Artistic Depictions of the Virgin Mary: The Surprising Origins of Marian Iconography

The enigmatic allure of the Virgin Mary: From divine purity to unsettling symbolism, we explore the captivating myths and enduring appeal of the original Madonna. 

The Virgin Mary takes many guises in art over the centuries, from Queen of Heaven to the Sorrowful Mother whose tears have miraculous properities.

In art, God is often portrayed as an ancient, white-bearded man in flowing robes, a benevolent figure who watches over humanity from on high. Jesus, meanwhile, is typically depicted in various key moments from his life, such as his birth, crucifixion and resurrection. He walks on water and performs other miracles and has his Last Supper. 

But the Virgin Mary is a complex and enigmatic figure who wears many guises. Often cloaked in modesty, she’s seen as a symbol of hope, love and sacrifice. She’s portrayed as the ultimate role model for Christian women, the daughter of God, the bride of her own son and a regal queen. Her story is a richly woven tapestry of myths and symbols, each thread imbued with meanings that have been interpreted in countless ways throughout history.

As we delve into the realm of religious art and symbolism, we find her as a fertility goddess known as the Black Madonna, along with a loving mother whose tears and breast milk have magical healing powers. Amid the varied representations through the centuries, one thing remains certain: Mary’s enduring appeal as a divine figure. 

Mary, Queen of Heaven by the Master of the Saint Lucy Legend, circa 1495

Maria Regina: Queen of Heaven

Mary, the paragon of purity, couldn’t be left to rot in the grave like a mere mortal. So, the early Church fathers devised a bold solution: They declared that she had been taken up to Heaven in an event known as the Assumption, where she now reigns as a celestial queen. 

Popes viewed the Virgin Mary as a powerful propaganda tool. With their ties to the Queen of Heaven, they could legitimize their authority on earth and cemented the strong tie between Mary and Catholicism, centered in Rome: “The more the papacy gained control of the city, the more veneration of the mother of the emperor in heaven, by whose right the Church ruled, increased,” explains Marina Warner in her 1976 book Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary. 

The Coronation of the Virgin by Diego Velázquez, 1636

John VII was the first pope to have himself painted in prostration at the feet of the Virgin, in the basilica of Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome. 

Madonna della Clemenza icon from the church of Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome, 8th century. It’s the first to show a pope, John VII, prostrating himself at her feet (though it’s hard to make out now).

The coronation of Mary was first depicted in the 12th century, from an apse mosaic at Santa Maria to niches of French cathedrals, and became a favorite theme of Christendom. Christ is shown crowning his mother, switching the moment of her triumph from the Incarnation (when she conceived the son of God) to the Assumption (when she was taken up to Heaven). 

Coronation of the Virgin by Fra Angelico, 1435

The imagery of a divine queen worked well to legitimize not only popes but royalty and its system of inequality as well. “For by projecting the hierarchy of the world onto heaven, that hierarchy — be it ecclesiastical or lay — appears to be ratified by divinely reflected approval; and the lessons of the Gospel about the poor inheriting the earth are wholly ignored,” Warner writes. 

“It would be difficult to concoct a greater perversion of the Sermon on the Mount [Christ’s ethical code, focusing on compassion, selflessness, etc.] than the sovereignty of Mary and its cult, which has been used over the centuries by different princes to stake out their spheres of influence in the temporal realm,” Warner continues, “to fly a flag for their ambitions like any Maoist poster or political broadcast; and equally difficult to imagine a greater distortion of Christ’s idealism than this identification of the rich and powerful with the good.”

The Coronation of the Virgin With Angels and Four Saints by Neri di Bicci, circa 1470

The Bride of Christ: Incest Is Best?

As shocking as it may seem, the Virgin Mary was, for a while, depicted as the bride of her own son, Jesus. 

How could this have come about? Warner suggests the influence of Middle Eastern mystery religions, which played up males forming unions with females. The Canaanite god Baal coupled with his sister, Anat. In Syria, the shepherd Tammuz became the lover of the sky goddess Ishtar. The Phrygian cult featured Cybele and Attis, who died castrated under a tree. And Egyptian mythology tells the tale of Osiris, the god of the dead, who was chopped into pieces and put back together by his sister-wife, Isis. 

---

RELATED: A pictorial glossary of the so-called pagan gods of the Old Testament

---

The nuptials of these divine beings mirrored the joining of earth and sky at the dawn of creation.

You wouldn’t marry your mother, would you — even if she was the Virgin Mary?!

“Thus marriage was the pivotal symbol on which turned the cosmology of most of the religions that pressed on Jewish society, jeopardizing its unique monotheism,” Warner writes. “It is a symptom of their struggle to maintain their distinctiveness that the Jews, while absorbing this pagan symbol, reversed the ranks of the celestial pair to make the bride God’s servant and possession, from whom he ferociously exacts absolute submission.”

From this foundation, Cyprian of Carthage, in the 3rd century, accused virgins who flirted of committing adultery against their true husband, Christ.  

And then, of course, there are nuns, whose consecration ceremony includes getting a ring that designates them as a bride of Christ. Talk about polygamy on a mass scale!

But it wasn’t really until 1153, when Bernard of Clairvaux gave multiple sermons on the Old Testament’s Song of Songs — “that most languorous and amorous of poems,” as Warner calls it. In one of these, Bernard preached, speaking of Christ and the Virgin Mary:

But surely will we not deem much happier those kisses which in blessed greeting she receives today from the mouth of him who sits on the right hand of the Father, when she ascends to the throne of glory, singing a nuptial hymn and saying: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.”

Pagan influences aside, I’m puzzled as to how this incestuous idea ever caught on among Christians.

The Virgin and Child by Dirk Bouts, circa 1465

Maria Lactans: The Milk-Squirting Mary

While Mary was exempt from Eve’s punishment of bearing children in pain, there was one biological function allowed her: breastfeeding. “From her earliest images onwards, the mother of God has been represented as nursing her child,” Warner says. 

The Virgin Mary depicted with squirting breasts?! This is one iconography I’ve got to milk for all its worth.

Where did this idea come from? “The theme of the nursing Virgin, Maria Lactans, probably originated in Egypt, where the goddess Isis had been portrayed suckling the infant Horus for over a thousand years before Christ,” Warner explains. 

---

RELATED: In the New Testament, Mary wasn’t mentioned as being a virgin. Find out why early Christians insisted upon Mary being pure.

---

Madonna Nursing the Child (Maria Lactans) by Erasmus Quellinus the Younger, circa 1614

Part of this symbolism derives from a mother providing much-needed nourishment: “For milk was a crucial metaphor of the gift of life,” Warner continues. “Without it, a child had little or no chance of survival before the days of baby foods, and its almost miraculous appearance seemed as providential as the conception and birth of the child itself.”

And, not surprisingly, Mary’s milk was miraculous. A favorite medieval tale, including a version in French by Gautier de Coincy, tells how a faithful monk was dying of a putrid mouth filled with ulcers. He reproached the Madonna for neglecting him, and chastened, she appears at his bedside: 

With much sweetness and much delight,
From her sweet bosom she drew forth her breast, 
That is so sweet, so soft, so beautiful,
And placed it in his mouth, 
Gently touched him all about,
And sprinkled him with her sweet milk.

As Warner writes, “Needless to say, the monk was rendered whole again.”

According to a 14th century legend, Saint Bernard prayed before a statue of Mary. It came to life, and the Virgin placed her breast in Bernard’s mouth, nursing him as she did the baby Jesus.

The Madonna’s miracle milk became a nearly ubiquitous relic in Europe. “From the thirteenth century, phials in which her milk was preserved were venerated all over Christendom in shrines that attracted pilgrims by the thousands. Walsingham, Chartres, Genoa, Rome, Venice, Avignon, Padua, Aix-en-Provence, Toulon, Paris, Naples, all possessed the precious and efficacious substance,” Warner says.

John Calvin, the church reformer, had a scathing opinion about these claims. “There is no town so small, nor convent … so mean that it does not display some of the Virgin’s milk,” he wrote in his Treatise on Relics. “There is so much that if the holy Virgin had been a cow, or a wet nurse all her life she would have been hard put to it to yield such a great quantity.”

