It's time for the Mary Magdalene myth to end

[TexasTowelie]

Here’s who Mary Magdalene was: one of Jesus Christ’s original followers, the last to stay with him while he was nailed to the cross and, Christians believe, the first to see his empty tomb and his resurrection.

Here’s who she wasn’t: a reformed or forgiven prostitute.

Yet on Easter Sunday, Christianity’s holiest day, that’s exactly how she will be described in some sermons and how she continues to be portrayed in much of popular culture.

The woman dubbed in the Bible the “Apostle of the Apostles” has spent two millennia being reduced to a seductress. In some ways, Mary Magdalene’s story is the story of modern women everywhere.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/13/its-time-for-the-mary-magdalene-myth-to-end/

[Warpy]

1. And the "woman taken in sin" was never identified

and could easily have been a rape victim, not a prostitute or faithless wife.

One of the Gnostic gospels is the Magalene Gospel. It reads like it was written by someone who had become literate later in life and is worth searching out.

Rome has always tried to destroy her reputation and suppress her role in early Christianity.

[ProfessorPlum]

34. And the woman taken in sin passage was a later addition to the text

it is not in our oldest and best manuscripts of the gospels.

Added later by some imaginative scribe, apparently.

[Hokie]

2. So why do we care about this myth?

It is a 2000 year old allegorical fairy tale.

[Warpy]

9. Because it's evidence of how Rome brutally suppressed women

who had taken a very early, active role in developing and spreading Christianity.

That's why it matters. It's evidence of a robbery.

[Gore1FL]

3. The real myth that should end is that either she or Jesus actually existed.

The embrace of fantasy over reality has given a lot of people excuses to justify pretty horrific beliefs.

[HopeAgain]

7. So why do you even care about this thread?

If you don't believe, fine but don't be a jerk and try to keep others from having a discussion that interests them.

If anyone demonstrated half the bigotry that many people throw at religion on here towards anything else, they would be banned from the site.

[Mariana]

12. Would you please explain how, exactly,

Gore1Fl was trying to keep others from having a discussion that interests them? He/she posted a comment, which does absolutely nothing to prevent you from discussing the topic of the thread with others.

[HopeAgain]

16. Your right the person was just being a troll

[Gore1FL]

26. So far you have called me a Jerk, a troll, and a bigot.

Would Jesus approve? I'm pretty sure that the DU rules wouldn't, but don't worry. I don't typically alert on posts.

As a side note, the word you are looking for is "You're," not "Your."

[Gore1FL]

29. It's as likely he said that as the rest of quotes attributed to him. nt

[Curmudgeoness]

43. Maybe you are just new to this group,

but the Religion group is here for discussion of religion, and is open to everyone, believers and non-believers. If you are looking for only like-minded comments, there are plenty of other groups where you can be in an echo chamber.

[HopeAgain]

46. Yes, but...

If I were to go on a forum about race or ethnicity and say stereotypical and negative things about their culture and respond with "I can say it because it is true," then I would be immediately in violation of the terms. But if somebody says faith/Christianity has done nothing but cause horrible things and follow it with I can say that because it is true, it is an "open discussion."

I really believe there is a double standard and anti-religious bias on this site. This was a thread that was not intended to invite people's slams on Christianity, but someone feels obligated to slam Christianity anytime it is mentioned, no matter the discussion topic, on this forum.

Our Fourteenth Amendment protects people because of their religion, and although I know it doesn't apply here, it shows us it carries the same status and protections as a classification of race or national origin. If I spoke about race or national origin on here the way people slam Christians, I would be banned.

Think about it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. We have thought about it.

If I were to go on a forum about race or ethnicity and say stereotypical and negative things about their culture and respond with "I can say it because it is true," then I would be immediately in violation of the terms. But if somebody says faith/Christianity has done nothing but cause horrible things and follow it with I can say that because it is true, it is an "open discussion."

That is because religion is not a race, an ethnicity, or a culture in and of itself. Religion is ideas, and unlike superficial biological features, ideas can be of predictive and descriptive use.

