Gospel of Mary

What is it? The Gospel of Mary is based on three manuscripts that record a conversation between Mary Magdalene and the 12 apostles.

How was it discovered? In Cairo in 1896, and other fragments in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. The two earliest copies are Greek, and date from the third century. The later, fifth-century translation is Coptic, an Egyptian form of the Greek language.

Who wrote it? We don’t know.

When do liberals claim it was written? Karen King says 125 to 175 AD. Newsweek magazine, via MSNBC, claims 123 AD, with no sourcing given.

When was it really written? The only dates we could find were the above. Neither date comes from an evangelical scholar.

So what’s the problem?

1. It’s not really a “gospel”: Like the Gospel of Thomas, it doesn’t tell the story of Jesus Christ as a biography.

2. Late date: Even at the earliest date, it was composed well after the canonical gospels.

3. No apostolic authorship: Even if we use the early date of 125 AD, all of the apostles would have been dead by this time. The book itself doesn’t even claim to be written by an apostle. The book demonstrates the hallmarks of false Gnostic writings, describing unverifiable events with few witnesses. The Biblical Gospels, on the other hand, demonstrate historical and geographical accuracy with many details and witnesses. In addition, the Gospel of Mary doesn’t identify the Mary to whom it refers. Tradition has dictated the “Mary” is Mary Magdalene.

4. Inconsistency: "There are some things in the gospel of Mary that strike deeply heretical chords," King said. "For example, there is no physical resurrection in this text. Instead, we see the resurrection of the soul, in which the body is dissolved back into matter or into nothingness" (Karen King). “But rather let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into men.” This line contradicts the Bible in that we’re all children of God, and in him there are no males or females, slaves or free men.

5. Lack of church usage: There is no indication the early church used this book. In fact, there is no indication most Christians were even aware of it.

6. Unimportance: The fact that there are only three known manuscript fragments tells us that history has not considered this document to be authentic or important. Remember that early Christian documents were suppressed and their owners killed for possessing them. Despite these dangers, thousands of manuscripts survived, and the faith multiplied exponentially. One has to question why we can’t say the same for Gnostic documents and Gnosticism.

As we have noted before, the earlychristianwritings.com site routinely dates Biblical documents late and false Christian documents early. The site is only reliable for document texts. Use it with caution.

Related: Gospel of Mary | Gospel of Thomas | Gospel of Philip | Gospel of Judas | Gospel of Barnabas

Resources: 1. - This interview shows Karen King is not a conservative Biblical scholar—she describes herself as a “feminist theologian” and misrepresents Constantine and the formation of “orthodoxy”. King actually seems to do a decent job for a non-evangelical, but we shouldn’t trust her as the final authority.

2. - A secular Mary Magdalene site.