The idea of a breastfeeding mother of God waned in the Renaissance, when high-born women found it indecent to do the job themselves and outsourced the task to wetnurses. Plus, it was deemed indecorous to depict Mary with her breast exposed with the increasing idea that a woman’s body was shameful. Mary, with the Immaculate Conception, was born without original sin and therefore avoided Eve’s curse — and by the 16th century, that included being exempt from suckling the Christ child.

Madonna in Sorrow by Juan de Juni, 1571

Mater Dolorosa: The Sorrowful Mother

The caregiving image of Mary gave way to a mother mourning her dead son, what’s known as the Mater Dolorosa. The cult began in the 11th century, reaching full fruition in the 14th century in Italy, France, England, the Netherlands and Spain. The culmination of this iconography? Michelangelo’s La Pietà.

La Pietà by Michelangelo, 1499

Again, we have Ancient Egypt, and the surrounding region’s myths, to thank for this representation. The Egyptian goddess Isis sorrowfully wandered the land, collecting the pieces of her dismembered brother-husband, Osiris. When she finds his coffin, she caresses Osiris’ face and weeps. 

And she’s not the only weeping woman of the ancient Middle East. Dumuzi, the shepherd and “true son” of Sumerian myth, was sacrificed to the underworld, tortured by demons (much like Christ later, during his Passion and descent into Hell). The goddess Inanna, the Queen of Heaven, weeps for him.

It seems likely that Christians picked up this iconography — spurred on by the horrors of the Black Death, when the bubonic plague swept the continent, wiping out one-fifth of the entire population. “It aroused penitential fever in a way never seen before, and gave the image of the Mater Dolorosa weighty contemporary significance,” Warner points out. 

Madonna in Sorrow by Titian, 1554

Once again, Mary’s bodily fluids have healing properties. “The tears she sheds are charged with the magic of her precious, incorruptible, undying body and have the power to give life and make whole,” Warner explains. 

This cult has lasted to the present day. Many of us have heard stories of statues of the Virgin that miraculously weep. 

“Contemporary prudishness has tabooed the Virgin’s milk, but her tears have still escaped the category of forbidden symbols, and are collected as one of the most efficacious and holy relics of Christendom,” Warner says. “They course down her cheeks as a symbol of the purifying sacrifice of the Cross, which washes sinners of all stain and gives them new life, just as the tears of Inanna over Dumuzi fell on the parched Sumerian soil and quickened it into flower.” 

The Virgin of Greater Pain and Transfer of Great Power

---

RELATED: Learn more shocking things about the Virgin Mary!

---

The Black Madonna of Monserrat

The Black Madonna: Our Lady of Montserrat

Most Western depictions of Mary present her skin as lily-white, untouched by corruption, despite the fact that she is undeniably Middle Eastern. So it’s all the more surprising to see the emergence of the Black Madonna, a dark-skinned version that became popular among the medieval Benedictine monks in Montserrat, Spain. 

The monks saw the lushness of their mountain as a mirror of Mary. As such, her icon took on aspects of a fertility goddess. 

But in a bizarre twist (or perhaps not, given that Mary was a Jew from Judea), the Virgin had dark skin, which led to her being known as the Black Madonna. In fact, she’s known locally as La Moreneta, the Little Dark One. The depiction spread to other places of worship, among them Chartres, Orléans, Rome and Poland. 

The Black Madonna of Częstochowa, Poland

“The Church often explains their blackness in allegorical terms from the Song of Songs: ‘I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem’ (Song of Solomon 1:5),” Warner writes. “[B]ut another theory about their color is even more prosaic: that the smoke of votive candles for centuries has blackened the wood or the pigment, and when artists restored the images, they repainted the robes and jewels that clothe the Madonna and Child but out of awe left their faces black.”

The shrine at Montserrat is one of the longest continuous cults of Mary, especially popular with newly married couples. Here she has dominion over marriage, sex, pregnancy and childbirth — odd for a virgin but not for a fertility goddess. 

The Black Madonna at St. Mary’s Church in Gdansk, Poland

A gruesome legend illustrates Mary’s power. A woman gives birth to a lump of dead flesh. But when she prays to Our Lady of Montserrat, it begins to move and is transformed into a beautiful baby boy. 

Madonna della Misericordia by Benedetto Bonfigli, circa 1470

Madonna della Misericordia: Our Lady of Mercy

In a merging of her roles as mother and queen, a new depiction of Mary emerged in Umbria, Italy at the end of the 13th century. The Virgin was given a massive cloak which she wrapped over the poor souls gathered at her feet. Towering over them and offering protection, this was the Madonna della Misericordia, Our Lady of Mercy. 

Madonna of Mercy by Sano di Pietro, circa 1440s

After the desolation of the Black Death in the late 1340s, this iconography of Mary became the most popular. Monks and laypeople alike would pray to this aspect of the Virgin, asking her to keep them safe from harm. 

The Virgin of the Caves by Francisco de Zurbarán, circa 1655

This Mary is often preternaturally large — and her son, Christ, isn’t anywhere to be found, “suggesting that her mercy, directly given, could save sinners,” Warner writes. But that cuts God and Jesus out of the equation and makes the Virgin a goddess in her own right. 

So while Our Lady of Mercy spread throughout Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries, it was officially declared heterodox (not in accordance with the accepted Catholic doctrine) and banned by the Council of Trent in the mid-1500s.

Dormition of the Virgin fresco by Frangos Katelanos, 1548

Divine Dominion Over Death 

The Virgin Mary has worn many guises over the years, from a gentle breastfeeding mother to imperial queen to tutelary goddess. 

“If travelers from another planet were to enter churches, as far flung as the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., or the Catholic cathedral in Saigon, or the rococo phantasmagoria of New World churches, and see the Virgin’s image on the altar, it would be exceedingly difficult for them to understand that she was only an intercessor and not a divinity in her own right,” Warner points out. 

There are surely many factors that have led to Mary’s enduring appeal, starting with her co-opting of ancient mythology like the Egyptian goddess Isis. Many cultures find it fitting to worship the female spirit — something glaringly missing in the often-misogynistic views of Christianity. 

Detail from Assumption of Mary by Peter Paul Rubens, circa 1617

But Warner has a theory: “For although the Virgin is a healer, a midwife, a peacemaker, the protectress of virgins, and the patroness of monks and nuns in this world; although her polymorphous myth has myriad uses and functions for the living, it is the jurisdiction over her death accorded her in popular belief that gives her such widespread supremacy.”

She could be on to something. Think of the final words of the Hail Mary, the best-loved prayer in Catholicism: “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.” –Wally

Why Did Christ Have to Be Born of the Virgin Mary?

Virgin births weren’t unusual in pagan times — just in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Here’s how sex got tangled up with the idea of sin, and by extension, chastity became the ultimate sign of virtue. 

Nativity, Birth of Jesus by Giotto, circa 1305

Early Christians needed their savior to have been born of a woman without sin, and that included the act of fornication. Greek myths could have influenced their theology.

Mary, the mother of Christ, is held up as one of a kind among humans for getting pregnant and giving birth without ever having sex. 

But believe it or not, so-called virgin births weren’t uncommon in the pagan world. Pythagorus, Plato and Alexander the Great were all said to have been born of virgins by the power of a holy spirit. 

Alexander the Great’s mom dreamed of a lightning bolt striking her vagina — and lo and behold! She became pregnant with the future king of Macedon. In antiquity, “virgin” births weren’t all that uncommon.

“Christians, aware of the antique pantheon, are still worried by the parallel between Christ’s story and the dozens of virgin births of classical mythology,” Maria Warner wrote in her 1976 work Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary.

So how exactly does one conceive without fornication? We can turn once again to paganism. In Greek mythology, the closest parallel seems to be when Zeus turned himself into a shower of gold and impregnated Danae, who gave birth to the hero Perseus.   

Danaë and the Golden Shower by Andrea Casali, circa 1750

The Greek myth of Zeus impregnating a woman in the form of a golden rain could have inspired the form the Holy Ghost took with the Virgin Mary.

The Greek god Zeus metamorphosed into a swan to couple with Leda. Did this bird imagery inspire the Holy Ghost’s representatoin as a dove?

Then again, the Holy Ghost is often depicted as a dove, and in another encounter, Zeus, that shapeshifting, lecherous cad, adopted the form a bird as well: He became a swan to seduce (or, perhaps, rape) Leda, mother of Helen of Troy, the twins Castor and Pollux, and another daughter, Clytemnestra.

