I promised a correction on this. So here goes. A reader writes:
Please do not refer to Mary Magdalen as a “former prostitute.” She has suffered this slander from pulpits for 2,000 years, but as this post points out, there is ZERO Biblical evidence for this!
Another points to this post from the Biblical Archaeology Society. Another reader:
While Wikipedia is certainly not a great scholarly source, this brief article does present the basics fairly concisely. The general view among scripture scholars is that Mary might have been a widow with some independent wealth, which would allow her to follow Jesus freely. There are even those who believe she may have financed his mission. But not a prostitute, at least as far as anyone can prove.
Another:
At some point Mary Magdalene became confused with two other women in the Bible: Mary, the sister of Martha, and the unnamed sinner from Luke’s gospel (7:36-50), both of whom wash Jesus’ feet with their hair. In the 6th Century, Pope Gregory the Great made this assumption official by declaring in a sermon that these three characters were actually the same person: Mary Magdalene, repentant saint. The Catholic Church did later declare that Mary Magdalene was not the penitent sinner, but this was not until 1969. After so long the reputation still lingers.
Another pokes my memory:
Given your mild bragging about knowledge of Catholic doctrine in the Colbert post, I was surprised that earlier today you referred to Mary Magdalene as a former prostitute – have you forgotten this Dish post from 2005, in which you acknowledge a reader’s correction?
A sloppy mistake for which I apologize. Sometimes, blogging in real time can lead to them. Which is why I am so grateful to readers, especially those with laser-like memory of a post eight years ago.
(Image via Wiki: “Penitent Magdalene, Guido Reni, typically shown half-dressed[17] The Walters Art Museum”)
The Dish 