Mary of Bethany and The Hermeneutics of Remembrance

Mary of Bethany and the Hermeneutics of Remembrance
Author(s): MARY ANN BEAVIS

Source: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 4 (October 2013), pp. 739-755
Published by: Catholic Biblical Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43728296
Accessed: 07-05-2020 07:28 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Catholic Biblical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
This content downloaded from 83.211.245.118 on Thu, 07 May 2020 07:28:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Mary of Bethany and the Hermeneutics
of Remembrance
MARY ANN BEAVIS

St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK S7N 0W6, Canada
The feminist hermeneutical endeavor of the rediscovery and reassess-

ment of overlooked biblical traditions about women and explorations of the histor
of the cultural reception and appropriation of biblical texts about women1 have
brought to light the biblical portrayals, and theo-cultural afterlives, of female cha
acters from Eve to the Bride of the Lamb.2 In Christian Testament studies, the
woman who has received the overwhelming majority of attention from both aca-
demics and popular culture is Mary Magdalene, who has been transformed from
her traditional portrayal as repentant prostitute to first apostle,3 successor of Jesus
Gnostic leader,5 spouse of Jesus,6 and even manifestation of the female divine
The publication of The Complete Idiots Guide to Mary Magdalene attests to the
high cultural profile of Magdalene studies.8
1 See Alice Ogden Bellis, Helpmates , Harlots , and Heroes: Women 's Stories in the Hebrew
Bible (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007) 19.
2 See, e.g., Women in Scripture : A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew
Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament (ed. Carol Meyers, To
Craven and Ross S. Kraemer; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).
3 E.g., Ann Graham Brock, Mary Magdalene, the First Apostle: The Struggle for Authorit
(HTS 51; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Divinity School, 2003).
4 E.g., Jane Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the
Christian Testament (New York: Continuum, 2002).
5 Karen L. King, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle (Sant
Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2003).
6 E.g., Margaret Starbird, Mary Magdalene: Bride in Exile (Rochester, VT: Bear, 2005).
7 E.g., Margaret Starbird, The Goddess in the Gospels : Reclaiming the Sacred Feminin
(Rochester, VT: Bear, 1998).
8 Vm. C&mpWte Guwíe to Wcssry MatgdaJava Qbvv, X oriť. 2tìfì> Sy
739
740 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 75,2013
An unintended side effect of the lively interest in Mary Magdalene is that,

even in feminist scholarship, it has deflected attention from another significant
Mary of the Gospels, "Mary of Bethany," the sister of Martha and Lazarus, said to
be "loved" (liyáTta) by Jesus, along with her siblings (John 1 1 :5). The few studies
that exist are confined to exegesis of the biblical stories in which Mary figures, and
she is usually considered together with Martha,9 and sometimes also with Lazarus. 10
Though numerous books and articles, both scholarly and popular, investigate bib-
lical, theological, and legendary aspects of the Mary Magdalene tradition,11 and
two substantial academic books based on doctoral dissertations have been pub-
lished on the figure of Martha,12 not a single scholarly monograph - or even
article - considers Mary of Bethany in her own right.
A large part of the reason for the relative neglect of this "other Mary" is that
in Western Christianity she has often been conflated with Mary Magdalene since
as early as the third century, and thus has been regarded as a repentant sinner for-
given by Jesus who anointed his feet and witnessed the empty tomb and resurrec-
tion. As early as the Middle Ages, and especially in the late twentieth and early
twenty-first centuries, scholars have labored to disentangle the two Marys and the
other women with whom they have been merged.13 Feminist biblical scholars,
particularly, have effectively highlighted Mary Magdalene's prominence in early
9 E.g., Satoko Yamaguchi, Mary and Martha: Women in the World of Jesus (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 2002); F. Scott Spencer, "A Testy Hostess and Her Lazy Sister?" in idem, Salty Wives, Spir-
ited Mothers, and Savvy Widows: Capable Women of Purpose and Persistence in Luke s Gospel
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) 145-89.
10 Heather Jo McVoy, "Those Whom Jesus Loved: The Development of the Paradigmatic Story
of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha through the Medieval Period" (Ph.D. diss., Florida State University,
1992); Richard J. Bauckham, "The Bethany Family in John 11-12: History or Fiction?" in John,
Jesus, and History, vol. 2, Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel (ed. Paul N. Anderson, Felix
Just, and Tom Thatcher; SBLSvmS 44; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009) 185-201.
1 1 E.g., Marjorie M. Malvern, Venus in Sackcloth: The Magdalen 's Origins and Metamorpho-
ses (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1975); Susan Haskins, Mary Magdalene: Myth
and Metaphor (New York: Riverhead, 1 993); Katherine Ludwig Jansen, The Making of the Magda-
len: Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2000); Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, In Search of Mary Magdalene: Images and Traditions
(New York: American Bible Society, 2002); Brock, Mary Magdalene ; Schaberg, Resurrection ; King,
Gospel of Mary ; Holly E. Hearon, The Mary Magdalene Tradition: Witness and Counter-Witness
in Early Christian Communities (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004); Bruce Chilton, Mary
Magdalene: A Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2005); Secrets of Mary Magdalene : A Guide to
Her Story ; History and Heresy (ed. Dan Burstein and Arne de Keijzer; London: Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, 2006).
12 Diane E. Peters, The Many Faces of Martha of Bethany (Ottawa: Novalis, 2008); Allie M.
Emst, Martha from the Margins : The Authority of Martha in Early Christian Tradition (VCSup 98;
Leiden: Brill. 2009V
13 See Sheila M. Porrer, Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples and the Three Maries Debates (Travaux
d'humanisme et renaissance 451; Geneva: Droz, 2009).
THE HERMENEUTICS OF REMEMBRANCE 741
Christianity and in postbiblical tradition, but in the process the figure o