Furthermore, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual preference... these things have no measurable, intrinsic effect on others. The color of a man's skin neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Religion, on the other hand, does not play nice with others. It does not keep its hands to itself. And so for as long as religion remains an imposition on my life, I shall reserve the right to criticize it.

I really believe there is a double standard and anti-religious bias on this site.

As any atheist will tell you, really believing something doesn't make it true. Especially when one accounts for selection bias.

This was a thread that was not intended to invite people's slams on Christianity, but someone feels obligated to slam Christianity anytime it is mentioned, no matter the discussion topic, on this forum.

This is a forum, not a soapbox. If the OP doesn't want atheists talking about their religion, they are in the wrong place. There are several safe haven groups where religious sentiment is, as a matter of policy, protected. Post in any one of these places and be not concerned that wicked atheists might spring forth from the shadows to injure you so with their opinions.

Our Fourteenth Amendment protects people because of their religion, and although I know it doesn't apply here, it shows us it carries the same status and protections as a classification of race or national origin.

This is just silly. Religion is a protected class, in that it is illegal to deny, say, employment or housing to people on the basis of their religion alone. It does not, in the court of popular opinion, protect religion from its own bad reputation. You are equivocating legal protections with "protection" more broadly.

If I spoke about race or national origin on here the way people slam Christians, I would be banned.

I'd say it depends.

I don't have a problem with people of color criticizing white people. Society is structured in such a way that they are disadvantaged to whites, and they should be able to complain about it without some malodorous twit threatening to derail them by loudly proclaiming, "Not all white people are racist!"

I have a similarly difficult time summoning sympathy for the religious. They are 75% of the American population and hold virtually every position of power in local, state, and federal government. What some atheist says about you on the internet has absolutely zero potential to affect your life in a meaningful way. I mean, I'm sorry your feelings are hurt, but I got religious people trying to put people like me out of work. So, there's that.

[HopeAgain]

48. Wow...

You just endorsed discrimination. I guess that is your choice.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. No, that post was about criticism, not discrimination

It is important that everyone learn there is a fundamental difference between the two.

[Act_of_Reparation]

81. O RLY.

And how did I do that?

[Mariana]

50. I have a few suggestions for you.

One of these groups may be more to your liking:

Interfaith Group - "A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group."

If that's the kind of environment you want, that may be the best group for you to go to for discussion of religious topics.

Another, more oriented toward Christianity in particular:

Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith - "A group for Christians and Christian-friendly persons who would like to have an open discussion about our faith and its role in the world around us. Our group will provide a safe haven for discussion and support, and find ways to express our beliefs in positive, non-threatening ways."

The Religion group permits criticism of religion, in any thread about any subject. It's been that way for a very long time and it's not likely to change any time soon.

[HopeAgain]

57. Yes this has devolved to the "is religion evil" forum

Regardless of the OP topic...

[Mariana]

58. You know, Jesus had something to say

about this kind of thing, and what to do when it happens.

Matthew 5: 11-12 - 11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

[HopeAgain]

59. I don't feel persecuted

Just disappointed by so many intolerant Democrats.

[Mariana]

64. It's actually not many at all

but regardless of the numbers, this is one of the places for them to criticize religion.

By they way, a religious person who comes on here making flatly dishonest statements (like, say, accusing a poster of trying to shut down discussion when the poster did no such thing) does not help to engender positive feelings toward religion.

[HopeAgain]

67. Who said I was religious?

I said I am disappointed with the fact that every time someone raises a topic, people just launch off on the same arrogant religion is bad, religion is a myth over and over. I never claimed to represent any religion.

[Mariana]

69. Who said I was talking about you?

Do you think disappointment justifies dishonesty and misrepresentation? It is possible to express disagreement with or disapproval of someone's statements without lying about them or calling them names.

[rug]

70. I will.

The evidence in your post is overwhelming.

[Lordquinton]

66. No, it hasn't

If you're looking for the "Religion is good" channel you have to look elsewhere. This group promotes discussion of religion, even if you don't like hearing the dark side of it. If you don't like that, there are like 13 groups here dedicated to various religious topics you can visit.

[rug]

71. What is going on is not discussion.

A group of people weaving straw into pinatas is a stupid activity. It is not discussion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. 'Straw'? Post #7 made accusations of bigotry, and claimed a member tried to 'stop discussion'

just by posting an opinion (in a thread about about the identification of the 'sinful woman' and Mary Magdalene) about whether they were real people at all. Now, that post #7 is the strawman if anything is. Since the OP article was about what you know is correct about people, or what is a story made up later (eg conflating the 'sinful woman' with Magdalene), #3 was a reasonable post. After #7, the posts have been about whether religion should be granted immunity from criticism - what #7 was asking for, along with the insults of a member. It's discussion about what is permissible on DU, or in society.

[rug]

78. No, what post #7 pointed out was the derailment of a thread by people who don't like the topis.

That's meta. What is also meta is accusing another member of bigotry, as im post #73.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. No, the accusation of bigotry was in #7, not in #73

In #73 I pointed it out. #7 said: "If anyone demonstrated half the bigotry that many people throw at religion on here towards anything else, they would be banned from the site."

#3 was an opinion about a myth "that should end" - because the OP article is about a myth that should end. Its didn't derail the topic at all. #7 was what changed the sub-thread into a meta-discussion, because it was about how people post on DU - the quote given above, and "why do you even care about this thread?".

This is all totally obvious to anyone who reads this thread. But it's worth pointing out the total disconnection between what you type and reality.

[rug]

80. "Post #7 made accusations of bigotry"

nice try, muriel.

[Lordquinton]

82. That's basically what I was saying

And have been pointing out for a while. Glad you agree with me.

[Gore1FL]

25. I've read the bible. I've read Harry Potter too.

It's like arguing if Hermione Granger actually came from non-magical parents. You seem to to be the one trying to shut down discussion.

[guillaumeb]

36. Very very true.

The religion group is, ironically enough, the place for some few people to demonstrate their hatred of religion.

[DavidDvorkin]

40. True.

[Mme. Defarge]

4. Thank you!

In Orthodox Christian tradition she is one of the Holy Myrrh Bearers and has always been a revered saint and considered equal to the Apostles.

https://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints?contentid=136

Kali Anastasi!

[Enoki33]

5. You just reinforced my disbelief in all organized religion.

[zentrum]

6. Amen!

Not to mention the immaculate conception.

Why are these people so totally freaked out by female sexuality? For two thousand years! And counting.

What is wrong with them?

[dflprincess]

17. The Immaculate Conception actually refers to the belief that the

the Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of Original Sin on her soul.

Just explaining it not defending it.

[zentrum]

20. Thing is, I think

...the concept of original sin came in centuries later, maybe with Augustine.

I think the literal, non-interpretive reading is that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost---God, basically. Hence the Son of God.

But the key essence seems to be that she never had sex with a man. Sure sounds like a freak-out about sex to me. Specifically females having it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. Perhaps, but that's not what 'the Immaculate Conception' is

The conception in "the Immaculate Conception" is the conception of Mary, not the conception of Jesus.

The Immaculate Conception, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, is the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the foreseen merits of her son Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was conceived by normal biological means in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne, but God acted upon her soul, keeping it "immaculate".

The Immaculate Conception is commonly confused with the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Jesus's birth is covered by the Doctrine of Incarnation, while the Immaculate Conception deals with the conception of Mary, not that of her son.

Although the belief that Mary was sinless, or conceived with an immaculate soul, has been widely held since Late Antiquity, the doctrine was not dogmatically defined until 1854, by Pope Pius IX in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.[1] The Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8; in many Catholic countries, it is a holy day of obligation or patronal feast, and in some a national public holiday.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

[Curmudgeoness]

45. You just made the point

that people freak out over sex. The conceived without "stain of original sin"!

Glad you aren't defending it.

[dflprincess]

53. No.

The Catholic Catechism defines the Original Sin as Adam & Eve having passed down to all of us their sin of disobeying God and eating from the tree of knowledge. You can decide the "tree of knowledge" is anything you want, the actual sin was disobeying God and this hereditary sin is what we're all supposedly born with (and Baptism washes away).

Per the Catholic Catechism the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was free from original sin because of she was to be the mother of Jesus. The church teaches that Mary "was conceived by normal biological means in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne, but God acted upon her soul, keeping it "immaculate"."

Convoluted? Oh yeah,

[localroger]

8. The word missing from your post is "wife." /nt

[Warpy]

10. Well, there's no evidence for that one, either.

All scholars have to work with is a very fragmentary and incomplete Gnostic gospel with her name on it, a copy of a copy of a copy, most likely.

This is about telling Rome to stop shaming a woman they never had any evidence against because they needed to pretend men were capable of doing everything all by themselves, except impregnating the parthenogenetically produced Mary and that was done by a male god.

[Stonepounder]

11. I have to wonder why the anti-religion folk feel the need to attack the religious.

On my best days I am agnostic. However, if you sweep away all of myth surrounding Christianity and try and drill down to the real message of the New Testament (I keep trying to explain to Christians that Christianity is only talked about in the New Testament, since the Old Testament was written BC - Before Christ, and therefore doesn't represent Christ's teachings.), if you drill down to the basic teachings is a pretty progressive agenda. Love they neighbor, don't judge, help the poor and the needy, don't worry about the color of a person's skin or about their place of birth. Don't try and show what a good person you are by going to church, show it by how you live your life.

You don't have to go to church to be a Christian. You don't even have to be religious to be Christian. You just have to try and live your life in a moral and ethical way that aligns with many of the teachings of Christ.

So for those of you who seem to be offended that we even talk about religion on DU, you might want to stay out of the Religion group.

[cornball 24]

14. AMEN! Thank you for your wisdom.

[Mariana]

15. Statement of Purpose for the Religion Group:

"Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome."

Religion affects the lives of non-believers, so it is reasonable for non-believers to participate in discussions about it. Some groups on DU prohibit criticism of religion. This is not one of them.

[Stonepounder]

19. Point taken and thanks for pointing that out.

And, not trying to be argumentative, but...

If you want to actually criticize a religion, fine. If you want to point out glaring idiocies in the bible, fine. Personally, I think that the actual Christian religion was hijacked about 1950 years ago and hasn't been the same since. If you want to talk about the things that you disagree with in any/all religions, fine. I just find it mildly annoying when someone comes in and posts the equivalent of "all religions stink" - which, if you think about it is in the same category of statement as saying "all illegals are filth", since there are many sincere religious and who truly believe that they should follow the precepts of their chosen religion.

Just as I would never hop into an agnostic or atheist group and say "Y'all are going to Hell if you don't repent". Religion is actually a very complex thing, but that's for another post.

[Mariana]

21. Your comparison is not valid.

"All religions stink" is not in the same category as "All illegals are filth". Undocumented immigrants are human beings, religions are not. I doubt you will find any posts on DU that say, "All religious people stink." It is an important difference.

It is true there are many sincere religious and who truly believe that they should follow the precepts of their chosen religion. Unfortunately, some of them truly believe their religion requires them to violate the rights of various groups of people - women, homosexuals, members of other religions, atheists, etc. There is a tendency to dismiss religion as a cause of this problem by saying that such people aren't real Christians, or Muslims, or whatever. I'm sure that's true of some but it isn't true of all of them. Many of them really are acting on their sincerely held religious beliefs.

[Stonepounder]

24. I won't split hairs on my comparison.

But, your second paragraph is a perfectly valid criticism of certain aspects of the way that some religions are taught. My personal belief is that Jesus would never have espoused the idea of singling out any of the groups you mention for rejection.

An interesting conundrum is someone like me says "I behave the way I do because it is what I feel is right - I take the teachings of people like Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha, and so on, take the parts that seem to make sense to me about loving one another, helping others, treating all people the same, and so on and try to live me life in accordance with those precepts. Now, is that or is that not a 'religion of one'? Even if I don't believe in God?

It seems to me that your right to practice your religion ends where my nose begins. What you do in your bedroom, who or even if you choose to marry, whether or not you choose to go to church, your decisions on childbearing, and so on have no impact on me. However, when your religion tries to tell me how I should deal with marriage, church, childbearing, and so on, then we have a problem.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. I see your sleight of hand there. Very obvious.

I have to wonder why the anti-religion folk feel the need to attack the religious.

We say something even snarky or negative about religious dogma, and you substitute it as an attack upon religious people.

You're not subtle.

[guillaumeb]

37. What is very obvious are the methods used by some here.

If I see a constant flood of posts that just happen to focus on finding negative news about religion, if I see a constant focus on finding perceived negatives, I might question the underlying motivation. And judging by some of the PMs I have received I am not alone.

One example:
I posted a portion of the prayer of Francis of Assisi here and one commenter stated that Francis was probably enabling poverty by helping the poor. Imposing a 21st century viewpoint.

Or if religious people are doing good work, some posters seem to feel obligated to bring up that they are not progressive on every issue that concerns the poster.

Subtle is rare in this group.

[Cryptoad]

13. The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle

Excerpt from:
The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle
by Karen L. King (Polebridge Press, Santa Rosa, California, 2003), pp. 3-12



Early Christianity & the Gospel of Mary

Few people today are acquainted with the Gospel of Mary. Written early in the second century CE, it disappeared for over fifteen hundred years until a single, fragmentary copy in Coptic translation came to light in the late nineteenth century. Although details of the discovery itself are obscure, we do know that the fifth-century manuscript in which it was inscribed was purchased in Cairo by Carl Reinhardt and brought to Berlin in 1896. Two additional fragments in Greek have come to light in the twentieth century. Yet still no complete copy of the Gospel of Mary is known. Fewer than eight pages of the ancient papyrus text survive, which means that about half of the Gospel of Mary is lost to us, perhaps forever.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/GMary-King-Intro.html
http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html

[Lordquinton]

18. What's wrong with her being a prostitute?

[guillaumeb]

38. She was not called a prostitute.

Just as Mary was not called a virgin, but a mother who had not previously given birth.

[Lordquinton]

42. What's the harm in her being written as a prostitute?

This is now taking a strong figure away from a highly at risk group.

If you're going to be arguing over what should and shouldn't be cannon, you probably shouldn't base it on misogyny.

[guillaumeb]

49. One can call her whatever one wishes.

But the actual point is that, like Junia, Mary of Magdala was an important early disciple. The misogyny came when these female disciples had their importance minimized.

[Warpy]

52. She has never, ever been identified as such except by the misogynist bastards

in Rome who want to obliterate her early history completely. They've nearly succeeded among Roman Catholics.

There was no better way to obliterate a powerful and influential woman from history than slut shaming her.

Get it?

[Lordquinton]

60. Let me rephrase my question

What is wrong with being a prostitute?

And you might want to re-read your statement because it was actually really offencive.

[Warpy]

61. Oh, you want to ask a question without context!

Perhaps you need to start a separate thread to ask it.

This is about slut shaming a powerful woman to expunge her from history.

Nothing more.

If you are offended by reading that, perhaps you're offended by many of the wrong things.

[Lordquinton]

62. I don't think you understand slut shaming

Why are you offended that she was written as a prostitute?

[Warpy]

63. Because she wasn't, which you'd know if you'd ever read the book

The "woman taken in sin" was NEVER IDENTIFIED.

Get it?

No?

Well, we're done here. I have better things to do with my day.

[Lordquinton]

65. No, you don't understand it at all still

Aside from differing writings of the character, what is wrong with her being a prostitute?

I'll fill in the gaps you're missing. You're claiming that they are slutshaming her by saying she's a prostitute, but the slutshaming isn't in her being a prostitute, it's people like you being offended by her being a prostitute.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. It's sometimes argued that identifying Magdalene (the 2nd most mentioned woman in the Gospels)

as the 'sinful woman' helps reduce women to stereotypes as either 'madonna' or 'whore', without being seen as 'just a woman', as many of the men are 'just men'.

