Movie Son of God ? Mary Magdalene shown as an apostle?

Is it just me or in the Movie Son of God they give an idea that Mary Magdalene is one of the 12 apostles… does that bother anybody ?

rubenzillo asks : "Is it just me, or in the Movie Son of God they give an idea that Mary Magdalene is one of the 12 apostles… does that bother anybody ?

I imagine that most people who watch the Movie will know that the 12 were all men (and some viewers will know most of the Apostles’ names).

Certainly Mary was one of Jesus’ closest friends, and
she was there with Jesus, while He was on the Cross, and
she was told by the 2 angels that Jesus has RISEN on Easter morning, and
Jesus exorcized 7 demons from her (hopefully leaving her a nice person).

So for me, when I see the Movie, I will probably NOT care if it seems like they have moved Mary up above the rest.
At least, unless they actually call her one of the 12.

The Catholic New Service gave the movie a review:

They did not seem to think the movie implied that the Twelve were other than the Gospels described, because this possibility was not mentioned at all. It is less difficult to believe that the Lord would have had women following him so closely than to believe that the Twelve would have been comfortable with it, based on their take on the woman at the well in the Gospel of John.

A movie usually takes certain liberties. In our time there would be no shock value in a mixed group of adults who were not relatives as there would have been at the time, while to depict the women walking together in a close-knit group apart from the men would send a message that would not have been sent by women walking so close to men not their relatives, even in a group. The director would want to group the actors so his audience gets the* intended *message, which is that for his time Our Lord was exceptionally inclusive of the company of women.

Yes, it’s just you. :stuck_out_tongue: :wink:

Just because she’s in the picture with Jesus and the Apostles?

Well she was around quite a bit. I took as they were doing a condensed version of the story and didn’t have time go into the diciple/ apposle difference so they just showed her a lot. I think they also did it to show that Christ wasn’t discriminating about women and included them in his ministry and travels …again there wasn’t time to go into that and they probably assumed most of the audience would aready know this as well so why explain to the audience something they already knew with limited time. I still like the Gospel of John or Jesus of Nazareth much better this version was ok just don’t see a reason to watch it again. .

There are at least two, and probably three, women in that picture, BTW.

Is the film now being shown all over the country? One of the Protestant Churches near me is showing it at their church for their own members. Haven’t heard a word about it at the Catholic Church, although it is available for churches for a lower fee. I may mention it to my Priest, but doubt he’ll do it. There are a number of large theaters about 40 - 50 miles west of me, and once the ice and snow are gone I may check and see if it’s showing there at all. Would love to see it. The Producers/Directors (Roma Downey & her husband) are both Catholics, very devout, and they probably did a good job on the film.

In the painting of The Last Supper by DaVinci, it has long been suspected that the red-haired person to the right of Jesus is a woman and, presumably, Mary Magdalene risen to Apostle.

Mary Magdalene played so prominent a part in the Gospels as well as Apocrypha that it wouldn’t surprise me if Jesus ‘made Mary male’ and re-named her Matthias. Perhaps others have decided DaVinci was ‘in the know’ on this subject, after all.

For me, it doesn’t make any difference one way or the other. Jesus is still the Way, the Truth and the Life. :slight_smile:

Somebody has a big imagination. Who is Dan Brown anyway. someone that popped up 2,000 years later with his own imagination of what happened then. He’ll soon be forgotten. History has a way of reducing these things. God Bless, Memaw

I went to see the movie the other day, I also had the impression it placed Mary Magdalene on par with the apostles. Not that I think it strange that women would have travelled with Jesus and the 12 apostles, but I do think it strange that one woman would have done so.
The movie definitely has a protestant slant. It went out of its way to not make a big deal of Baptism. When Nicodemus ask what it meant to be born again, the words about water was totally omitted. And at the ascension, there was not command to baptize. And a movie cannot possibly show everything that occurred in the Gospels, but its hard to imagine making a movie about the Gospels and leaving out John 6.
It was a good movie overall, not the highest quality film-making ever, but good. The actor who played Peter was very good. John was portrayed much too old, but was portrayed well.

No serious art scholar has ever thought that the person next to Jesus was anyone other than John, the beloved disciple. The only one who thinks the person in that painting is a woman is Dan Brown and those who he managed to convince through his work of fiction “The Da Vinci Code” (emphasis on the word “fiction”).