The Annunciation by Fra Angelico, 1445

The shaft of light symbolizing the Holy Ghost isn’t too different from Danae’s shower of gold. Notice the contrast of the Virgin with Adam and Eve being expelled from the Garden of Eden to the left.

Connecting Sex With Sin

Of course in these cases, Zeus is copulating with the women. It’s an act of lust, and, at least for the god, one of pleasure. That’s in stark contrast to the Christian idea of Mary’s conception of Jesus: She remains a virgin, her maidenhead unbroken, and there’s no animal-like rutting. 

This was an essential part of the Christ story. The fathers of the Christian church connected sex with sin early on, taking their cue from Genesis and the Garden of Eden: Fornication becomes necessary for reproduction, and the pain of childbirth a curse that Eve, and all women to follow, must bear. 

Sex was seen as the ultimate sin. Saint Augustine wrote in City of God, in 426, that the passion aroused by lovemaking was sinful — though the holy act of propagation was not. In a similar vein, he added, “We ought not to condemn marriage because of the evil of lust, nor must we praise lust because of the good of marriage.”

“[I]n this battle between the flesh and the spirit, the female sex was firmly placed on the side of the flesh,” Warner wrote. “For as childbirth was woman’s special function, and its pangs the special penalty decreed by God after the Fall, and as the child she bore in her womb was stained by sin from the moment of its conception, the evils of sex were particularly identified with the female. Woman was womb and womb was evil.”

The Annunciation from the Grabower Altar in St. Peter’s in Hamburg, Germany, 1383

Saint Ephrem the Syrian wrote, “Perfectly God, he entered the womb through her ear.” The idea was that by conceiving via her ear, Mary remained a virgin.

The Virgin Mary: Not Your Typical (Sinful) Woman

Mary’s impregnation is, in contrast, a serene, holy act. It’s possibly tied to the very words of the Angel Gabriel when he announces her role in bringing forth the Savior. In ancient times, some people actually believed pregnancy could come about through the ear. (It gives a whole new meaning to Iggy Pop’s lyric “Of course I’ve had it in the ear before.”)

A sixth century hymn that’s still sung today goes:

The centuries marvel therefore 
that the angel bore the seed,
the virgin conceived through her ear, 
and believing in her heart, became fruitful.

The son of God chose to be born of a virgin, according to Augustine, because it was the only way to enter the world without sin. So, “Let us love chastity above all things,” he wrote, “for it was to show that this was pleasing to Him that Christ chose the modesty of a virgin womb.”

Painful births were one of God’s punishments for Eve eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But Jesus’ mother couldn’t be connected with anything so sinful, so she was said to be a virgin, pure and intact.

Slandering the Virgin Mary

The early Christian church had to defend itself against rumors that painted Mary in a negative light. Jews and pagans in Alexandria, for example, were saying that Jesus wasn’t conceived by God — instead, he was the bastard child of an incestuous union of Mary and her brother. 

It doesn’t seem far-fetched nowadays to question a scientific impossibility — but at the dawn of Christianity, virgin births wouldn’t have been too big of a surprise. For early Christians, anything to do with female bodily functions was dirty and sinful. So they would have insisted their savior had to have come from an inviolate womb. And, despite evidence to the contrary, Mary became a virgin. –Wally

---

Shocking Revelations About the Virgin Mary in the Bible

The Gospels barely mention Mary. They get her name wrong. They show Jesus being rude to her. And they make us question if she was even a virgin.

The worship of Mary has taken over Catholicism. But there’s a surprisingly scant amount of appearances by her in the New Testament — and those that are there can be problematic.

The figure of the Virgin Mary holds a place of honor in Christian theology and devotion, where she’s revered as the mother of Jesus and an embodiment of purity and divinity. And for Catholics, she’s essentially a goddess in her own right — and some would argue, perhaps more revered than Jesus himself.

However, a closer examination of the biblical texts reveals a series of astonishing revelations that challenge commonly held beliefs about Mary. In her book Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary, Marina Warner presents a compelling analysis of the Gospel accounts, shedding light on the limited mentions of Mary, discrepancies in her portrayal and even doubts about her virginity. Published in 1976, Warner’s research continues to shock almost 50 years later.

“The amount of historical information about the Virgin is negligible. Her birth, her death, her appearance, her age are never mentioned.

Of the four declared dogmas about the Virgin Mary — her divine motherhood, her virginity, her immaculate conception and her assumption into heaven — only the first can unequivocally be traced to Scripture.”

— Maria Warner, "Alone of All Her Sex"

The Annunciation by Paolo de Matteis, 1712

There’s a lot of beliefs about Mary that don’t come from the Bible. But one story that does is the Angel Gabriel telling her she’ll get pregnant by the Holy Spirit and will give birth to the Son of God.

1. Mary is hardly mentioned in the Gospels.

“The amount of historical information about the Virgin is negligible,” Warner writes. “Her birth, her death, her appearance, her age are never mentioned.” 

Warner explains that “the sum total of the Virgin’s appearances in the New Testament is startlingly small plunder on which to build the great riches of Mariology,” the part of Christian theology devoted to Mary. “Of the four declared dogmas about the Virgin Mary — her divine motherhood, her virginity, her immaculate conception and her assumption into heaven — only the first can unequivocally be traced to Scripture,” Warner continues.

The Immaculate Conception by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, 1769

The idea that Mary was born without sin like the rest of us can’t be found anywhere in the New Testament.

In the Bible, the Angel Gabriel appears to Mary of Nazareth. At first she’s troubled and confused, but Gabriel prophesizes Jesus’ birth, to which Mary answers (“her most precious speech in Mariology,” Warner states), “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” (Luke 1:34). 

Gabriel explains, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:38).

The Annunciation, from an illuminated manuscript created at Gladzor Monastery in Armenia by Toros Taronatsi in 1323

Strangely enough, though, the Gospel writers can’t even get her name right: She’s called Mariám 12 times and Maria seven times, according to Warner. 

Only Luke hits the major moments in what has become our understanding of the Virgin Mary. Even so, in Luke’s Gospel, Mary speaks a mere four times. 

In Matthew, she is silent. After the account of Jesus’ birth, Matthew mentions Mary only one more time.

Mark has a single mention of Mary (and it’s hardly flattering as you’ll see). 

John’s Gospel was written after the other three, “and it differs so considerably from them that for a time even its inclusion in the canon was at risk,” Warner writes. In it, the mother of Jesus is never mentioned by name, and it doesn’t repeat any of the incidents concerning her from the other Gospels. 

Christ Crucified With the Virgin, Saint John and Mary Magdalene by Anthony van Dyck, 1619

Jesus wanted to make sure Mary and John viewed each other as family — and then he was able to die.

She’s shown, perhaps, in the best light in John at the Crucifixion. As Jesus is dying on the cross, he sees his mother and “the disciple standing by, whom he loved” (i.e., John) and calls out, “Mother behold thy son!” and “Son behold thy mother!” John takes Mary into his home from that time on, the Gospel says. And Jesus, “knowing that all things were now accomplished,” drank vinegar and hyssop, and said, “It is finished” — “and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost” (John 19:26-30). 

The Marriage at Cana by Marten de Vos, 1597

Jesus is snippy with Mary at the event where he turns water into wine — a biblical passage that makes many a Catholic cringe.

2. Jesus is surprisingly rude to his mother.

In Mark’s recounting, Jesus has been preaching and attracting crowds, but his friends decide he has lost his mind, and his charisma is the work of the Devil (Mark 3:21). They call upon Jesus’ mother and brethren for help. Jesus asks, “Who is my mother or my brethren?” Then, looking around at those who have gathered to hear him, he declares, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and my mother” (Mark 3: 34-5). “Thus Jesus rebuffs his earthly family to embrace the larger family of his spiritual fellowship,” Warner writes. 

Matthew and Luke feature the same story — but by the time Luke tells it, he’s defending Mary and the rest of the family, stating that they “could not come at him for the press” of the crowd (Luke 8:19). 

The episode is paralleled later in Luke. A woman in a crowd calls out, “Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.” Jesus states, “Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” (Luke 11:7-8). “Mary is not necessarily excluded from Jesus’ reply, but it certainly rings harshly,” Warner writes, adding, “The Catholic Church has consistently overlooked the hard-heartedness in Jesus’ words.”