Bethany has been virtually overlooked. Another factor in the sidelinin
of Bethany is the appeal of her more dynamic sister, Martha, for feminis
as I will show, feminist interpreters have been inclined to valorize Marth
right faith and active orientation (see Luke 10:38-42; John 11:20-26) rel
the more "passive" Mary sitting at Jesus' feet (Luke 10:39; John 12:3).
In a recent article, I showed that the Gospel portrayal of Mary of Be
Jesus' special love for and approval of her (John 11:5; 12:1-8; Luke 1
exceptional knowledge of the savior's teachings (Luke 10:38-42); and cha
to her status by other disciples (Luke 10:40; John 12:4-5) - shapes these
teristics of the Gnostic "Mary Magdalene" figure (often simply called "M
sometimes paired with Martha). 14 1 also drew attention to early Christian r
to Mary (sometimes called "Mary Magdalene") and Martha at the foot of
at the tomb, and at the resurrection (e.g., Hippolytus Commentary on th
Songs 25.6; Epistle of the Apostles 9.3; Tertullian On Modesty 11.2; Clem
Alexandria, The Tutor 2.8; Origen [PG 13:1 72 1 -22]). 1 5 These references
Mary of Bethany played a prominent role in early Christian tradition th
eclipsed by the contemporary - and admittedly well-justified - fascina
Mary Magda/ene. ÏÂe purpose of the present arricie is to òrmg to ffgúť ť
about Mary of Bethany that have been neglected in the enthusiasm for M
dalene and, to some extent, for the more forceful figure of Martha - a v
what Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza calls "a hermeneutics of remembranc
fact, as I have demonstrated with reference to the Gnostic evidence, mu
tradition of Mary of Bethany is "hidden in plain view" in studies of the
about Mary Magdalene and Martha, since scholars have tended to identi
Gnostic Mary as "Mary Magdalene," even when the title "Magdalene" is
and she is paired with Martha.17
I. Mary of Bethany in Feminist Exegesis
Throughout Christian history, Mary of Bethany has inevitably been

with her sister Martha. Following the Gospel stories, especially Luke 10
early Christian and medieval interpreters tended to favor Mary, comm
Jesus for choosing the "better part," over Martha, distracted by "man
Heather Jo Me Voy notes that Origen, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of M
Augustine all preferred Mary's "contemplative" orientation toward reli
14 Mary Ann Beavis, "Reconsidering Mary of Bethany," CBQ 74 (2012) 281-97.

15 Ibid.. 289.
16 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, "A Feminist Critical Interpretation for Liberation: Martha
and Mary. Lk. 10:38-42," Religion and Intellectual Life 3 (1986) 21-36, here 32.
17 Beavis, "Reconsidering," 290-92.
to Martha's "active" approach. 18 Several ancient writers interpreted the two women
as allegories of the "legalistic" or "carnal" synagogue (Martha) and the "spiritual"
church (Mary) (e.g., Origen Horn . Luc. frag. 72; John Chrysostom On Martha,
Mary and Lazarus [PG 61 :701]; Cyril of Alexandria Comm. Joh. 1 1 .2), thus antic-
ipating the female (and virulently supersessionist) personification of Ecclesia and
Synagoga - where the church/Christianity is portrayed as victorious over the con-
quered synagogue/Judaism - in medieval art and architecture.19 Yet, in their inter-
pretations, the ancient writers value the roles of both sisters, and they often also
dwell on Lazarus as a type of the sinner brought to new life by Christ.20 Moreover,
Mary and Martha are interpreted as types of the spiritual life for believers, not
specifically for women.21 For the purposes of this investigation, it is significant the
Mary of Bethany becomes an embodiment of the church.
In the classic article "Jesus Was a Feminist," Leonard Swidler interpreted
Jesus' commendation of Mary over Martha in Luke 10:41-42 as a repudiation of
gender stereotypes in the church:
Martha took the typical woman's role: "Martha was distracted with much serving."
Mary however, took the supposedly "male" role: she "sat at the Lord's feet and listened
to his teaching." Martha apparently thought Mary was out of place in choosing the
role of the "intellectual," for she complained to Jesus. But Jesus' response was a refusal
to force all women into the stereotype; he treated Mary first of all as a person (whose
highest faculty is the intellect, the spirit) who was allowed to set her own priorities,
and in this instance has "chosen the better part." And Jesus applauded her: "It is not
to be taken from her."22
Subsequent feminist assessments of this passage, however, have tended to valorize

Martha, beginning with Schüssler Fiorenza's influential suggestion that Luke's
vocal and active Martha is the leader of a house church. Luke's portrayal of Mary
in a subordinate position at the feet of Jesus reflects the evangelist's androcentrism,
appealing to
a revelatory word of the resurrected Lord in order to restrict women's ministry and
authority. Its rhetorical interests are to silence women as leaders of housechurches
18 McVoy, "Those Whom Jesus Loved," 73-106; see also Peters, Many Faces , 60-63; Hellen
Dayton, "On the Use of Luke 10:38-42 - Jesus in the House of Mary and Martha - for Instruction
in Contemplative Prayer in the Patristic Tradition," in Studia Patristica : Papers Presented at the
Fifteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 2007, vol. 1 , Archaeologica,
Arts, iconographica, Tools, Histórica, Biblica, Theologica, Philosophica, Ethica (ed. J. Baun et al.;
Studia Patristica 44; Leuven: Peeters, 2010) 207-12.
19 See Heinz Schreckenburg, The Jews in Christian Art (New York: Continuum, 1996) 31-66.
20 Me Voy, "Those Whom Jesus Loved," 73-127.
21 Rosemary Radford Ruether, "Seeking the Better Part," Sojourners (November 1992) 24-26,
here 26.
22 Leonard Swidler, "Jesus Was a Feminist," online at http://godswordtowomen.org/feminist

.htm (accessed May 28, 2012). First published in Catholic World (January 1971).
who like Martha might have protested, and at the same time to extol t
subordinate behavior of Mary.23
Unlike Schüssler Fiorenza, Barbara E. Reid does not see Martha's "
(ôiaKovía; Luke 10:40; John 12:2) as that of a deacon, but rather i
broader ranger of ministries performed by women in the early churc
complaint to Jesus is not that she is overworked but that she is being
proper role in ministry. Her disapproval of her sister Mary's behavi
from her "anguish . . . that her sisters, former companions in ministr
persuaded that silent listening is the proper role for women disciples,
her alone in the more visible ministries."24 Yet the assumption that "s
feet of Jesus" in the pose of a disciple (Acts 22:3; Pirqe Abot 1.4; Ab
Version A 6)25 is somehow less worthwhile when a woman does it tha
of a male disciple seems questionable, especially from a feminist standp
Rose D'Angelo sees the two women not as biological sisters but a
(and possibly sexual) partners, like Tryphaena and Tryphosa (Ro
Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2), two women disciples artificially pitt
each other by Luke.27 Elisabeth Moltmann- Wendel has another pers
Martha's ôiaicovía, seeing it as a reflection of Jesus' choice of servan
1 0:45 ; Matt 20: 28), which he adopted following the lead of women.28 J
sees Luke circumscribing both women's roles: his Jesus devalues Mar
and limits Mary's discipleship to silent listening.29 F. Scott Spencer u
cal motif of competition between female household members as a le
which to interpret the Lucan vignette; Jesus' pronouncement in Luke
asserts,
short-circuits bitter rivalry, mitigates mounting anxiety, and opens space for women's
participation with him in discipleship: in Mary's case, by affirming her listening/sitting
23 Schüssler Fiorenza, "Feminist Critical Interpretation," 32; see also eadem, In Memory of
Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983)
165-66.
24 Barbara E. Reid, Choosing the Better Part: Women in the Gospel of Luke (Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press, 1996) 158.
25 See Mary Rose D'Angelo, "Women Partners in the New Testament," Journal of Feminist
Studies in Religion 6 (1990) 65-86, here 78.
With reference to Luke 10:39, Amy-Jill Levine notes that Jewish "women received instruc-
tion in synagogues . . . , homes, patronage capacities . . . , and personal conversations" ("Luke," in
The Jewish Annotated New Testament [ed. Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler; Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 201 1] 96-151, here 124 n. 39).
27 D'Angelo, "Women Partners," 80-81 .
28 Elisabeth Moltmann- Wendel, A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey: Perspectives on Fem-
inist Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1986) 128.
29 Jane Schaberg, "Luke," in The Women s Bible Commentary (ed. Carol A. Newsom and
Sharon H. Ringe; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992) 288-89.
choice; and in Martha's, by gently chiding her insecurity and frustration and implicitly
welcoming her (as she had welcomed him) to join his and Mary's study session.30
I would suggest that, although the Lucan evangelist does tend to highlight socially
acceptable, "support" roles for women,31 another viable, and nongendered, Sitz im
Leben for the Lucan vignette is the tension between householders (Mary and
Martha) and itinerant teachers (Jesus) (cf. Luke 10:7; Didache 11); the disagree-
ment between the two sisters reflects a concern that preoccupation with hospitality
(Martha) might impede the benefit from the teaching of visiting evangelists (Jesus)
personified by Mary. Learning from visitors is recommended for both women; the
point of the episode would be similar if the two characters were men. Arguably,
the feminist tendency to valorize the active service of Martha over against the
supposedly passive portrayal of Mary partially explains the relative neglect of the
latter in feminist studies.
As noted above, another important factor in the feminist exegetical neglect
of Mary of Bethany is the massive popularity of Mary Magdalene studies. Once a
scholar, whether feminist or not, has made the point that the two Marys were
wrongly fused together by Gregory the Great in 59 1 ( Sermon 331) with the unnamed
sinner who anointed the feet of Jesus (Luke 7:36-50), he/she inevitably turns to
the many portrayals of Mary Magdalene in the Gospels; her role among the dis-
ciples of Jesus; her function in Gnostic writings; her afterlife in early Christian and
medieval sources; and her portrayal in art, literature, and popular culture. Mary of
Bethany has, unintentionally, been lost in the shuffle.32 In general, Magdalene
scholars have tended to dismiss Mary of Bethany as a possible identity of the
"Mary" figure of Gnostic and other early Christian writings.33 Even though it is
often observed that while the two Marys were conflated in the Latin church, East-
30 Spencer, "Testy Hostess," 1 89.

31 Schaberg, "Luke," 275.
A rare exception is Victor Saxer, "Les saintes Marie-Madeleine et Mane de Béthanie dans
la tradition liturgique et homilétique orientale," RevScRel 32 (1958) 1-37.
33 See, e.g., Dierdre Good, "Pistis Sophia," in Searching the Scriptures , vol. 2, A Feminist
Commentary (ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza; New York: Crossroad, 1994) 678-707, here 696;
Antti Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved: Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and
Related Documents (NHMS 40; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 136; Pamela Thimmes, "Mary Magdalene
Research since 1975," Currents in Biblical Research 6 (1998) 193-226, here 199; Esther de Boer,
The Mary Magdalene Cover-up: The Sources behind the Myth (London: Clark, 2006) 94. The authors
represented in an anthology devoted to the consideration of the early Christian Marys consider
Stephen J. Shoemaker's hypothesis that the Virgin Mary is the "Mary" of these documents but pay
little attention to Mary of Bethany ("A Case of Mistaken Identity? Naming the Gnostic Mary," in
Which Mary? The Marys of Early Christian Tradition (ed. F. Stanley Jones; SBLSymS 19; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). Marvin Meyer repeatedly opines, without argument, that the
unspecified Mary of various Gnostic writings is "most likely Mary Magdalene" (see Meyer with
Esther A. de Boer, The Gospels of Mary: The Secret Tradition of Mary Magdalene, the Companion
ern Christians continued to regard the two women as distinct individual

