The most interesting marvel about John is that much of its eye-witness content may have been witnessed through the eyes of Mary Magdalene. A majority of the Fourth Gospel's content may have been carried by the mind of Mary of Magdela until that content was placed either in written form or provided to another mind's memory and subsequently reached written form. If the majority of the Fourth Gospel's content was indeed provided by the Magdalene, then the fair name of that gospel should be "The Gospel of Mary Magdalene". This fairness is particulary compelling in the light that most scholars of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel will affirm that that authorship is, otherwise, anomynous. Tradition alone supports any possibility that John of Zebidee, the traditional "John" of John, was the author of John = "The Fourth Gospel". In the day and time of the emergence of the Fourth Gospel, any female authorship, prophesy, prayer, or authority would need a verbal concealing cover, such as "Beloved Disciple". Otherwise, a man's name (even if it were a "pen name" for modesty)such as "John" would be used within the text content. But no such "John" can be found in the content of the Fourth Gospel.
No Bible scholars dispute that Mary Magdalene was the first eyewitness to the Risen Jesus, yet Peter is otherwise flatly stated as the first such eyewitness. The origin of this "white" lie is the same as the origin of "John" as the author of the Fourth Gospel, instead of Mary Magdalene. The origin of both of these errors (of authorship, not content)is prejudice against female competence 2000 years ago and existant today as the still unfair supression of the fair Gospel of Mary of Magdalen. (What male priest would proudly proclaim that the primary axiom of Christianity is at "Mary of Magdalen 3:16 !)
|The New Testament|