John tells of the miracle at Cana, one of two conversations between Jesus and his mother (John 2:3-5):

Mother: They have no wine.

Jesus: Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.

Mother [to the servants]: Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 

Jesus goes on to turn water into wine. “Mary, apparently rebuffed quite brutally by her son, understands that he will nevertheless perform a miracle,” Warner explains. 

The Marriage of the Virgin by Giotto, 1306

The big question is: Did Joseph and Mary have sex after she gave birth? It’s the most likely explanation for Jesus’ brothers and sisters.

3. Her very virginity is at question.

For many Christians, it’s unfathomable to imagine that the Virgin Mary, whose moniker is tied to her purity, might be the result of a poor translation. “[A]s for her virginity,” Warner writes, “the evangelists, far from asserting it, raise a number of doubts.” 

Of all the Gospels, only Matthew makes a clear statement about the virgin birth. He says that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost before Mary and Joseph “came together” (Matthew 7:20). 

But Matthew’s writer was using the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible, where the Hebrew word “almah,” meaning a young girl of marriageable age, became “parthenos” in Greek — a word that carries a strong connotation of virginity.

Catholics “hold (not as an article of faith, but as a cherished and ancient belief) that Mary was virgo intacta post partum, that by special privilege of God she, who was spared sex, was preserved also through childbirth in her full bodily integrity,” Warner explains. Which, one has to imagine, means her hymen was intact. 

But Matthew’s language seems to suggest that Mary and Joseph had sex after the birth of Jesus: “Then Joseph … took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son” (Matthew 1:24-5). Yes, that’s “knew” in the biblical sense. It’s basically saying Joseph and Mary didn’t have sex until after Jesus was born. But they did eventually do so — Mary didn’t remain a virgin. 

The Presentation of Christ in the Temple by Hans Holbein the Elder, 1501

If Mary was so pure, why did she have to undergo a period of cleansing before she could present Jesus in the temple?

Also problematic: Mary gives birth to Jesus and enters the temple only after the time for her purification has elapsed. Under Mosaic law, a woman must be cleansed of the impurity incurred at childbirth. But why would that be necessary if Mary was, miraculously, still a virgin?

A 16th century Russian icon of James the Just, one of Jesus’ siblings

And then there’s the issue of Jesus’ siblings, mentioned in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Some early thinkers of the Greek church came up with a solution that has no proof in the Bible: Joseph was a widower, and those children were from an earlier marriage. 

The Birth of Christ by Meister von Hohenfurth, circa 1350

Rethinking the Virgin Mary

Warner’s groundbreaking work Alone of All Her Sex challenges conventional beliefs surrounding the Virgin Mary, drawing attention to the limited scriptural references, Jesus’ puzzlingly brusque behavior to his mother and the ambiguity surrounding her virginity. These shocking revelations prompt a reevaluation of deeply ingrained perceptions and invite further exploration of the complex figure at the heart of the Christian and Catholic faiths. –Wally

---

CLICK HERE: When Did Jesus Become God? 5 Startling Findings in the Gospels

Where the Heck Did the Easter Bunny Come From?

Hopping through the history of the Easter Bunny, from pagan rituals to modern-day celebrations. Along the way, we’ll make some egg-citing discoveries about his birth as a fertility symbol and the origin of dyed eggs and Easter baskets.

Who knew the Easter Bunny evolved from the animal companion of a pagan goddess?

I once sponsored a child in India. His name was Papu Magi, and I regularly wrote him letters, sharing U.S. customs. When Easter rolled around, I explained how a giant human-sized bunny sneaks into our homes at night and leaves baskets filled with candy and colored eggs.

It wasn’t until I had written it out that I realized how bizarre some of our holiday traditions truly are. This got me thinking: How did we come up with the Easter Bunny?

“It makes you wonder if most Christians realize the holiday dedicated to the resurrection of their savior is actually named for a pagan goddess.”

Young women dance around a phallic maypole to increase their fertility — another pagan spring tradition.

A Pagan Origin: How the Easter Bunny and Dyed Eggs Became Symbols of Spring Celebrations

The origins of the Easter Bunny, as well as dyed eggs, can be traced back to ancient pagan rituals that celebrated the arrival of spring, including Ostara. Still practiced as a Wiccan holiday, Ostara is a celebration of the spring equinox. It’s named after the Germanic goddess Eostre, who some scholars deduce was associated with the dawn, fertility and new beginnings. (It makes you wonder if most Christians realize the holiday dedicated to the resurrection of their savior is actually named for a pagan deity).

Caveat: Hard evidence about Eostre is lacking, and the goddess remains shrouded in mystery. Much of what’s reported on her is conjecture.

Her first mention comes from a famous monk, the Venerable Bede, in 731 CE, who wrote that the Anglo-Saxons called April Eosturmonath, or Eostre Month, in honor a pagan goddess worshiped at that time.

Easter gets its name from Eostre, a pagan goddess of the spring.

These rites of spring were full of festive merrymaking, including dancing around maypoles, drinking mead and worshiping rabbits.

Yup, that’s right: Bunnies were a key figure in these celebrations. In pagan traditions, the rabbit was seen as a symbol of fertility and new life — no real surprise, given their well-deserved reputation for rapid reproduction.

During these springtime celebrations, people would decorate eggs, believing them to have the power to bring new life and prosperity to those who ate them. Using natural dyes made from flowers and other plants, they created eggs in a variety of hues. And, as crazy as it might sound, rabbits were said to be responsible for laying colored eggs.

Do Jesus and the Easter Bunny belong in the same holiday?

Hopping Into Easter: The Christian Origins of the Easter Bunny and Its Symbolism of Resurrection

The Easter Bunny may have its roots in pagan traditions, but it also had a significant place in Christian beliefs. The early Christians in Europe adopted many pagan customs and blended them with their own religious practices, which is how the Easter Bunny eventually found its way into the Christian tradition.

Much as with Christmas, some Christians bemoan the commercialization of the Easter holiday.

I’m not sure that many Christians today connect the commercial aspects of Easter with the religious ones (there’s a parallel to Santa and Christmas), but back in the day, early Christians associated the rabbit, and all of its spring rebirth symbolism, with Jesus’ resurrection.

It seems that Karen Swallow Prior, a professor of Christianity and culture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, agrees. “There’s nothing wrong with dressing up in pastels, hiding eggs or consuming large amounts of chocolate,” she wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post. “But if the fluffy white bunny takes precedence over the crucified and resurrected Lord, we’ve missed the point.”

Easter baskets came about from a pagan tradition to carry offerings to the goddess of spring.

The History of Easter Baskets: From Pagan Offerings to Sweet Treats

Easter baskets are a staple of the holiday, but how did they become a part of the Easter tradition? It turns out that the origin of the Easter basket is also closely tied to the pagan celebrations of spring.

In pagan traditions, baskets were used to carry offerings to the goddess of spring, including eggs, thought to increase fertility. Over time, the baskets became a symbol of the bounty of spring and were filled with all sorts of goodies, like flowers, fruit and vegetables.

Well, no wonder the Easter Bunny decided to switch to baskets!

As the Easter basket evolved, so did its contents. Today, they’re most often filled with candy (including a chocolate rabbit, which kids will disturbingly bite its ears off of) and other treats, filled by the Easter Bunny himself during a nocturnal visit — again, another connection to Santa Claus. 

It’s hard to tell exactly when the Easter Bunny became adult-sized and anthropomorphic, but it seems like it might have happened around the 1950s.

Hare Today, Easter Bunny Tomorrow: Tracing the Evolution of the Beloved Easter Mascot

The Easter Bunny has been a beloved symbol of the holiday for centuries, but have you ever wondered how it evolved into the oversized, anthropomorphic creature we know today? 

He didn’t start out that way. The hare, a smaller relative of the rabbit, was revered by ancient cultures for its speed, agility and ability to reproduce, and was often associated with the moon and the goddess of fertility. A study from 2020 draws a direct connection between Eostre and her association with the hare.

Bunnies and colored eggs have long been symbols of spring, representing new life.

As the hare became associated with pagan spring celebrations, it eventually evolved into the Easter Bunny we know today. This transformation was likely influenced by the German tradition of the Osterhase, a hare who laid eggs for children on Easter morning.

