How Mary Magdalene REALLY looked – As Mel Gibson recasts Bible film

She has been the subject of countless paintings, frescoes, and even a few films – but what did Mary Magdalene really look like?

That seems to be a question director Mel Gibson has been struggling to answer, as he caused outrage by recasting the long–awaited sequel to The Passion of the Christ.

The original film, released in 2004, depicted the final 12 hours of Jesus’ life and starred Monica Bellucci, now 61, as Mary Magdalene.

However, the upcoming sequel, The Resurrection of the Christ, has recast Christ and his followers, with Mariela Garriga, 36, taking on the role of Mary Magdalene.

Regardless of what you think of Ms Garriga’s acting skills, the bigger question casting executives might need to ask is whether she really looks like Mary Magdalene.

Dr Meredith Walker, senior lecturer of Biblical and Religious Studies at Sheffield University, has revealed what Christ’s devoted companion would have really looked like.

According to Dr Walker, neither Monica Bellucci nor Mariela Garriga is the right fit for the role. 

Here’s exactly what Mary Magdalene would have looked like – and why Mel Gibson’s recasting gets it so wrong.

Facial features and skin

Biblical archaeologists believe that Mary Magdalene was from the small fishing town of Magdala, located on the shore of the Sea of Galilee in modern–day Israel.

As Dr Walker explained to Daily Mail, this means she would have been a woman of Middle Eastern or Mediterranean appearance.

While Mary Magdalene has sometimes been portrayed as a white woman, such as in the 2018 film ‘Mary Magdalene’, this definitely isn’t correct.

Dr Walker says: ‘We can’t know for certain what any historical figure would have looked like precisely, but she would have had her height, colouring, and features in common with other people living in Roman Galilee and the surrounding areas.’

Unfortunately, this suggests that neither Mariela Garriga, who is Cuban, nor Monica Bellucci, who is Italian, is quite right.

Likewise, rather than being as glamorous as these Hollywood stars, there’s no reason to think Mary Magdalene would be a great beauty.

Professor Joan Taylor, Professor of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at King’s College London, says that Mary Magdalene would have been an ‘everywoman’.

In her book, Dress in Mediterranean Antiquity, Professor Taylor says Mary would have been ‘indistinguishable’ from any other woman from ancient Galilee.

Professor Taylor says: ‘There is nothing distinctive about her.’

Unfortunately, we don’t have any archaeological evidence or contemporary descriptions that would allow us to learn exactly what she looked like.

In 2017, researchers from the University of Versailles created a facial reconstruction of Mary Magdalene, based on her supposed relics – a dry skull and a lock of hair – found in Provence.

Their reconstruction showed a woman with a pointed nose, high cheekbones, and a round face.

However, these relics have not been confirmed as belonging to Mary Magdalene, and there are good reasons to be sceptical.

Professor Mary Joan Leith, Professor of Religious Studies and Theology at Stonehill College, told Daily Mail: ‘The idea of preserving sacred Christian relics began only in the third and fourth centuries.

‘The earliest Christians expected the world to end in the very near future; why bother to hold onto anything when they would be reunited with Jesus at any moment?’

Height

Like most people from the first century AD, Mary Magdalene would have been quite a bit shorter than a modern woman.

Writing in her book, Professor Taylor says: ‘The average height for a woman was 147 cm, or 4 feet 8 inches, with the average for men being 166 cm, or 5 feet 5 inches.’

With Mariela Garriga standing at 5ft 6 (1.72 metres), she is quite a bit too tall to be historically accurate.

However, some experts believe that Mary Magdalene might have been very tall for a woman of her time.

Dr Warren explains that Mary’s second name, ‘Magdalene’, is actually a nickname meaning ‘tower’, which could refer to her strength or height.

Age

With over 20 years having passed between the original film and the sequel, Mel Gibson was forced to recast Monica Bellucci to keep Mary Magdalene young.

However, this was actually a terrible decision if he wanted the film to be as accurate as possible.

Dr Warren says: ‘We don’t get many details about Mary’s appearance in the Bible, but there are a few clues that she might have been an older woman and possibly a widow.’

The key detail is that Mary was independently wealthy, according to the Bible.

Dr Warren explains: ‘The text says she provided for the disciples and for Jesus’s activities out of her own money, which means she was possibly a widow, in control of her own finances after the death of her husband.

‘Mary Magdalene might have been older if she remained a widow rather than remarrying after her husband’s death.’

Although it is widely believed that Mary Magdalene earned her money through sex work, this is a total misconception without any basis in the Bible.

The belief began in the sixth century when Pope Gregory combined Mary Magdalene with the unnamed ‘sinful woman’ who anoints Jesus’ feet.

In reality, Mary Magdalene was much more likely to be an older widow who was in charge of managing her late husband’s financial affairs.

That means Monica Bellucci at 61 could be a much better fit for Mary Magdalene than the 36–year–old Mariela Garriga.

Clothing

Dr Warren says: ‘In art history, Mary tends to be depicted with long, loose hair and often in some state of undress, both in order to signify her imagined wanton past and also to titillate viewers while maintaining a respectable, biblical subject.’

However, the reality is that Mary would have worn the clothes belonging to other women in her social class and geographical area.

Women typically wore a long tunic, with stripes running vertically from shoulder to hem, which signified the wearer’s social status with their thickness.

As a Jewish woman, Mary’s clothes would have been slightly different to fit with the purity laws and so would have been woven from a single material such as wool or linen.

Since Mary was an independently wealthy woman, her clothes might have also been brighter or more elaborate than those of her contemporaries.

Speaking to the Daily Mail, Professor Taylor said: ‘We know then that she would have worn a long tunic tied under the bustline and a mantle, probably brightly coloured (red, green, yellow).

‘She would likely have worn a headscarf and additionally covered her head with a mantle when needing to be more modest.’

Hair style

Mary’s hair was long, dark and perhaps beginning to grey with age, although she probably wore it braided and bound up.

‘Plaiting/braiding is one of the most convenient ways of dealing with long hair, as it makes it particularly easy to secure with a net and pins,’ Professor Taylor said.

‘A Judaean or Nabataean woman may have worn a bun–wrapper scarf since small coloured cloths have been found on either side of the Dead Sea.’

Shoes

Somewhat unsurprisingly, Mary wore sandals on her feet.

‘Sandals were invariably made according to the soleae type, with the sole composed of thick leather and the upper parts much like thongs but with a heel strap, and they were tightened at the toe for a close fit,’ Professor Taylor explained.

However, poorer women and peasants may have also gone barefoot during the warmer seasons.

Accessories and jewellery

Wealthy women of Mary’s status may have worn brooches, earrings and other jewellery.

However, Mary probably didn’t have any accessories, according to Professor Taylor.

Writing in her book, she explained: ‘It is unlikely that a disciple of Jesus like Mary would have worn much, given the early Christian discourse against jewellery.

‘Overall, we need to see Mary and the other women disciples as dressing without much regard to looking well turned out, especially given that they were on the road with Jesus: their appearance would have been as poor women.’