Thursday, March 18, 2004
Heather: On the Da Vinci Code/Magdalene thing...
I still haven't read the book, but I've given the plot some thought.
I've got some questions for anyone that thinks it could really be true. In no particular order:
1. When did Jesus and Magdalene get married? Before or after he began his ministry? If after, why isn't it covered in the Gospels? If before, how could she have been the woman he cured of the seven demons? Or the adulteress he saved from stoning?
2. Let's assume that they met during his three year ministry. If they met on his way back from the desert where he went after his baptism, realistically, how many kids could they have had? There would have to be a period of courtship--say just for the sake of argument six months. 30 months to go, give or take, before crucifixion.
Say she got pregnant on their hypothetical wedding night. Nine months down, 21 to go. She would have nursed the child, which I for one can vouch delays the return of fertility. The earliest I've heard of fertility returning in a nursing mom is four months (honest--all three times for her). And they sure wouldn't have been able to afford a wet nurse with him preaching instead of woodworking, not that they would have been rich anyway.
So, just to give the silliness some air of credibility, say she got pregnant again at four months postpartum. Four postpartum and nine pregnancy, thirteen. Thirteen from 21 is... eight.
Repeat procedure, the most they could have had is three kids, and probably not that many.
I'm still not won over.
#3. If, after the crucifixion, Magdalene was running around as a peterless Peter, where were these children? Did she take them with her? Were they with their grandmother? John certainly would have had something to say about that, and since he lived longer than the other apostles and had her with him, he probably would have mentioned it somewhere along the way. He would have had the opportunity to amend anything removed by Peter, that's for sure.
Those are my thoughts on the silliness of the idea. I think the whole book cheapens motherhood in a subtle and sly way, besides. It's like our society: lots of lip service to motherhood, but when it comes down for it very little actual support. "Working mother is redundant" bumper stickers, but no recognition in ways that matter.
Brown's proponents say, "Magdalene's real job was as head of the church. She was the one Jesus wanted in charge, not Peter. Jesus wanted the 'sacred feminine'. Oh yeah, and by the way, she was the mother of Jesus' child(ren)." Like it was a side job for her. Talk about adding insult to injury...
What they don't consider is the Church already has a wonderful, beautiful, marvelous example of the sacred feminine. Mother Mary. Women have proven over and over again that we can do anything men can do, both good and bad. We can be lawyers, doctors, architects, teachers.... We can be murderers, theives, liars, and sociopaths.
What makes women special? What is the sacred thing women can do that men cannot? Not preach, or write, or minister. It is create another human being within our body. And even that, God wisely decided, would require a man's help to start.
I still haven't read the book, but I've given the plot some thought.
I've got some questions for anyone that thinks it could really be true. In no particular order:
1. When did Jesus and Magdalene get married? Before or after he began his ministry? If after, why isn't it covered in the Gospels? If before, how could she have been the woman he cured of the seven demons? Or the adulteress he saved from stoning?
2. Let's assume that they met during his three year ministry. If they met on his way back from the desert where he went after his baptism, realistically, how many kids could they have had? There would have to be a period of courtship--say just for the sake of argument six months. 30 months to go, give or take, before crucifixion.
Say she got pregnant on their hypothetical wedding night. Nine months down, 21 to go. She would have nursed the child, which I for one can vouch delays the return of fertility. The earliest I've heard of fertility returning in a nursing mom is four months (honest--all three times for her). And they sure wouldn't have been able to afford a wet nurse with him preaching instead of woodworking, not that they would have been rich anyway.
So, just to give the silliness some air of credibility, say she got pregnant again at four months postpartum. Four postpartum and nine pregnancy, thirteen. Thirteen from 21 is... eight.
Repeat procedure, the most they could have had is three kids, and probably not that many.
I'm still not won over.
#3. If, after the crucifixion, Magdalene was running around as a peterless Peter, where were these children? Did she take them with her? Were they with their grandmother? John certainly would have had something to say about that, and since he lived longer than the other apostles and had her with him, he probably would have mentioned it somewhere along the way. He would have had the opportunity to amend anything removed by Peter, that's for sure.
Those are my thoughts on the silliness of the idea. I think the whole book cheapens motherhood in a subtle and sly way, besides. It's like our society: lots of lip service to motherhood, but when it comes down for it very little actual support. "Working mother is redundant" bumper stickers, but no recognition in ways that matter.
Brown's proponents say, "Magdalene's real job was as head of the church. She was the one Jesus wanted in charge, not Peter. Jesus wanted the 'sacred feminine'. Oh yeah, and by the way, she was the mother of Jesus' child(ren)." Like it was a side job for her. Talk about adding insult to injury...
What they don't consider is the Church already has a wonderful, beautiful, marvelous example of the sacred feminine. Mother Mary. Women have proven over and over again that we can do anything men can do, both good and bad. We can be lawyers, doctors, architects, teachers.... We can be murderers, theives, liars, and sociopaths.
What makes women special? What is the sacred thing women can do that men cannot? Not preach, or write, or minister. It is create another human being within our body. And even that, God wisely decided, would require a man's help to start.
Heather: Yeah, it's been a while. After that teaser of "watch this space," nothing for... three months? So here's a quick update.
1. Madeleine is virtually potty trained. She went today twice and told me after she'd gone. The second time, she actually brought it to me as I was on the phone in the kitchen (with Daddy, no less). How did this happen? The magic of nudity--or at least no pants. And I think the cloth training pants helped a bundle to start, so she'd know when she was wet. Sure, the super absorbency of the paper diapers nowadays helps UNTIL you're trying to potty train.
2. Dale III is mobile and thus requires much more attention. When I could just set him down and was pretty sure he'd stay there, we were okay. Now he can get from one end of the house to the other in mere seconds. At least I don't have to carry him indoors quite as much.
He's also virtually weaned. He's younger than Maddie was, but I need a longer break than I had before. He's a year old and has figured out sippy cups pretty well, though he shows a preference for his sister's.
3. Third pregnancy is fine. Doc wants me to come in for an ultrasound to confirm dates since I don't have a menses date to use; I figure I've got nothing to lose by humoring her. *I* know when I got pregnant; if she wants to prove it that way, so be it.
That being said, I'm going to spend the next half hour on the Magdalene post I've promised the faithful (persistent, patient, forgiving) reader.
1. Madeleine is virtually potty trained. She went today twice and told me after she'd gone. The second time, she actually brought it to me as I was on the phone in the kitchen (with Daddy, no less). How did this happen? The magic of nudity--or at least no pants. And I think the cloth training pants helped a bundle to start, so she'd know when she was wet. Sure, the super absorbency of the paper diapers nowadays helps UNTIL you're trying to potty train.
2. Dale III is mobile and thus requires much more attention. When I could just set him down and was pretty sure he'd stay there, we were okay. Now he can get from one end of the house to the other in mere seconds. At least I don't have to carry him indoors quite as much.
He's also virtually weaned. He's younger than Maddie was, but I need a longer break than I had before. He's a year old and has figured out sippy cups pretty well, though he shows a preference for his sister's.
3. Third pregnancy is fine. Doc wants me to come in for an ultrasound to confirm dates since I don't have a menses date to use; I figure I've got nothing to lose by humoring her. *I* know when I got pregnant; if she wants to prove it that way, so be it.
That being said, I'm going to spend the next half hour on the Magdalene post I've promised the faithful (persistent, patient, forgiving) reader.