Jacob Grimm, one of the famous Brothers Grimm who collected oral folklore throughout Germany, said in 1835 that the Easter hare was associated with Eostre, or Ostara, as she would have been called in ancient German.

At some point, the Easter Bunny grew in size and children were told he visits their homes at night (much like Santa) to leave them candy-filled Easter baskets.

Vintage cards from the late 1800s to early 1900s show a lot of rabbits, but it seems like it wasn’t until the 1950s or so that the Easter Bunny became more and more human-like. Perhaps families or malls started having someone dress up like the Easter Bunny for photo opportunities. And despite the fact that the Easter Bunny became bipedal and reached 6 feet or so (not counting the ears), most kids believe he can’t actually talk. 

Then again, it might have come down to marketing as a gimmick to help sell candy. “The Easter Bunny was created out of whole cloth by the confectionary industry,” claims David Emery, who writes for the fact-check site Snopes.

In another connection to Christmas, it has become a tradition to terrorize children by making them sit on the Easter Bunny’s lap for a photo.

Today, the Easter Bunny is a staple of the holiday, sometimes depicted wearing clothes — most often a vest and bowtie — and carrying baskets of eggs and treats.

To quote the M&M’s commercial, a fave of mine as a kid in the ’80s: “Thanks, Easter Bunny! Bawk! Bawk!” –Wally

Going for Baroque: The Templo de Santo Domingo de Guzmán Church in Oaxaca

From its fascinating history to its stunning Baroque architecture, the Templo de Santo Domingo de Guzmán Church is a must-see attraction in Oaxaca.

Like most churches in Mexico, the Templo de Santo Domingo de Guzmán in Oaxaca has got history, style, beauty, drama and a whole lot of swag. 

Holy History: The Evolution of Templo de Santo Domingo de Guzmán Church

Construction of the church began in 1572 and was completed over three decades later, in 1608. The building was designed by Fray Francisco de la Maza, a Spanish architect who was a member of the Dominican Order. 

“Inside the church, visitors are treated to a riot of color and decoration.

The walls and ceilings are covered in frescoes of the life of Christ and the history of the Dominican Order.”

Also par for the course: The church was built on the site of an existing temple that was destroyed during the Spanish conquest of the region. The original temple was dedicated to Cosijoeza, a Zapotec ruler from the late 15th century. He was a skilled warrior who fought against the Aztecs and other neighboring tribes to defend his people’s land and culture. He acted as shaman and healer as well, and was said to have possessed great spiritual power.

According to legend, Cosijoeza ascended to the heavens after his death, becoming a god who watches over the Zapotec people and protects them from harm.

During the colonial period, the Templo de Santo Domingo de Guzmán was built as a symbol of the power and wealth of the Catholic Church and the Spanish colonial authorities. The church was lavishly decorated with gold leaf, marble and other precious materials, and it served as a center of religious and cultural life in Oaxaca.

In the 19th century, the church played an important role in the Mexican War of Independence, serving as barracks for both royalist and insurgent forces at different times. After Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821, the church continued to be the spiritual heart of Oaxaca, and it was eventually designated as a national monument in 1935.

Today, the Templo de Santo Domingo de Guzmán is one of the most visited tourist attractions in town, attracting thousands of visitors each year.

What’s in a Name? The Legacy of Santo Domingo de Guzmán

Saint Domingo de Guzmán was a Spanish priest who lived in the 12th and 13th centuries. He founded the Order of Preachers, also known as the Dominican Order, which was dedicated to preaching the gospel and combating heresy. Saint Domingo was known for his zeal and devotion to spreading the teachings of the Church.

There was no dramatic act of martyrdom for Santo Domingo, though: He died of a fever in Bologna, Italy in 1221, and was canonized by the Catholic Church in 1234.

Divine Design: The Intricate Baroque Style of Templo de Santo Domingo de Guzmán Church

Mexican churches tend not to be subtle. The Templo de Santo Domingo de Guzmán Church is a masterclass in Baroque architecture, a visual feast, with intricate details both inside and out. The exterior is adorned with elaborate carvings and statues, featuring saints, angels and other religious figures. The façade is made of Cantera verde, the local green volcanic stone, which glows a lovely yellow in the sunshine. Three domes top the templo — two blue and white checkered ones atop the entrance and a larger red tile one to the side.

When we saw this woman posing in front of the church, we had to get in on the action.

Inside the church, visitors are treated to a riot of color and decoration. The walls and ceilings are covered in frescoes and murals featuring scenes from the life of Christ and the history of the Dominican Order.

The altarpiece, which was carved from a single piece of cedar, is gilded with gold leaf and decorated with intricate carvings of saints, cherubs and other religious motifs.

To the right of the nave is the Capilla del Rosario, or Chapel of the Rosary, with its own stunning altarpiece.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

There’s a museum attached to the church. Hopefully it’s open when you visit!

Sacred Treasures: The Artifacts and Exhibits of the Templo de Santo Domingo de Guzmán Church Museum

There’s a museum in the massive edifice as well, to the left of the main church entrance. Unfortunately it was closed when we visited, but it holds an impressive (and surprisingly diverse) collection of religious art, including paintings, sculptures and tapestries, housed in the former monastery of the Dominican Order.

One of the highlights of the museum is the collection of pre-Hispanic artifacts, including pottery, sculptures, and other objects from the Zapotec and Mixtec cultures. You can also see a wide range of religious art from the colonial period. There’s even a collection of contemporary art, with rotating exhibits featuring the work of local and international artists, as well vintage photographs and cameras. 

As our friend Kevin, who lives in town, says, “There’s a parade or festival every day in Oaxaca.” This indigenous dance troupe performed in the plaza in front of Santo Domingo de Guzmán.

When you’re in Oaxaca de Juárez, you’ll inevitably find yourself passing by the massive Templo de Santo Domingo de Guzmán. Be sure to stop inside and admire the gilded glory — and plan a tour of the Oaxaca Botanical Garden (Jardín Etnobotánico de Oaxaca) on the grounds of the former Dominican monastery behind the church. –Wally

Templo de Santo Domingo de Guzmán

Calle Macedonio Alcalá s/n
Centro
68000 Oaxaca de Juárez
Oaxaca
Mexico

 

When Did Jesus Become God? 5 Startling Findings in the Gospels

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John offer differing views of Christ’s divinity. Some say he became divine at his baptism, others that he has always been one with God. Plus: Did the idea of the Virgin Mary come from a misunderstanding?

Jesus was crucified and came to be viewed as divine after his resurrection. But as time went on, the Gospel writers altered this view, offering different takes on when Jesus became one with God.

Icon of the Crucifixion by Andreas Pavias, second half of the 15th century

What did the earliest Christians believe? The first writings about Jesus reveal that his original followers thought that he became divine upon his resurrection. 

But that’s not a belief shared in all of the books of the New Testament. In fact, there was hardly a consensus among early followers. “Different Christians in different churches in different regions had different views of Jesus, almost from the get-go,” writes Bart D. Ehrman in the 2014 book How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher From Galilee. 

“If Jesus claimed to be equal with God,
wouldn’t the earlier Gospels have mentioned it? ”

---

Here are five surprising findings revealed in a study of the Gospels.

Early Christians believed Jesus became divine upon his resurrection — but in the earliest Gospel, Mark, the timeline had been moved back to his baptism.

Theophany, an icon of the Baptism of the Lord, 20th century

1. The Gospel of Mark doesn’t mention that Mary was a virgin, and declares that Jesus became divine only after being baptized. 

According to Mark, Jesus was fully human up until the point that John the Baptist baptizes him. Once this happens, the Spirit of God descends as a dove and a voice from the heavens declares, “You are my beloved son, in you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:9-11). 

It is only after this has happened that Jesus begins his own ministry, now one with God, and is able to perform miracles (walk on water, raise the dead), cast out demons and forgive sins.  

The author of Luke literally changed the words of God because the earlier view that Jesus became divine after being baptized had become a heresy.

The Baptism of Christ by Domenico Ghirlandaio, 1490

2. A passage in Luke was changed from its original to downplay the statement that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism.