Think of it as a bit like the Bechdel test - if the story includes a woman who doesn't get defined by sexual relationships with men, it's an advance.

[Lordquinton]

83. That's an actual answer, thanks

I can see that point of view, but while it points out the real issue, it glosses it over to remove the 'bad' woman. It also removed her agency, she's not a woman who has a job, she's reduced to her role in regards to men. It's still slut shaming in the end. The only real way to fix it is to add more women to the story so that hers can still exist.

[Bear Creek]

22. Oldest copies

Of the bible do not have the Crucifixion and resurrection that was added later. Direct references to Song of Songs which was taken of older version the Lament of Isis. The claim about prostitution comes from Magdalene a city that came into being after the time frame that she was supposed to be alive. But the term is really Magda tower the symbolism being two towers and a rose.

[edhopper]

30. They do have it

but the oldest complete copy is from the 4th Century.
The oldest fragments are from the 2nd.

[Bear Creek]

31. Codex

Do not have them. Added later because they needed myth tales to compete with the Greeks.

[edhopper]

41. I thought they did

not that I disagree that these stories were added.
I thought they were in there by the 4th century.

[hrmjustin]

23. God be praised for her life, wisdom, and witness.

A blessed Easter and greater 50 days to you!

[democratisphere]

27. One of the greatest smear jobs of all time by organized religion.

Sometimes you must consider the motivations of the source.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. Yes, of all the reputations ruined by organized religion...

...the besmirching of an imaginary person is probably among the worst they've done.

[Lordquinton]

44. How?

Can you explain why this should be considered a "smear job?"

[ProfessorPlum]

35. hear hear!

Bart Ehrman wrote a great book called "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdelene" that talks about the traditions that grew up around each of these figures, and how so little of it is supported in any way by scripture.

And he emphatically points out that Mary was never, ever, identified as a prostitute.

[guillaumeb]

39. A positive post. Recommended.

[still_one]

51. One thing I do know, it is time for the Mary Matalin myth to end

[TexasTowelie]

54. Myth?

Hell, that's a nightmare!

[still_one]

55. oh yeah. LOL

[DreamGypsy]

56. The Ballad of Mary Magdalen...

...turns the biblical crap into the story of a human relationship...

(song written by Richard Shindell, performed by Cry, Cry, Cry (Richard, Lucy Kaplansky, and Dar Williams)...

...or the version (with an unnecessary introduction) performed by Richard and Lucy...

My name is Mary Magdalen
I come from Palestine
Please excuse these rags I'm in
But I've fallen on hard times
But long ago I had my work
When I was in my prime
But I gave it up, and all for love
It was his career or mine

Jesus loved me
This I know
But why on earth
Did I ever let him go
He was always faithful
He was always kind
But he walked off
With this heart of mine

A love like this will come but once
This I do believe
And I'll not see his like again
As I live and breath
And I'm sorry if I might offend
But I will never see
How the tenderness I shared with him
Became a heresy

Jesus loved me
This I know
But why on earth
Did I ever let him go
He was always faithful
He was always kind
But he walked off
With this heart of mine

I recall the nights we spent
Whispering our creed
Our rituals, our sacraments
The stars our canopy
There beneath an olive tree
We'd offer up our plea
God's creation innocent
His arms surrounding me

Jesus loves me
This I know
But why on earth
Did he ever have to go
He was always faithful
He was always kind
But he walked off
With this heart of mine

[okasha]

68. If I remember correctly,

she wasn't identified with the "woman taken in adultery" until the fifth century CE. There was, however, an early tendency to conflate her with Mary of Bethany.

[kimbutgar]

76. I read a theory years ago that she was actually Jesus's wife

But as the story was retold and the church became the more male authoritative she was written off as a fallen woman.

[rug]

77. And that's abut the state of mythic scholarship.