate and (in the Catholic Church) excluded from leadership’s highest offices.


      4. Such a wonderfully full and insightful comment. I love the reference to your “inner knowing.” Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about women’s ways of knowing and their so-called “second brain,” the womb. We men have so much to learn — to stop our mansplaining and surrender to female wisdom, especially in matters (like contraception and abortion) so intimately connected with unique female experience.


  1. Enjoying your blogs Mike. I’m a follower who gets an e-mail alert for each new blog you post. I’m really enjoying it all, and learning all the time. I just posted blog 99 yesterday. I began last December as a daily blogger, but realized after two months I would have to be less ambitious. So I’m now a weekly blogger. My favorite among my own is “Excess Baggage”; my most “from the heart” is “Limbo Revisited”; my most challenging, “Original Sin”.

    I’m looking forward to going through you past blogs Peace and blessings,



  2. I ope this isnt so far fetched as to be off topic but it is too coincidental for me to not ask: I wonder if the early church which split the Magdalene figure into three were unwittingly influenced by the triple goddess (maiden, mother, crone) images of Celtic mythology — or if that would be too late on the timeline.


  3. What exactly is Lynn Picknett’s evidence that Mary Magdalene was a woman of Egyptian or other African ancestry? Is it based only on the identification of “Magdala” with a place in Egypt or Ethiopia? I am curious to know because I find that claim very fascinating.


    1. Brandon, I’m sorry to say that I’ve forgotten the answer to your important question. And I’m away from home and Picknett’s book. I won’t have access to it for another 10 days. Sorry. Thanks for the question. I’ll try to remember to get back to you after I get back to Kentucky.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. PS, Mary came to Jesus at the crusifiction because she had the knowledge of plant medicine. The other Apostles did not. The description of her as Apostle of the Apostles is an understatement. And the Envy, Greed, possible lust? gluttony? Mary was a threat. We women are expected to think of others to a fault, empathy is a strength. She would have been taught by generations of preistess within her pagan lineage to honor spiritual world in 4th, 5th dimension and so on. She had well developed second sight, centuries of medicine and magic and connection to the earth. These are all things women are encouraged to have, and had been encouraged to hone. (My free-thought, nuerodivergent writting should not be judged as that of someone without a profound take on all of this. Punctuation, grammar and editing block the flow of the free-thinker). I was raised in a non-denominational household, artistic/creative liberal home in Marin County CA. These things I know.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s