We don’t have any original documents of the New Testament. What we do have are copies made centuries later — many of which have been altered and differ from each other. One such passage about Jesus’ baptism in Luke tweaks what God says. “But in several of our old witnesses to the text, the voice says something else,” Ehrman writes. “It quotes Psalm 2:7: ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’” 

Why make this change? Ehrman says that “when scribes were copying the texts of Luke in later centuries, the view that Jesus was made the Son [of God] at the baptism was considered not just inadequate, but heretical.” Jesus was always divine, and any other teaching needed to be suppressed — even if that’s what early Christians believed.

What if Mary wasn’t a virgin? The earliest mentions of her don’t say anything of the sort — and the concept only sprung up in Matthew with a bad translation.

The Creation of Man by Natalie Lennard, 2017

3. The Gospel of Matthew mentions the virgin birth — but this is a misinterpretation of an early prophecy.

The book of the Old Testament prophet Isaiah declares, “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Never mind that Jesus isn’t actually called Immanuel; the author must have made the connection because the name translates to “God Is With Us.” Turns out the quote isn’t actually about the coming messiah at all. 

To top it off, Matthew mentions the virgin birth because of a bad translation. The author read a Greek translation of Isaiah many centuries later. The original Hebrew word, alma, means “young woman” but it was translated with the Greek parthenos, which carries the connotation of a young woman who has never had sex. It’s this misinterpretation that leads Ehrman and other biblical scholars to believe that this is the origin of Mary becoming the Virgin. 

As time when on, Jesus’ divinity got earlier and earlier, until the last Gospel, John, states that he had always been one with God.

Jesus Christ by Cathy Dobson, 1994

4. It’s not until John, the latest of the Gospels, that Jesus is declared to have always existed as an equal to God.

The author of John doesn’t hold that Jesus was exalted into a divine state; he is the same as God and was his human incarnation on Earth for a few decades. This is the view of Jesus held today by most Christians — but it’s certainly not what his earliest followers, including the 12 Disciples, believed. As previously mentioned, they thought that Jesus became divine only after his resurrection and later ascension into Heaven. 

The Gospel of John declares that Jesus is the Word of God and was essential to Creation. The text deliberately calls to mind the opening lines of Genesis.

The ceiling fresco of Chiesa di Sant’Orsola in Como, Italy, painted by Giovanni Domenico Caresana, 1616

5. An even higher view of Christ is found in the Gospel of John: that Jesus is the Word of God — and, as such, is responsible for creating the world. 

The Gospel of John is the latest of the four, written in Greek 60 or so years after Jesus died, in a different part of the world — Ephesus, in modern-day Turkey. 

“For John,” Ehrman writes, “Jesus was an equal with God and even shared his name and his glory in his preincarnate state.”

Take John 5:17-18, one of many examples: “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.”

Much discussion has taken place around the so-called Prologue of John, the first 18 verses of the book. It presents the most elevated view of Jesus’ divinity imaginable: “even before he appeared, he was the Logos of God himself, a being who was God, the one through whom the entire universe was created,” Ehrman explains. 

But if that was the case, and Jesus made such claims about himself, wouldn’t the earlier Gospels have mentioned it? There’s nothing to be found in Matthew, Mark or Luke, however. 

The four Gospel writers all have their own take on when Jesus became God.

Christ in mandorla with the Evangelists, from the Reichenau Illumination, early 11th century

Christians today tend not to take such a close look at the Gospels, not noticing the discrepancies and not aware of the historical evidence. It’s shocking to think that the form of Christianity practiced today doesn’t align with some of the views of the Four Gospels. John’s view of Jesus as one with (but somehow distinct from) God the Father has won out. But it seems as if it could easily have gone another way. –Wally

What Did the Earliest Christians Believe?

The original views of Christ differ significantly from current beliefs. No virgin birth, no divine status during his lifetime — instead, Jesus was a mortal like the rest of us, until God decided to resurrect him and he became the Son of God.

The first Christians didn’t believe that Jesus had been born of a virgin or was already divine. He was a typical human until God resurrected him.

The Resurrection by James Tissot, circa 1890

How can we know what the earliest Christians believed when the first writings about him are from 20 years after his death? 

Scholars turn to what’s called preliterary sources — that is, snippets of text, whether they’re hymns or creeds of faith, that have been inserted into later books of the Bible. You can tell they’re most likely earlier oral traditions that have been added because they not only use terminology found nowhere else in the works, but they also often present different theological views. 

For instance, in Romans 1:3-4, Paul describes Jesus as he “who was descended from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.”

The first part expresses a long-held belief by Jesus’ followers: that he was the promised messiah from the line of King David. This is a surprising inclusion for Paul, the earliest Christian author; nowhere else does he emphasize Jesus’ messiahship. 

The second part of the Bible verse holds a key element of early Christian belief: Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection. A similar snippet from Acts 13:32-33 posits the same view, even though that’s in stark contrast to what the author later writes (and is currently part of the Christian faith) — namely that Jesus was divine from the moment of his conception.

“There is no talk about Jesus being born of a virgin and certainly no talk of him being divine during his lifetime.”

— Bart D. Ehrman, “How Jesus Became God”

Jesus was said to have been resurrected and, some time after, ascended into Heaven to be with God.

The Ascension by Benjamin West, 1801

What’s most striking is that “there is no talk about Jesus being born of a virgin and certainly no talk of him being divine during his lifetime,” writes Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher From Galilee, published in 2014. “He is a human figure, possibly a messiah. But then at a critical point of his existence, he is elevated from his previous lowly existence down here with us, the other mere mortals, to sit at God’s right hand in a position of honor, power and authority.”

Ehrman emphasizes the importance of this act: “the man Jesus is showered with divine favors beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, honored by God to an unbelievable extent, elevated to a divine status on a level with God himself, sitting at his right hand.”

This belief helped give a positive spin to a man whose followers must have been disheartened that their messiah didn’t destroy their oppressors but was instead tortured and executed by them. It certainly wasn’t what any of them was expecting of their hero. 

But Jesus’ “resurrection confirmed for them that even though he had not conquered his political enemies — the way the messiah was supposed to — God had showered his special favor on him by raising him from the dead,” Ehrman writes. 

Early Christians thought that Jesus was indeed their messiah despite having been crucified. God resurrected him and made him his adopted son and heir — with all the power and glory that involved.

The Resurrection of Christ by Rafael, 1502

Adopted Sons

To the people of the time, there wasn’t any stigma attached to being an adopted son — in fact, quite the opposite. In Ancient Rome, the adopted son was the chosen heir. “He was made great because he had demonstrated the potential for greatness, not because of the accident of his birth,” Ehrman explains. 

Take Julius Caesar. He had a son, Caesarion, with Cleopatra — but not too many people have heard of him. Instead, it’s his nephew and adopted son, Octavian, who has a major place in history: He went on to become Augustus, the first emperor of the Roman Empire.

So when the earliest Christians talked about Jesus being God’s adopted son, they were saying this: “He received all of God’s power and privileges. He could defy death. He could forgive sins. He could be the future judge of the earth. He could rule with divine authority,” Ehrman writes. “He was for all intents and purposes God.” –Wally

Who Really Wrote the New Testament?

Many, if not most, of the Scriptures were written by people falsely claiming to be the apostles or other leaders of the early Christian church, says biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman. That means a lot of books of the Bible are actually forgeries.

The book of Mark, like the rest of the Gospels, was written anonymously. Why, then, do we believe they were products of the men that bear their names?

If your answer to any conundrum is, “It’s one of God’s miracles,” then this article is not for you. I seek the truth in facts — fully admitting that as we gain more and more knowledge, our previous beliefs can shift. 

I don’t subscribe to the school of thought that blind faith can solve any mystery. I think about what is scientifically feasible, what archaeology and history research reveals, and base my judgments from there. Virgins do not give birth; men are not raised from the dead; and illiterate peasants do not write well-argued religious tracts.

“Most of the apostles were illiterate and could not in fact write.

They could not have left an authoritative writing if their souls depended on it.”

— Bart D. Ehrman, “Forged”

All that being said, this post is not about my beliefs. These are the findings of Bart D. Ehrman in his 2011 work, Forged: Writing in the Name of God — Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. 

“Most of the apostles were illiterate and could not in fact write,” Ehrman declares. “They could not have left an authoritative writing if their souls depended on it.” 

Bart D. Ehrman was once an evangelical Christian who took everything in the Bible literally. Now he’s a biblical scholar whose works, like Forged, offer shocking truths about the supposed word of God.