ebrated different feast days for them,34 the Bethanian Mary's virtual dis
from the Western tradition has not been met with much curiosity about
Eastern sources.35 In fact, as the following pages will illustrate, reference
well pertain to Mary of Bethany have often been attributed to Mary Ma
the scholarly enthusiasm for the latter.
II. From the Gospels to the Apostle to the Apostles
Although the merging of the two Marys and Luke's sinner was most e
and influentially, made by Gregory the Great,36 the blurring of the two fig
as early as the Gospels.37 Compared to Mary Magdalene (Matt 27:56
Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1; Luke 8:2; 24:10; John 19:25; 20:1, 11-18; cf. M
the sister of Martha is mentioned in only a few passages: Luke 10:38-42
11:1-45; 12:1-8. With the exception, however, of the post-resurrection
in John 20:10-18, the references to Mary Magdalene in the Gospels are
sketchy, whereas Mary of Bethany appears in developed narratives: Luke
in the "house of Martha" (10:38-42); the Johannine scene where Jesus c
Mary, sñe brings Jesus ťo tears with he r words, and ůe raises ůer broth
from the tomb, bringing "many Jews" to faith (11 :28-45); and the anoin
(John 12:1-8), connected with Jesus' burial in v. 7. Unlike the Synoptic
which introduce Mary Magdalene as one of Jesus' women disciples from
(Mark 15:40-41; Matt 27:55-56; Luke 8:2), John introduces Mary of Beth
especially loved by Jesus (11:5) and subsequently places Mary Magdalene
cross (19:25), at the empty tomb (20: 1), and in the garden (20: 11-18) wit
reference to her origins. As I argued in "Reconsidering Mary of Bethany,
be understandable for some ancient readers to conflate the two Johannin
who share the name Mariam/Maria , are associated with Jesus' death an
and are both portrayed in terms redolent of the female lover in Song of
of Jesus [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004] 100 n. 14; cf. 103 n. 43, 107 n. 116
112 n. 2).
34 On the separate feast days of the two Marys in antiquity, see below.
35 E.g., McVoy, "Those Whom Jesus Loved," 3; Schaberg, Resurrection , 99; de Boer, Mary
Magdalene , 1 56. This observation also applies generally to the figure of Mary Magdalene in Eastern
Christianity.
36 See McVoy, 'Those Whom Jesus Loved," 1 18-23.
37 Beavis, "Reconsidering," 282-89.
38 Ibid., 288-89; Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger, "Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala - Two
Female Characters in the Johannine Passion Narrative: A Feminist, Narrative-Critical Reader-
Response," NTS 42 (1995) 564-86; Adeline Fehribach, The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom :
A Feminist Historical-Literary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press, 1998) 99-100; Jocelyn McWhirter, The Bridegroom Messiah and the People
thus paving the way for postbiblical confusion/conflation of the two figures by
some early theologians (e.g., Ambrose of Milan Commentary on Luke 10.164;
Sermons 46.61; Augustine Commentary on John 49.3). 39
The earliest evidence of possible conflation of Mary of Bethany and Mary
Magdalene is in Hippolytus's Commentary on the Song of Songs 24-25 (d. ca. 236).
Here, it is "Martha and Mary" who seek Jesus in the tomb and find it empty (24.3),
who meet with the risen savior (25.2), and to whom are attributed the words of
Scripture: "I have found him whom I love and I will not let him go" (Song 3:4).40
Hippolytus identifies the women as new Eves, and calls them "apostles to the
apostles": "Thus it became clear that the women were apostles of Christ and were
to make up through obedience the shortcomings of the old Eve. From now on she
will show herself to be listening in obedience. O new comfort! Eve becomes an
apostle!" (Song of Songs 25.6-7a).41 Recent studies see in Hippolytus's strong
affirmation of the sisters' role in salvation history a reflection of actual women's
roles in the author's time. John A. Cerrato sees them as signifying the leadership
roles of women in Montanist circles; Yancy Warren Smith interprets them in terms
of women heads of household who were important patrons of proto-orthodox Chris-
tian communities.42 In fact, there is an intriguing reference by the anti-Christian
polemicist Celsus to believers of his time who followed "Salome, Miriamme and
Martha" (Origen Against Celsus 5.62). Although Origen disclaims knowledge of
any such groups, the hostile witness of Celsus implies that the sisters were remem-
bered in some circles as important Christian leaders.43 Of equal interest for the
purposes of this study is the tradition that situates the Bethany sisters at the empty
tomb, and where Martha and Mary are the myrrh-bearers commissioned to announce
the resurrection to the other apostles (Hippolytus Song of Songs 26). Mary Mag-
dalene is not named by Hippolytus; here, it is the Bethany sisters who are the
original "apostles to the apostles" (a title later ascribed to the Magdalene by medi-
eval writers).44 The presence of Martha and Mary at the tomb is attested also in a
fragment of Hippolytus's Commentary on Exodus 45 It is possible, as Cerrato
of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel (SNTSMS 138; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2006)81-88.
For discussion, see McVoy, "Those Whom Jesus Loved," 99-1 18.
40 De Boer, Mary Magdalene , 100.
41 Quoted in de Boer, Mary Magdalene , 108.
42 John A. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West : The Commentaries and the Provenance
of the Corpus (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 208; Yancy
Warren Smith, "Hippolytus' Commentary on the Song of Songs in Social and Critical Context"
(Ph.D. diss., Brite Divinity School, 2009) 91-92.
43 See de Boer, Mary Magdalene , 98.
44 See Susan Haskins, Mary Magdalene: Myth and Metaphor (New York: Penguin, 1993)
56-94.
45 As noted by Ernst, Martha , 99.
assumes, that this is an early example of the conflation of Mary Magd

Mary of Bethany,46 but it is just as likely that Hippolytus knew an ex
tradition in which the Bethany sisters, as opposed to Mary Magdalene, w
ciated with the empty tomb and resurrection. In view of the variety o
many of them named Mary, associated with the empty tomb/resurrecti
Synoptic Gospels in addition to Mary Magdalene,47 the importance of Be
the Synoptic accounts of Jesus in Jerusalem (Matt 21:17; 26:6; Mark 11
14: 1 ; Luke 19:29; cf. 24:50), and the two Synoptic accounts of an unnam
who, much like the sister of Martha and Lazarus (John 12:1-8) anoints
Bethany (Mark 14:1-11; Matt 26:6-13), it is not unlikely that early oral
sometimes placed the Bethany sisters among the myrrh-bearing wome
in Eastern tradition, where Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were
into one "Magdalene" figure, both women are counted among the holy
phores, as is Martha.48
Besides Hippolyus, another early depiction of Mary and Martha as m
phores is the second-century Epistle of the Apostles, which portrays Mar
and Mary Magdalene (Ethiopie: Sarah, Martha, and Mary) as bearing oin
to the tomb, finding it empty, and meeting with the risen Christ. In th
version, "Mary" is the one wio te/te ťfte maře cfecípfes ťfte good news (
men refuse to believe, and another woman (Coptic: Mary; Ethiopie: Sara
to tell them, with the same result. "Mary" and the other women are the
panied by the risen Lord to meet with the Twelve, who are initially skep
who are finally convinced when Peter and Thomas touch Jesus ' wounds a
his solid flesh (11-12).
Early Christian iconographie evidence complements the textual trad
Mary and Martha at the tomb. Allie M. Ernst has identified a variety o
Christian icons that portray Mary and Martha as myrrhophores: a Syr
illumination; an Egyptian amulet; three Ethiopian Gospel books; and an
46 J. A. Cerrato, "Martha and Mary in the Commentaries of Hippolytus," in Studia

