My belief on what happened to the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and why it was lost is similar to what I think happened to the Gospel of Judas. Someone, or the people collectively, decided that they didn’t want that Gospel and got rid of it. And every copy of it, except for one or two damaged ones that we’ve found. If we presume that this is what happened to the Gospel of Mary, then should it still be considered as an extension to the Bible? I can’t answer that. However, it is interesting to see how the story of the Gospel of Mary differs from that of the other Gospels. Like the article says, in the Gospel of Matthew the disciples go to joyfully preach while in the Gospel of Mary they dither and fear. If we presume this was another “true” Gospel, then I would be inclined to believe her word over the others. Think about it. If you were one of the disciples of Jesus and you knew that your written words would be remembered long into the future, you would want to paint yourself in the best light. If this was to be your legacy, then you’d want it to be a good one. But if you weren’t one of the twelve, you wrote your Gospel as an outsider, then you would have no reason to embellish the truth. Sure you may in your own favor, but not for the others. Thinking about it from that light, I do think that there would be some elements of truth to what she was saying. But, like the Gospel of Judas, what she was attempting to teach is radically different from a lot of the other teachings we see in the Bible. Are these teachings actually that radical, or do they just contrast with what we know of Christianity? Had these Gospels stayed in the Bible, would they have contrasted with or enhanced our view of Christianity? Would we consider them radical if we’d always had them around?