So who wrote the New Testament, then? Most of the texts were composed by people with extensive schooling — that is, undoubtedly, members of the upper class elite.

Why would someone lie about writing these works? “Quite simply, it was to get a hearing for their views,” Ehrman explains. “If you were an unknown person, but had something really important to say and wanted people to hear you — not so they could praise you, but so they could learn the truth — one way to make that happen was to pretend you were someone else, a well-known author, a famous figure, an authority.”

Here are four shocking revelations about who actually wrote the New Testament (or, perhaps I should say who didn’t write it):

Peter and Paul had differing views of Christianity, but both were chosen as the “authors” of forged books in the Bible to lend authority to the writings.

1. Ancient writers forged writings to address infighting among early Christian groups.

Many people think of Christianity as always having been a well-defined, cohesive religion — as if the books of the New Testament were handed down from on high like the tablets of the 10 Commandments Moses received. But the truth is, the fledgling religion was a big old mess for hundreds of years.

“Christians in the early centuries of the church were in constant conflict and felt under attack from all sides,” Ehrman writes. “They were at odds with Jews, who considered their views to be an aberrant and upstart perversion of the ancestral traditions of Israel. They were at odds with pagan peoples and governments, who considered them a secretive and unauthorized religion that posed a danger to the state. And they were virulently at odds with each other, as different Christian teachers and groups argued that they and they alone had a corner on the truth and other Christian teachers and groups flat-out misunderstood the truths that Christ had proclaimed during his time on earth.” 

So, numerous writers turned to forgery to give more weight to their arguments — and nowhere was that more prevalent than among varying factions of early Christians. Those works favored by church leaders centuries after Jesus were chosen to become the New Testament. Those that were deemed heretical (such as, say, the Gnostic Gospel of Judas), were not only left out but hunted down and destroyed in an effort to totally obliterate their teachings.

The book of Jude was written too late to have been authored by Jesus’ brother.

The New Testament book of Jude, for example, claims to be written by Jesus’ brother. But the author is talking about false teachers (which he strangely calls “waterless souls” and “fruitless trees, twice dead, uprooted”) who have infiltrated the religion and need to be rooted out — something that didn't happen until much later than Jude’s lifetime.

James was the head of the first Christian church, but couldn’t have written the book of the New Testament that bears his name.

And the book of James was supposedly penned by another of Jesus’ brothers, this one the head of the first Christian church, in Jerusalem. But not only was this book written after James’ death, the author is fluent in Greek and its rhetoric. Even if the timing worked out, the historical James, Ehrman says, was an Aramaic-speaking peasant who almost certainly never learned to read.

The New Testament itself declares that Peter was illiterate — so how the heck could he have written all those Bible books?

2. Peter was an illiterate fisherman who died years before 1 and 2 Peter were written.

Like the book of James, the book of 1 Peter was written by someone who was very well educated, spoke Greek and practiced rhetoric. 

What do we know of Peter from the Bible? He was a fisherman from the town of Capernaum in Galilee. Archeological and historical records reveal that “Peter’s town was a backwoods Jewish village made up of hand-to-mouth laborers who did not have an education,” Ehrman writes. “Everyone spoke Aramic. Nothing suggests that anyone could speak Greek. Nothing suggests that anyone in town could write. As a lower-class fisherman, Peter would have started work as a young boy and never attended school.”

In fact, in Acts 4:13, Peter and his companion John are described as agrammatoi, a Greek word meaning “unlettered” — that is, illiterate.

There’s also the issue of timing. Tradition holds that Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero in 64 CE. But the author of 1 Peter alludes to Rome as “Babylon” — that is, the destroyer of Jerusalem and the Temple. The Romans didn’t destroy Jerusalem until 70 CE, six years after Peter died. 

Peter, like all of the apostles, believed that Jesus’ Second Coming would take place during his lifetime.

In addition, the author of 2 Peter comes up with a defense as to why Jesus hasn’t returned as the Messiah. To God, “one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as one day.” So time is relative and just be patient.

But such an argument wouldn’t have been necessary for a disciple writing so soon after Jesus’ crucifixion. The Second Coming was predicted “within this generation” (Mark 13:30) and before the disciples “tasted death” (Mark 9:1). At the time Peter lived, Jesus could have still been right on schedule.

Paul actually did write some of the books of the New Testament — well, seven of the 13 attributed to him.

3. Good news! More than half of the letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament are authentic.

That means, of course, that six of the 13 are forgeries, though. Almost all biblical scholars agree that these seven letters were indeed written by the apostle Paul: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. 

In the other books of the Bible attributed to Paul, there are words and phrases and writing styles not found in those that have been verified. And there are points made about Paul’s religious philosophy that just don’t jibe with what we know about his beliefs. For instance, the man was anti-marriage (even though he himself got hitched). In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul preaches that people should remain single. Why worry about procreation when the Rapture is going to happen any day?

But in the Pastorals (as 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are referred to), “Paul” is insisting that church leaders be married. Side note: Why has this not become an argument to end the tradition of priests being celibate?

Scholars agree that at least a couple of the letters Paul wrote while under house arrest in Rome were actually penned by him.

Which brings us to another problem of timing: When Paul was alive, there weren’t any church leaders. His view was that every Christian was endowed with a supernatural gift (healing, say, or speaking in tongues) and all were equal: “In Christ there is neither slave nor free, neither male nor female,” he declares in Galatians 3:28.

Paul believed Jesus’ Second Coming would happen unexpectedly, “like a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2), and he would be around to experience it. It wasn’t until a generation or more later, when people were still waiting, that some found it necessary to think more long term and offer up excuses. 

“The author of 2 Thessalonians, claiming to be Paul, argues that the end is not, in fact, coming right away,” Ehrman explains. “There will be some kind of political or religious uprising and rebellion, and an Antichrist-like figure will appear who will take his seat in the Temple of Jerusalem and declare himself to be God.” 

How could the same Paul declare in 1 Thessalonians that Jesus’ return would happen soon and suddenly, and then in 2 Thessalonians renege on that and state that a whole series of events had to take place first? 

And in Ephesians, there’s also an issue with Paul’s biography. The writer includes himself as someone who, before meeting Jesus, was guilty of “doing the will of the flesh and senses.” But that doesn’t fit with the man who says, in undisputed letters, he had been “blameless” when it came to the “righteousness of the law” (Philippians 3:4-5).

An angel is said to have whispered the words of the Gospel to St. Matthew. But it turns out there’s evidence Matthew didn’t actually write the book of the Bible named for him.

4. One-third of the authors of the books of the New Testament — including the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — were actually anonymous. 

In fact, those texts remained anonymous for about a century. It wasn’t until around 180-185 CE that the Gospels were definitely named for the first time, by a church father and heresy hunter named Irenaeus. 

And how did those authors get chosen? To lend the Gospels authority (and help assure they made the cut when choosing what would go into the New Testament), the writers were declared to be two disciples and two close associates of disciples. 

Matthew, for instance, was a Jew, and tradition held that he had written a Gospel. So the first was assigned to him since it was deemed the most “Jewish.” 

Church leaders ascribed authors of the Gospels about 100 years after they were written — anonymously, no less. There’s no evidence Mark actually wrote the book that bears his name, for example.

The second Gospel was determined to be by Mark on the scantest of evidence; he seems to have been chosen because of his connection to Peter. 

When you hear the reasons the Gospels were assigned authors, like the book of Luke, you’ll realize how flimsy the evidence really is.

The author of Luke also wrote the book of Acts, where he proclaims to be a companion of Paul’s. “Because Acts stresses that Christianity succeeded principally among Gentiles, the author himself may have been a Gentile,” Ehrman writes. “Since there was thought to be a Gentile named Luke among Paul’s companions, he was assigned the Third Gospel.” So it goes.

John, the son of Zebedee, was assigned the Gospel with his name by process of elimination.

John, meanwhile, was supposed to be written by “the Beloved Disciple” it mentions (John 20: 20-24). In early tradition, the closest apostles to Jesus were Peter, James and John. Peter was named elsewhere in the book, and James had already been martyred. So that left John, the son Zebedee, as the author of the fourth Gospel.

Not the most convincing of evidence — but the Gospels couldn’t remain anonymous if they were going to become part of the Bible.