Papers Presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held
1999 9 vol. 1 , Histórica, Biblica, Theologica et Philosophica (ed. M. F. Wiles et al.; Studi
34; Leuven: Peeters, 2001) 294-97, here 295-96.
47 Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Ma
the "other Mary" (Matt 27:61); Salome (Mark 15:40); Mary mother of Joseph (Mark 15
mother of James (Mark 16:1); Joanna (Luke 24:10); and unnamed "others" (Luke 24:10)
1 9:25 where Jesus' mother, her sister, and Mary Clopas are placed at the foot of the cros
Magdalene.
48 The Myrrh-bearers recognized by the Orthodox Church today are Mary Theoto
Magdalene, Mary Clopas, Joanna, Susanna, Salome, and Mary and Martha of Bethan
Susanna is mentioned in Luke 8:3, like the Bethany sisters, she is not named in any of
as a witness to the empty tomb/resurrection. Nor is the Theotokos, although she is often
this way in ancient Syrian Christianity (Ernst, Martha , 143-44).
a Mozarabic manuscript (Ashburton 17).49 All are dated between the fifth and
seventh centuries.50 It should be noted that the notice on the Syrian image of two
women at the tomb {Syriaque 33) identifies them as Martha and Mary Theotokos;51
I would suggest that this is a reconstruction of an earlier, and more natural, pairing
of the sisters Mary and Martha. Subsequent to the Council of Ephesus (43 1), the
substitution of the God-bearer, widely recognized as one of the women at the tomb
in ancient Syrian Christianity,52 for Mary the sister of Martha is understandable.
One Ethiopie depiction of two women in front of the tomb ( Eth . 32) identifies them
as "image of Mary Magdalen" and "image of Martha,"53 consistent with the ancient
textual tradition that sometimes fused the Magdalene and the sister of Martha. Ernst
hypothesizes that these images reflect an ancient Jerusalem Easter liturgy where
two consecrated (or ordained) women, identified as "Mary and Martha," played
the role of the myrrhophores.54 The venerable tradition that includes Mary of
Bethany among the myrrhophores endures today in iconography and liturgy and
is celebrated annually in the Orthodox Troparion (hymn stanza) for the Second
Sunday after Easter, which exhorts the seven holy myrrh-bearing women, includ-
ing Mary and Martha, Mary Magdalene, and Mary Theotokos, to proclaim the great
mercy of God manifested in the resurrection.
III. Mary as Minister and Missionary
The presence of Mary, Martha, and other women among Jesus' disciples
figures in early church debates about the role of women in ministry. The First
Apocalypse of James (38. 15-23; 40.22-26), a late-second-century work that exists
only in fragmentary form, lists Mary, Martha, and Arsinoé as "powerless vessels"
fortified by the perception instilled by the Lord.55 Later instructions acknowledge
the role of the women disciples while simultaneously limiting their ministerial
roles. The late-fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions (3.6.1-2) rather perversely
uses the presence of women among the disciples, who include Mary Magdalene
and both Bethany sisters, as a reason for not allowing women to teach, since the
Lord did not specifically command them to do so. An early-fourth-century Egyptian
text, the Apostolic Church Order (24-28), admits that "it is a good thing to set apart
women to be made deacons" (24) but asserts that, although Mary and Martha were
present at the Last Supper, the Lord did not permit the women to assist; Martha
49 Ernst, Martha, 139-76.

50 Ibid., 173.
51 Ibid., 142.
52 Ibid., 143.
53 Ibid., 162.
54 Ibid., 152-58.
55 See de Boer, Mary Magdalene , 115-16.
explains that this was because Jesus had seen Mary laughing when he sa
bread and wine were his body and blood. Mary defends herself, attrib
laughter not to the words of eucharistie institution but to his teaching tha
would be healed by the strong (26). Peter mentions that some people h
women should only pray standing up and should not prostrate themselve
no reason for this teaching follows (27). James concludes the dialogue w
tion as to whether women's ministry should be limited to helping the n
The dispute over women's ministry in the Apostolic Church Order r
ates with intertextual echoes. The dialogue partners, Mary and Martha,
Andrew, James and John, are all sibling pairs in the Gospels (see Mar
possibly missionary duos (cf. Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1). The Gospels act
space for women's presence at the Last Supper: in Mark 14:13-16, Jesus
disciples to prepare the Passover seder, and in the evening he and the T
them (14:17). Since the masculine plural |iá0T]Tcu ("disciples") could
male/female pair, there is room for at least one woman at the feast. Mat
19 refers to an unspecified number of disciples who prepare the feast an
by Jesus, who takes his place with the Twelve (26:20), leaving open the
of multiple women participants (cf. Matt 27:55-56). Luke specifies tha
crptes sent to prepare the fea st were Peter an d John (22:7-13), obviatin
sibility of women's participation. In the Apostolic Church Order, how
the Apostolic Constitutions , women's presence at the Last Supper and
ministry are taken for granted; it is the nature of women's ôiaicovia (cf. L
John 12:2), specifically whether it includes eucharistic service, that is
Martha's criticism of Maiy - that she laughed at Jesus' words of euchar
tution - is reminiscent of episodes in Gnostic writings where a male dis
lenges Mary's authority ( Gospel of Mary 17-18; Gospel of Thomas
Sophia 71-72).56 The scene also recalls Martha's complaint against Mary
10:40, and Judas 's criticism of the anointing in John 12:4-5. Unlike in
and Gnostic texts, where Mary is defended by Jesus or a male disciple,
speaks up for herself (cf. Luke 24: 1 1 - 1 2; Epistle of the Apostles 9-12). S
that her laughter had nothing to do with the Eucharist; rather, it was an
of joy over Jesus' empowering words {Apostolic Church Order 26). Th
direct response to Mary's self-defense; instead Peter mentions an opinio
some Christians that women should only pray standing up ( Apostolic Ch
27). James's question - "Where shall we be able to set apart women for
except this ministry of this kind only, that they should help the needy?"57
Church Order 28) - brings the table talk to a close on an interrogative n
56 Note that "Mary" is not identified as "Mary Magdalene" in the Gospel of M

