I just watched “The Da Vinci Code” and while the idea that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were married or at least were lovers is a popular one that has made it to the big screen on more than one occasion, it made me think of another unorthodox (and actually quite heretical) idea that I remember hearing sometime ago (although for the life of me I can’t find it on Google.)

Now some scholars believe that the historical Christ was an amalgamation of various Jewish holy men whose stories became the basis for the original Q source of the Gospels. It is questionable as to whether there really was one guy named Yeshu’a bar-Yosef. But even more interesting, what if the Christ were a woman?

Now, you would think something like this would be easy to spot. If Christ were a woman, you think it would’ve been obvious. However, maybe we’re just projecting our 21st century sensibilities to the ancient era. In a society where women were little more than property, it would’ve been impossible for a woman to be taken seriously. When one reads the Gospel of Mary, the misogyny present in Jewish (and Roman) culture at the time is hardly invisible.

I wish I had the actual source to this, but I think it might’ve actually been a Roman Catholic priest (naturally, a Jesuit) who once mentioned to me the theory that Jesus was in fact a woman (which actually makes a lot of sense if you want to literally believe in virgin birth—parthenogenesis can result only female offspring.) Naturally, in the misogynist society of the ancient era, this would never have become a popular religion, so the Church fathers decided to change things around a bit. I guess the rest of the idea is merely quibbling over details. One idea is that Mary of Magdala herself was the actual Christ; the other is that the reason why Mary of Magdala was so close to the Savior was because he was actually a she.

Now I know the historical basis of misogyny, but the more I think about it, the more I am saddened by the Roman Catholic Church’s refusal to let all of humanity participate fully in the mysteries of God. It is clear in the Gospels, after all, that there were many women who were involved in Jesus’ ministry (although confusingly too many of them are named Mary) and it is clear that there were many female disciples. I think it fits well with Jesus’ tradition-challenging teachings that he tended to be very inclusive. After all, he hung out with the drunkards, thieves, and prostitutes, and the Apostles mostly proselytized among the heathen Gentiles. Also telling is that, if Jesus wasn’t an Essene, he certainly had many teachings in common to this particular sect of Judaism, and one of the things they believed in was that the Divinity had a distinctly female aspect to it (sometimes associated with the term Shekinah, which is a concept that seems to closely resemble the formulation of the Holy Spirit.)

So there is something appealing about the idea that the early Church actively suppressed the teachings of women. But the more likely story is that they simply acted out their ingrained prejudices, and those they preached to reacted to their stories with their own ingrained prejudices, and even if there were truth-sayers in that time, it is likely that very few actually took them seriously.

Bah, I am reminded of the reasons why I am wary of organized religion in the first place.