But wait — there’s more. In addition, Ehrman writes, “The anonymous book of Hebrews was assigned to Paul, even though numbers of early Christian scholars realized that Paul did not write it, as scholars today agree. And three short anonymous writings with some similarities to the Fourth Gospel were assigned to the same author, and so were called 1, 2 and 3 John. None of these books claims to be written by the authors to whom they were ultimately assigned.”

---

For biblical literalists, this evidence must be disturbing. Not only does it show that the New Testament contains lies, it makes us question the very beliefs at the core of what we know as Christianity. 

That’s something to take up with God — or, perhaps, Ehrman. As he writes, “The use of deception to promote the truth may well be considered one of the most unsettling ironies of the early Christian traditions.” –Wally

---

Nuestra Señora del Carmen in San Ángel, Mexico City

A tour of this Colonial Baroque Catholic church built for the Discalced Carmelites in one of CDMX’s most charming neighborhoods.

Wally’s a bit obsessed with the domes of Nuestra Señora del Carmen in San Ángel in Mexico City.

Those domes! Those wondrous brightly tiled domes! I didn’t want to stop looking at them. There was something captivating about their faded glory. 

We spotted them in our Uber en route to el Bazaar Sábado, the Saturday Market in the charming CDMX colonia (neighborhood) of San Ángel. 

“Nuestra Señora del Carmen was built for the strangely named order of Discalced Carmelites (known colloquially as Barefoot Carmelites for their tendency to forgo footwear). ”

The church was founded for the order of Discalced Carmelites (aka the Barefoot Carmelites).

So, after we finished shopping at the market (and being told we couldn’t drink our beers while walking through the square outside), Duke and I knew we had to explore the church at the base of the hill. And thankfully, unlike in the States, we’ve found churches in Mexico to be unlocked any time we’ve wanted to go in. 

The church is designed in the Baroque Colonial style — with a plain façade and an ornate gilded altarpiece.

The Discalced Carmelites: Barefoot but Not Pregnant 

Design and construction of Nuestra Señora del Carmen was overseen by Fray Andrés de San Miguel between 1615 and 1626 for the strangely named order of Discalced Carmelites (known colloquially as Barefoot Carmelites for their tendency to forgo footwear). The order was established in 1562 by Saint Teresa of Avila, an epileptic Roman Catholic nun. 

The Barefoot Carmelite nuns stayed in their cloisters, “above all to lead a life of unceasing prayer in silence and solitude,” according to their official website. 

There’s more to the Carmen Complex than the church — including mummies!

El Carmen Complex

We weren’t able to wander the entire grounds, which includes a former convent and monastery that’s now a museum (complete with mummies!). 

The property extended quite far, and the scenic orchards are part of what attracted the aristocracy to make the neighborhood its home — giving birth to the colonia of San Ángel. 

The complex was taken over by the government after the War of Reform, which was fought between the Liberals and Conservatives from 1857 and 1860. The lefties won and subsequently greatly diminished the power of the Catholic Church, stripping it of most of its property. The local school was shut down and was used by the town council. Parts of the Carmelite grounds became a prison and barracks. 

The church, also known as the Templo del Carmen de San Ángel, is in the Colonial Baroque style — somehow austere in parts, such as the façade, and yet over-the-top ornate in others (that altarpiece!). 

The Baroque movement was all about drama — rounded edges and shimmering gold create a dizzying effect.

We spent some time exploring the church and all of its offshoot chapels, trying to be respectful of those praying within. Heavens knows we’ll be back to admire those beautiful domes — and to see the creepy mummies, of course. –Wally

Nuestra Señora del Carmen (Templo del Carmen de San Ángel)

Avenida Revolución s/n
San Ángel
Álvaro Obregón
01000 Ciudad de México
CDMX
México

 

Notre-Dame Before the Fire

We passed by Notre-Dame de Paris every morning during our week-long visit. Now you can admire some photos of the famous cathedral before the damage from the 2019 fire.

Wally jumps for joy in the beautiful garden behind Notre-Dame Cathedral, which glows a warm pale yellow.

It was the perfect morning tradition. In 2013 we visited Paris and stayed at our friends Michael and Kent’s apartment in Montparnasse. A few days into our trip my parents arrived and Duke and I would ride the Métro to meet my parents, who were staying at a cute little hotel on Île Saint-Louis. We got off on Île de la Cité and walked past Notre-Dame, before crossing the bridge to meet my mom and dad at the oh-so-Parisian Saint-Régis café at the foot of the street. 

Wally’s parents stayed on the neighboring isle, so Notre-Dame was a short walk away en route to the Métro.

We felt so lucky to have this morning ritual: a stroll past what is arguably the world’s most famous cathedral, with its beautiful gardens and statues of saints and gargoyles peering out from its façade. 

Saints alive! (Actually, the fact that they’re saints means they’re long dead.)

Gargoyles (chimères en français) do double duty: They scare away evil spirits and act as rainspouts.

While impressive, the interior has always struck me as a bit too claustrophobic, gloomy and choked with incense — more suited to a mystery religion to honor a pagan deity than to inspire awe in the Catholic God. I’m much more of a Sacré-Cœur type of guy.

The sides of the cathedral are dark, lit only by candlelight.

Sometimes we’d drop my parents off at their hotel in the evening. We saw the cathedral in all kinds of light. It was the backdrop to our vacation. 

An electrical short most likely caused the fire that damaged Notre-Dame in 2019.

Notre-Dame and the Fire of 2019

Because Notre-Dame was such an integral part of our trip and an iconic symbol of Paris, it was with great shock and sadness that I watched news footage of the fire that consumed the cathedral on April 15, 2019. It was horrifying and heartbreaking. 

The blaze started in the attic (who knew Notre-Dame even had an attic?!), causing the spire to plummet like a spear, piercing the stone vault of the 850-year-old cathedral. The most likely cause? An electrical short.

The spire, designed by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, melted from the heat of the blaze, plunging down into the heart of the church. It once pointed heavenward 295 feet high.

Two of the biggest issues from the fire are toxic lead from the melted spire and damage to the flying buttresses, which support the vaulted ceiling.

Les pompiers, the French firefighters, had been trained how to handle such an emergency. They used low-pressure hoses and focused on saving priceless artworks and the bell towers. 

While the damage wasn’t as devastating as it could have been, one of the major issues now is that the roof and spire were made of lead, which melted and poured the toxic liquid into the damaged building. Some of it formed stalactites of sorts that remain to this day. 

And the very structure of Notre-Dame is at risk: The architectural innovation that supports its vaulted ceiling, the flying buttresses, tottered dangerously, threatening to collapse the structure before being shored up by temporary wood bracing.

Here’s hoping that this magnificent cathedral is someday soon renovated to its former glory. In the meantime, here are some of the photos we took on our visit before the fire. –Wally

Notre-Dame served as the backdrop of Wally and Duke’s trip to Paris.

I never promised you a rose garden — but there’s one behind Notre-Dame.

Duke in front of the bell towers, which were a priority for firefighters to save.

Duke puts Wally on a pedestal.

The carvings on the façade of Notre-Dame are quite ornate.

Notre-Dame is one of the most impressive examples of Gothic architecture.

This guy has lost his head. Saint Denis of Paris was a 3rd century bishop who was decapitated for his religious beliefs.

Adam and Eve — and the serpent, depicted as a temptress

A tarnished bas-relief

Sharp angles and monsters on Notre-Dame’s exterior

Creepy (but cool) gargoyles, their screams set in stone

Medieval griffons form this geometric pattern.

Sculptures of the kings of Judah line the façade of Notre-Dame, which was dedicated to the Virgin Mary.

One of the more hideous gargoyles seen at Notre-Dame

The main aisle of the cathedral is narrow — though surely groundbreaking at the time of its construction.

Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

A statue of Joan of Arc (known as Jeanne d’Arc in her native France)

H is for…?

The stained glass windows add vibrant splashes of color to the otherwise gloomy interior.

Light a votive candle and admire one the famous Rose Windows.

Doubting Thomas pokes one of Jesus’ wounds after the resurrection.

A container in the cathedral is filled with letters people have written, one supposes, to God.

A model of the cathedral

Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris
6 Parvis Notre-Dame
Place Jean-Paul II
75004 Paris
France