Gospel of Thomas ; although the designation "Magdalene" is sometimes used in Pi
Martha also figures as a dialogue partner of Jesus in the document (1 .38, 39, 57; 2.63
57 See de Boer, Mary Magdalene , 117.
ently leaving the question of women's ministerial roles open.58 The variety of
opinions expressed in the dialogue suggests a context in which the scope of wom-
en's ministries and decorum was a controversial, and not yet settled, matter, where
both women and men weighed in on both sides. Schüssler Fiorenza's comment
that the portrayals of Mary and Martha in "both Luke and the Fourth Gospel reflect
the struggle of early Christian women against patriarchal restriction of women's
leadership and ministry at the turn of the first century" applies well to this late-
fourth-century text.59
It is in the early Christian novella the Acts/ Martyrdom of Philip (fourth/fifth
century), where Mary, here depicted as the apostle Philip's missionary "sister,"
figures most prominently.60 Mary (Mariamne), who is never called "Magdalene"
in the Acts,61 is portrayed as the one who prepared bread and salt for the apostles
(8.2), implying a eucharistie ministry.62 Martha is also mentioned once, as perform-
ing "the ministry to the multitude" and, characteristically, working very hard (8.2).
Especially in view of the presence of Mary and Martha at the Last Supper in the
Apostolic Church Order and the Apostolic Constitutions , it seems likely that this
description of the sisters indicates that the community behind the Acts accepted
female involvement in the preparation and distribution of the Eucharist. Ernst
focuses on the document's brief depiction of Martha's eucharistic ministry,63 but
it is Mary who shines in multiple roles: "she was the one who kept the register of
the lands and she was the one who prepared the bread and salt, and made ready the
breaking of the bread" (8.2).04 That is, Mary was the one who assisted the Lord in
58 Contra de Boer ( Mary Magdalene , 1 19), who interprets James's words as definitively con-
finine women's ministry to service to the Door.
59 Schüssler Fiorenza, "Feminist Critical Interpretation," 32.
60 The Acts/Martyrdom of Philip tradition is fragmentary and has a complex textual history,
discussed in de Boer, Maty Magdalene , 88-89, 98. The account of its contents above is eclectic, but
it gives a sense of the prominent role played by Mary in the tradition.
61 Contra de Boer ( Mary Magdalene, 94), who assumes that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene.
De Boer grounds her confidence that Mary Magdalene is the missionary sister of the Acts of Philip
in the opinion of François Bovon, "who has studied this work for years" and "is convinced that Mary
Magdalene is meant, because she is introduced in a context of resurrection and proclamation" {Mary
Magdalene , 94, citing Bovon, "Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Philip," in Which Mary ? [ed. Jones],
75-90). As shown above, however, the Bethany sisters appear in these contexts also in extrabiblical
tradition, and the mention of Martha in 8.2 strongly suggests Mary of Bethany. Ernst {Martha, 261
n. 39) hypothesizes that the Mariamne of the Acts is the Theotokos or a "composite figure," but,
again, her pairing with Martha (8.2) makes Mary of Bethany the most natural identification.
62 Ernst notes, "It is clear that women hold a significant place in the community of the Acts.
One list in the tour of hell accuses a man and woman of having blasphemed 'against priests
(TîpeaPuxépouç), priestesses (npeaßimöac;), eunuchs (eùvoùxoc;), deacons (ÔiaKÓvouç), deaconesses
(ôiaKOVíaaaç), virgins (7tap0évou<;)" ( Martha , 259, citing Acts 1.12 [A]).
63 Ernst, Martha , 225-60.
THE HERMENEUTICS OF REMEMBRANCE 75 1
determining missionary assignments, and in supplying the apostles with t

ristie elements, which, for the ascetic community of thereto, comprised
salt.65 When Philip reacts negatively to the savior's assignment to him to
lize "the land of the Hellenes," Mary speaks to the Lord, who acknowled
Philip is the one with "the mentality of a woman," whereas Mary is "m
brave" (8.3). In order to support the weak Philip, Jesus sends Mary, Barth
and John along for support; presumably, Martha stays behind. John will
others in "the pains of martyrdom and the redemption of the whole wor
The savior instructs Mary to dress as a man and obliterate the image of E
so that the sacred serpents of Heliopolis will not recognize their primal f
with the first woman (8.4). When they arrive in the city, Philip baptizes
and Mary baptizes the women {Martyrdom 2), thus liberating the conve
the vipers. Philip uses Mary's saliva to heal the blindness of a man named
who opens his house to the missionaries {Acts 14.7; cf. Mark 8:23; 7:33).
teaching to the women is so effective that many leave their husbands, and
give up their finery {Martyrdom 3). Reminiscent of the Johannine Mary of
whose Jewish followers come to faith in Jesus (John 11:31, 45), Maiy 's p
to a wealthy Jewish woman named Nicanora liberates her from bondag
worship and ůeafe ůer of ùer itíness an d pain (Martyrdom 8-10). Mcanor
band, the proconsul, is infuriated by his wife's conversion; he orders tha
publicly stripped and accuses her of committing adultery with magician
Philip and Bartholomew are tortured but accept their martyrdom with joy ;
Mary's tormentors find themselves unable to touch her. Her body is tran
and she is surrounded by a cloud of fire (20). Subsequently, ancient Coptic,
and Arabic translations of the Greek Acts minimize Mary's role and em
Peter:
The content of the Acts of Philip is retold. Mary does not appear in them as a
It is Peter who stands beside Christ in the distribution of the lands and the cities
Peter who comforts Philip and Peter who accompanies Philip on his missi
the non-Greek versions of the Acts of Philip, Mary Magdalene [s/c] disapp
Peter takes over her role of apostle.66
The revisionist treatment of Mary in the translations illustrates her pivot

ancient controversies over women's roles in church and mission.
The heroic portrayal of Mary in the Greek Acts/Martyrdom of Philip rivals
the exploits of Thecla in her Acts or of Mary Magdalene in The Golden Legend,
Indeed, Mary's missionary career is presented in terms reminiscent of Thecla's:
she dresses as a man, sets out as a missionary, teaches, performs baptisms, and
65 See ibid., 94; Ernst, Martha , 264.

