(Thanks Dave for the link to this.)

David van Biema, the associate editor of TIME, made the following claim in his August 11th article on Mary Magdalene:

Most scholars discount a Jesus-Magdalene match because it finds little echo in the canonical Gospels once the false Magdalenes are removed. But it fulfills a deep narrative expectation: for the alpha male to take a mate, for a yin to Jesus’ yang or, as some neopagans have suggested, for a goddess to his god. Martin Luther believed that Jesus and Magdalene were married, as did Mormon patriarch Brigham Young.

OK… does anyone see a problem here? Kudos to those who said, “But Jen, Martin Luther didn’t believe that!” Why am I so sure that van Biema is wrong? Well… I checked the Book of Concord for any mention of Mary Magdalene and there was none. Believe me, if Luther had thought that Christ being married to Mary Magdalene was true, it would be in there. I also know that Luther spoke out muchly on the cult of the saints and would not have tolerated the idea of the dualism presented by Mary Magdalene being married to Jesus Christ. (For the faith issues I have with this, read my post on The DaVinci Code.)

I’m a little irritated at the mistake made by van Biema because a lot of people are going to take his word that it was what Luther believed. He is promoting heresy and I really don’t think he cares that he was wrong. (For those who want to say that people aren’t that stupid, Google “mary magdalene Jesus Christ Luther” and see what you come up with. There are a few Christian forum discussions where people quote the TIME article as their evidence. This is even with scholars like Elaine Pagels disputing it.) I know that he isn’t Christian, but you’d think he could make the effort to GET THE FACTS RIGHT.

My belief is that all “religion reporters” should:
a.) hold a concurrent degree in Religious Studies with their journalism degrees
b.) be an adherent of the faith about which they are reporting

Then again, I’m just an idealist…

**Update** OK… it was a flippant remark made in Tabletalk, which were a group of discourses with people. Considering that Luther was usually drinking during these, it’s probably not unlikely that it was a drunken comment. And of course, van Biema wouldn’t have the sense to consider the source. The link has a pretty good explanation on it. (You have to understand Luther to get why I’m just passing this off as him being drunk.)