The Historical Mary: Revealing the Pagan Identity of the Virgin Mother

Features

• Cover Type: Paperback with 348 pages
• Published by: Ulysses Press February 24, 2003
• Written in: English
• ISBN 10 Number: 1569753342
• ISBN 13 Number: 978-1569753347
• Book Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.6 x 1 inches
• Weighs: 13.6 ounces

From Publishers Weekly
Mary Magdalene is not the only New Testament Mary who merits a revisionist agenda these days. In The Historical Mary: Revealing the Pagan Identity of the Virgin Mother, Michael Jordan (no, not that Michael Jordan) argues that while Jesus' mom probably was a historical person, her portrait has been "fabricated" by the Roman Catholic Church to suit its own political purposes. In particular, Jordan argues, the church has suppressed the pagan roots of the Marian tradition. The best parts of Jordan's book, which is generally well argued and carefully researched, debunk Christian myths about Mary, drawing on extra-canonical writings and early church traditions as well as the sparse biblical account of her life. But at the book's end, many readers may not be persuaded that "Mary" was really a pagan goddess, though Jordan does a fine job of laying out the general similarities between her virgin-birth story and that of other pagan heroines.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Product Description
Based on recent interpretations of ancient Near Eastern, Jewish, and Christian texts, The Historical Mary unravels the mystery of who Mary really was and the role she played in Jesus’ life and ancient society. Drawing on new anthropological discoveries, Michael Jordan carefully establishes the widespread existence of pagan traditions and fertility rites at the time of Mary’s birth and at all levels of Jewish society. Working from this fresh perspective, the author reveals that the life story of Mary is an elaborate myth invented by the early Church to further the interests of its male hierarchy and disguise the pagan origins of the mother of Jesus. Why is Mary rarely mentioned in the New Testament? Why did Jesus treat her so coldly and with such distance? The author explores provocative questions such as these and draws conclusions that many will find surprising. This controversial history of the mother of Jesus reveals the living human being behind the myth and complements popular studies of the historical Jesus.

Reader Reviews
This is, without question, one of the most poorly-researched, hapless pieces of pap "masquerading" as scholarship I have ever encountered. While the study of pagan influences on the Christian Mary-figure (no matter how one feels about the subject) is a worthy endeavor, such study is best left to true scholars who know the actual scope demanded of such a subject. This book is rife with so many convoluted fallacies, contradictions, and blatant factual errors, it is hard to even begin delineating all of them. Here's just a few: 1. The author is egregiously unskilled in the proper historical/critical method of Biblical exegesis (hence a good reason NOT to attempt the writing of such a book).He attempts at every turn to gloss over the exegetical importance of scriptural passages and focus instead upon esoteric, dubious, and apocryphal works of the 2nd century as his "source-material" in trying to connect the threads to make his theories compelling. In relying on esoteric and Gnostic works with virtually no pertinent historical value, his "thread connections" between his subject and his conclusions have all the cohesion of a dusty, corner cobweb. He seems intent upon using obscure scraps, bits, and bizarre apocrypha to the point of straining credulity. His attempts to make a historical case for Mary being a Sacred Prostitute and for Jesus having sex with his mother (as Mary of Magdala looks on) are puerile and simply desperate, given his tenuous methods. 2. The author contradicts his own theories time and again, often betraying an appalling lack of knowledge about 1st century Judea. His contention that Nazareth, a small, working-class, synagogue-centered village in the Galillee was infected with a fusion of pagan/Jewish religious sentiment (which would bolster his contention that Mary could be a Temple Whore) he has already crossed the line from scholarship to outright absurdity on a purely historical basis. 3. The author's contention that the sister of Moses (Miriam) was a pagan priestess of Mesopotamian deities and weaver of the pagan "qdesh" cloth is equally and historically indicative of a trip into fantasy land. He does not even know how to remain within the context of his own subject matter: The Moses narrative is framed by a flight from Egypt...would not Miriam be more apt to be a priestess of some deity in the Egyptian pantheon (not likely on that count...with extremely rare exceptions, Egyptian deities did not have priestesses). The author does not even appear to have a solid knowledge of his ancient paganism -- noted to be one of his "specialties" in the author bio. 4. The author bafflingly makes the statement that the name 'Miriam(Mary)' was virtually unknown in ancient Israel and, when confronted with the fact that so many women in the New Testament are named "Mary" he concludes that there must be some secret, underlying reason for the frequency of this name -- a sort of "code." Rubbish. Any Aramic or Hebrew paleographer or epigrapher worth their salt knows that the name "Miriam (Mary)" was one of the most common names for women in Judaic Israel both before and after Mary's lifetime...just as "Yeshua (Jesus)" was one of the most common names. This kind of deceptive, selective, self-created and near paranoiac research is an injustice both to the subject matter and to readers who are expecting the "Historical" aspect of such a book to be...well,...HISTORICAL. 5. The author makes numerous errors of fact that question the foundational ability to read. For example, he notes that Luke, in the Acts account, refers to Mary in passing in the Pentecost/Upper room scene, but "not by name." Anyone with eyes to see (or a true academic background in exegesis) knows that every translation of the Acts account reads: "...all these were gathered in prayer...including Mary the mother of Jesus...". The author not only errs in asserting she was not mentioned by name, but fails to even cite the appropriate verse, so that his readers may see for themselves. (The verse is Acts 1:14, BTW). Equally misleading is the author's contention that the Mary/Woman scenes at Cana and Calvary in John's Gospel have been perpetually "glossed over" by the Church, which has "never offered a satisfactory explanation." What twaddle. The Cana/Calvary scenes involving Mary have been the subject of extensive and compelling exegesis since the days of Irenaeus and Origen, and even moreso in the present day. Serious study has been rendered to these passages by actual scholars, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, with strong conclusions based upon solid use of the historical/critical scientific method of exegesis. 6. The author seems transparently intent upon stringing unrelated scraps of dubious apocryphal literature and throwing them, willy-nilly, at the Mary-figure simply for the sake of building a case for his pagan-mary premise. But the entire effort is a laughable hodgepodge that amounts to the weakest house of cards. This is hardly scholarship. Rather, the author seems to be appealing to those obsessed with DaVinci code-ish conspiracy theories, and sensationalist claptrap. The fact that work is incoherent, at best, and rife with so many errors and contradictions, makes the entire project worthless to both historian and casual readers of any intelligence. The points outlined above represent just a fraction of the incongruous assertions present in this book. It was quite apparently written to tittillate at the expense of even the most basic scholarship.I would not have been surprised had I turned the page and found the author make the contention that Mary was impregnated by a man from Mars who had been dwelling in a secret chamber in the Egyptian pyramids for twelve centuries. That is about how far-fetched this "work" actually is. 7. Perhaps the most telling feature of this book is the utter and complete lack of ANY footnotes and/or endnotes, which automatically disqualifies it from consideration as a scholarly account of any merit whatsoever. Again, the study of possible pagan influences upon the Mary-figure is a worthy subject, but not when it's undertaken by blatantly unqualified or subjective individuals. Pure hack work.