works miracles.67 As with Thecla, her missionary activity is well received by

women but not by men. Unlike Thecla, however, Mary is a Jewish believer who
is confident enough to intercede on Philip's behalf with the savior, who acknowl-
edges that she is better qualified for mission than the male apostle. Unlike Thecla,
who must pursue her ministry alone due to Paul's lack of support, Mary is part of
an apostolic missionary team, authorized by the Lord to travel and minister with
men. In contrast to the books of church order, this popular work enthusiastically
endorses multiple women's ministries, as embodied by the missionary Mary.
IV. Feast Days, Pilgrimages, and Hymnody
The early Christians who celebrated feast days in honor of Mary and Martha,
and who made pilgrimages to Bethany to visit holy sites associated with the Beth-
any family, were no doubt influenced not just by the biblical stories but by some
of the traditions summarized above. Victor Saxer observes, "Le 18 mars, Marie de
Béthanie prend place parmi 'les saintes parfumeuses.' Ce jour-là, les livres litur-
giques grecs et slaves rappellent le souvenir 4 de la soeur de Lazare, Marie, qui avait
parfumé avec du nard et essuyé de ses cheveux les pieds du Christ.'"68 That is,
Mary of Bethany was honored as one of the myrrh-bearing women on the basis of
John 12:1-8, although the feast was not dedicated to her alone. Saxer also notes
that the oldest witnesses to a feast day dedicated to Mary and Martha as "saintes
femmes porteuses de parfums" date between the tenth and the early fourteenth
centuries.69 It should be noted, however, that the feast day of July 22 for Mary
Magdalene is much better attested than that of the Bethany sisters.
The fourth-century Gallic pilgrim Egeria describes an observance held on the
second Sabbath before Easter in Bethany at the Lazarium, a church built on the
site where Mary the sister of Lazarus met with the Lord,70 an obvious reference to
the meeting between Mary and Jesus in John 1 1 : 29-30. Surprisingly, Egeria men-
tions neither Mary Magdalene nor Martha in her diary. Jerome mentions in the
Pilgrimage of the Holy Paula that the tomb and house of Mary and Martha were
67 Alternatively, it could be asserted that Thecla's career mirrors Mary's: in the seventh-century
Life of Pelagia , the deaconess Romana is comforted by the example of "Mary, Lazarus 's sister"
when the cross-dressing Pelagia of Antioch secretly leaves her house for Jerusalem in the night to
pursue a career as the pious wonder-working monk Pelagios (see Sebastian P. Brock and Susan
Ashbrook Harvey, Holy Women of the Syrian Orient [Transformation of the Classical Heritage 13;
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987] 59; cf. 49). Thanks to Allisyn G. Kateusz for this
reference.
68 Saxer, "Les saintes Marie," 4.
oy Ibid., 4 n. 10; see also 12-13.
70 See M. L. McClure and C. L. Feltoe, eds. and trans., The Pilgrimage of Etheria (Translations
of Christian Literature, Series 3, Liturgical Texts; London: SPCK, 1919) 63-64.
shown to the fourth-century Roman Paula.71 Neither the Letter of

Eustochium to Marcella nor Jerome's account of their pilgrimage refer
Magdalene. Saxer mentions a bronze disc found near Bethany at the end
nineteenth century inscribed in Greek with the words, "Lumière- Vie. Sai
Marthe, reçois l'offrande de ceux que le Seigneur connaît," which he da
to the Arab invasions of the seventh century.72
Ernst has drawn attention to several early Christian hymns that refer t
and Mary at the tomb of Jesus.73 The first, and only Western, example
the Ambrosian Missal from Milan, which has a transitory for the Friday of
following Easter that sings of the sisters: "When Mary and Martha cam
tomb, angels appeared in splendour and said to them: Whom do you see
living among the dead? He is not here! Come, see the place where he la
tell the disciples that the Lord is risen. Hallelujah."74 The earliest manu
the Missal date to the tenth and eleventh centuries, but Ernst notes that th
of the Bethany sisters in the hymn probably predates the extant manuscr
the presence of Martha among the myrrhophores is so rare in Western te
is unlikely to be a late insertion.75 The Syrian Catholic Fenqitho (festa
includes a Vespers service for the Monday of the week after Easter tha
tie proper "Go the Sunday Maríňa and Mary went to die tomó of ťňe S
carrying oil for his body, the other carrying spices."76 The Fenqitho is r
a fusion of several older texts from around the turn of the first millenni
oldest parts date from the fourth to the seventh centuries.77 A Greek Easte
preserved on a wooden tablet in Cologne and in an unpublished manuscri
Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris), dated prior to the sixth century, reads: "In
the tomb stood the [women] with Martha and Mary and wept. They sou
Lord, to anoint him as a corpse. An angel in shining gown called to the
not! For Jesus Christ is risen, who lives eternally.'"78 In this hymn, the w
portrayed as "seeking to understand clearly," and as the "myrrh-bearing
to whom "the one who is with the Father" appeared, who "gave them j
of weeping and mourning . . . light to souls."79 Ernst's conclusion concer
Greek hymn could well be applied to all these examples: "Insofar as there
71 Jerome, The Pilgrimage of the Holy Paula (trans. Aubrey Stewart; 1 887; repr.,
AMS, 2004) 11.
72 Saxer, "Les saintes Marie," 19 (Saxer 's translation). My translation of the inscription:
"Light-Life. Saint Mary-Martha, accept the offering of those whom the Lord knows."
73 See Ernst, Martha , 1 19-38.
74 Ibid., 119.
75 Ibid., 120.
76 Ibid., 122.
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid., 127.
79 Ibid.
a fusion of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany, this fusion has resulted in the
absorption of the Magdalene into Mary of Bethany, rather than the reverse."80
V. A Tomb for Mary?
In the Eastern tradition, Mary Magdalene is believed to have been buried at