There are many who have called Mary Magdalene the “Apostle to the Apostles”. It would just make sense the she showed up in the ‘list of the 12’ somehow, although it would not have been helpful to have her named as a female at the time, given the general attitude toward women then, and through the ages. I certainly don’t have the answers to the mysteries…I just love the questions. :wink:

Wiki Quote:

In his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem (“On the dignity and vocation of women”, part 67-69) dated 15 August 1988, Pope John Paul II dealt with the Easter events in relation to the women being present at the tomb after the Resurrection, in a section entitled ‘First Witness of the Resurrection’:

The women are the first at the tomb. They are the first to find it empty. They are the first to hear ‘He is not here. He has risen, as he said.’[Mt 28:6] They are the first to embrace his feet.[cf. Mt 28:9] The women are also the first to be called to announce this truth to the Apostles.[Mt 28:1-10] [Lk 24:8-11] The Gospel of John (cf. also Mk 16:9 emphasizes the “special role of Mary Magdalene”. She is the first to meet the Risen Christ. …] Hence she came to be called the apostle of the Apostles. Mary Magdalene was the first eyewitness of the Risen Christ, and for this reason she was also the first to bear witness to him before the Apostles. This event, in a sense, crowns all that has been said previously about Christ entrusting divine truths to women as well as men.

—John Paul II [63]

I don’t think it would make sense if she ended up on a “list of the 12”. That would run counter to what the history and evidence have suggested for the past 2,000 years. :shrug:

Yes, she is called the “apostle to the apostles.” The word apostle literally means “one who is sent.” And in the post-Resurrection accout, she certainly is the one who is sent to the apostles to share with them the news of Christ’s Resurrection.

The problem comes in when people take things like this and extrapolate from it that Mary Magdalene was identical to the apostles or that this somehow means that she shares in the ordained priesthood because of it. Pope John Paul II would be the first one to correct such erroneous interpretations.

But none of that really has anything to do with the fact that she’s not the one in the painting of the Last Supper. :shrug:

Gnostic apochrypha?

Gnostics hated reproduction (“the work of the Demiurge”) and considered women a class below. Some sects had three categories for people. Also, they were pagans (a mix of Persian, Egiptian, Greek and Jewish elements) trying to copy Christianism. They were similar to the mistery cults from that age.

It bothered my husband and me, not because we are anti-woman. Our dear Lord raised the dignity of all people, but especially woman. She was with them alone and even had a speaking part at the sermon on the mount. We just read that scripture at Mass, and she literally spoke in the place of Andrew or Phillip. I realize that Holy Mother Church is rich in Tradition as well. Changing facts to suit the culture is a problem.

Small little acceptances here and there add up.

I also saw the film, finally, and found it inspiring. Yes, Mary Magdalene traveled with the disciples and Jesus around both Galilee and Judea. So did 3 or 4 other women, and Mary, Mother of Jesus also was with the group at times. However, Mary Magdalene, although sent as an “apostle” (lower case “a”, please note == messenger) to tell the Apostles (capitalized) to tell them of the Resurrection, she was NOT one of the twelve. In the culture of that time, no woman could have traveled to different parts of the Roman Empire to speak in Synagogues or in public places about the Son of God. She’d have been at least stoned, the first time she tried! The original 12, reduced to 11 after the defection of Judas, then an election of another of the “70” who followed Jesus quite a lot (almost all men, a few accompanied by their wives) to replace Judas, made them back to 12 Apostles, to whom Jesus gave His command to “teach all nations” the truth of God.

As for the film, I didn’t go to pick it apart, but to see another version of the ministry, life, death and resurrection of my Lord. I think it was well made, the Portuguese/Brazilian actor who played the part of Jesus was very good. He looked like a Jew (or a Roman, actually – most of the Mediteranean peoples were similar in appearance) and I liked the fact that he wasn’t blonde-haired and blue-eyed, as so many others were in films! My favorite is still “Jesus of Nazareth” as far as films are concerned, but “Son of God” will be in my DVD collection also as soon as it is available. A friend of mine from my Catholic Parish went with me to see it, and we both were in tears through the Crucifixion scenes – very well done!! I certainly know that the Magdalene was NOT an Apostle – Jesus gave that gift of consecration to the 12 men chosen for the work. However, the film does show a very inclusive Jesus, Who recognized that women also are children of God, able to understand and comprehend the truths He taught. As a woman, I appreciate that recognition that He included women among His followers, which was certainly against the customs of His time on Earth, when women were most certainly second class citizens. Having been on the receiving end of women not being treated equally in law or financial matters most of my life, I have always loved the fact that His Catholic Church acknowledges women as having an important role in the life of the Church. We don’t have the Priesthood, nor would I want that. I love being a part of the “Body of Christ” as a woman, with my own place, my own gifts, and my own talents, which no man could fill, but which a woman can. Personally think it was a fairly well-made movie, although I would have included some things they did not. (Especially about baptism). I think the idea of Faith came through clearly as a necessity, as did Obedience to God and His Priests/Popes.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit