Pastor Ray’s notes: James, the brother of John, was the first apostle to be martyred in Jerusalem (Acts 12:2) and sent shock waves through the Christian movement, hoping to stamp it out…Acts 1:8. That death was within a short time after the resurrection was preached all over Jerusalem (Acts 2). It is inconceivable that this movement would have continued when this first apostle was killed by Herod, making sure everyone knew that he was out for those 12. Certainly his own brothers, and family wouldn’t have been in the upper room in Acts 1:14 “These all continued with one accord in the prayer and supplication with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.” No doubt Mary Magdalene would have been in that group named “women”, but notice Luke did not singled her out as anything other than a disciple, not even mentioning her name in this setting... But notice now, Luke, who has been accredited as a complete and excellent historian by scholors, writes that his brothers are now with them in this upper room…having gone from distancing themselves to becoming believers, one of which later writes the book of James, and is killed in 62AD along with Peter. So the question is begged, why would Luke have not known of a family tomb, the end of a “Jewish rebel”, and thus the end of Christianity, which if so, there would not be an Acts written by this historian. All of the detailed stories in Acts, presumably known facts that followed the resurection, (Acts 1:1-4) would have been an ingnorant treatise to pass around in 50-70AD, since everyone would have known that the Jesus movement died with Jesus, was burried and who cares where or with whom.) Every known enemy of this movement would have pointed to the final tomb of Jesus (Rome, Jewish leaders, etc) esecpially since it is said to be that of a wealthy family, which wouldn’t have been a secret.
Also, the name Mary Magdalene doesn’t mean Mary’s last name was Magdalene. It means her name was Mary of the town of Magdala, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. She is never referred to as “Mary the Master” in any biblical or post biblical writtings. This will be an interesting spin.
Gospel of Philip…150-200 AD, depicts Mary as Jesus' koinonos, a Greek term indicating a 'close friend', 'companion', not wife. No mention of wife is used and had they been that, it certainly would have been chosen through out.
Mary's presence at the Crucifixion and Jesus' tomb, while hardly conclusive, my sound consistent with the role of grieving wife and widow, although if that were the case Jesus certainly would have been expected to make provision for her care, as he did for his mother Mary at his crucifixion.
We can contrast Jesus to the rest of the apostles, Peter, and the brothers of the Lord, all of whom are said to have had wives (1 Corinthians 9:5). This passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married-or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus, if he had been married.