Ephesus; in the West, her tomb at Saint-Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume in Provence is
highly esteemed.81 Jerome mentions that Paula visited the tomb of Lazarus on her
pilgrimage.82 Yet, as Saxer notes, there is no extant ancient tradition of a tomb of
his sisters.83 If the spectacular account of Mary's divine immolation in the Acts of
Philip was widely known, the absence of a tomb may be explained by a popular
belief that she was translated directly to heaven in a fiery cloud, like Elijah in his
flaming chariot (2 Kgs 2: 1 1).
Interestingly, the controversy surrounding the "Jesus family tomb" at Talpiot
has generated another possibility. In a brief article posted on the SBL website,
Stephen Pfann offers a corrected reading of the Greek inscription on Rahmani
Ossuary 70 1 , originally transcribed as "M APIAMENOY - MAPA" ("of Mariamenē
[a.k.a.] Mara" or "of Mariamenē the Master") by L. Y. Rahmani and Amos Kloner,
but presented as a reference to Mary Magdalene by the producers of the documen-
tary Lost Tomb of Jesus (2007).84 Pfann carefully argues that the inscription actu-
ally reads "MAPIAMH KAI MAPA"; further, he detects a change in scribal hand
in the last two words, indicating that they were added to the ossuary at a later date.
Since "Mara" was a common shortened form of the Aramaic name Martha, he
notes that the correct reading may be "Mary and Martha." He points out, however,
that another ossuary discovered at Dominus Flevit is inscribed with the Hebrew
names "Martha and Maria" and concludes that "there is no longer any reason to
be tempted to link this ossuary (nor the ambiguous traces of DNA inside) to Mary
Magdalene or any other person in Biblical, non-Biblical or church tradition."
Pfann 's conclusion seems overdrawn considering the high biblical profile of Mary
and Martha, but, of course, the juxtaposition of two such common women's names
does not definitively link either ossuary to the Bethany sisters.
80 Ibid., 130.
81 See Yves Bridonneau, The Tomb of Mary-Magdalene Saint-Maximin-la-Sainte-Baume:
Christianity s Third Most Important Tomb (Saint-Maximin: Édisud, 2006).
82 Jerome, Pilgrimage , 1 1 .
83 Saxer, "Les saintes Marie," 13-17.
84 Stephen J. Pfann, "Mary Magdalene Is Now Missing: A Corrected Reading of Rahmani
Ossuary 701," SBL Forum , n.p. [cited March 2007]. Online at http://sbl-site.org/Article.
aspx?ArticleID=653. For a response defending the "Mary Magdalene" interpretation, see James D.
Tabor, "Tabor Response to Pfann," SBL Forum , n.p. [cited March 2007]. Online at http://sbl-site.
org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=654.
VI. Conclusion: In Memory of Her

The purpose of this article has not been to set up an artificial oppo
between Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene or, in ancient homiletica
play Mary off against Martha, but to draw attention to the likelihood th
Bethany figures in early Christian tradition in a way that has not been
acknowledged in scholarship, feminist or not. As noted above, in "Rec
Mary of Bethany," I drew attention to the role of Mary of Bethany in t
ite figure of the "Mary" of the Gnostic writings. It is not enough, howe
that both Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany inform the portrayals o
figures discussed above; this would run the risk of reabsorbing Mary
back into the Magdalene. For the purposes of exegetical accuracy, it seem
to identify the early Christian Mary figures who are not specified as "M
(or as Mary Theotokos) and who are mentioned together with or in pr
Martha as Mary of Bethany (e.g., Hippolytus Commentary on the Song
and Commentary on Exodus ', Epistle of the Apostles ; First Apocalypse
Apostolic Constitutions ; Apostolic Church Order ; Acts of Philip). The ro
of Bethany in the characterization of"Maiy Magdalene" where she appea
with Martha should also be considered (e.g., Gospel ofNicodemus' Pistis
Manichean Psalms)?5 In fact, Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene all pl
inent roles in postbiblical Christian tradition. Like her saintly sisters,
Bethany figured in ancient controversies over the roles and conduct of
the early church that continue today.
Schüssler Fiorenza has famously observed that the woman of Beth
anoints Jesus' head in Mark 14:1-11 (par. Matt 26:6- 1 3) is not named, de
pronouncement "wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole w
she has done will be told in memory of her" (Mark 14: II).86 Although
differences between the Synoptic and Johannine accounts of the anointi
any, the versions are similar enough to suggest that they are variants o
story and that the woman has a name: Mary. Certainly, Christian traditi
recognized that Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, was the woman
Jesus, who anointed Jesus at Bethany. In addition to her Gospel portray
Christian tradition remembered Mary in a stellar array of roles and a
disciple, apostle to the apostles, symbol of the church, new Eve, particip
Last Supper, myrrh-bearing witness to the empty tomb and resurrection
trator, deacon, miracle worker, baptizer, eucharistie minister, missionary
Gnostic illuminata, and martyr. I offer this article in memory of her.
85 See Beavis, "Reconsidering," 292.

86 Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her , xiii.

Mary of Bethany and The Hermeneutics of Remembrance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Mary of Bethany and The Hermeneutics of Remembrance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mary of Bethany and The Hermeneutics of Remembrance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mary of Bethany and the Hermeneutics of Remembrance

Author(s): MARY ANN BEAVIS

MARY ANN BEAVIS

The feminist hermeneutical endeavor of the rediscovery and reassess-

An unintended side effect of the lively interest in Mary Magdalene is that,

Christianity and in postbiblical tradition, but in the process the figure o

I. Mary of Bethany in Feminist Exegesis

Throughout Christian history, Mary of Bethany has inevitably been

14 Mary Ann Beavis, "Reconsidering Mary of Bethany," CBQ 74 (2012) 281-97.

Subsequent feminist assessments of this passage, however, have tended to valorize

22 Leonard Swidler, "Jesus Was a Feminist," online at http://godswordtowomen.org/feminist

30 Spencer, "Testy Hostess," 1 89.

ern Christians continued to regard the two women as distinct individual

II. From the Gospels to the Apostle to the Apostles

45 As noted by Ernst, Martha , 99.

assumes, that this is an early example of the conflation of Mary Magd

46 J. A. Cerrato, "Martha and Mary in the Commentaries of Hippolytus," in Studia

III. Mary as Minister and Missionary

49 Ernst, Martha, 139-76.

56 Note that "Mary" is not identified as "Mary Magdalene" in the Gospel of M

determining missionary assignments, and in supplying the apostles with t

The revisionist treatment of Mary in the translations illustrates her pivot

65 See ibid., 94; Ernst, Martha , 264.

works miracles.67 As with Thecla, her missionary activity is well received by

IV. Feast Days, Pilgrimages, and Hymnody

shown to the fourth-century Roman Paula.71 Neither the Letter of

V. A Tomb for Mary?

In the Eastern tradition, Mary Magdalene is believed to have been buried at

VI. Conclusion: In Memory of Her

85 See Beavis, "Reconsidering," 292.

You might also like