Reconsidering Mary of Bethany

Reconsidering Mary of Bethany
Author(s): MARY ANN BEAVIS

Source: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 2 (April 2012), pp. 281-297
Published by: Catholic Biblical Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43727848
Accessed: 07-05-2020 07:20 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 07:20:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reconsidering Mary of Bethany
MARY ANN BEAVIS

St. Thomas More College
Saskatoon, SK S7N 0W6, Canada
After some forty years of scholarship focused on the figure of Mary

Magdalene, and contrary to many centuries of Catholic tradition, today there is
wide academic consensus that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are clearly
delineated and separate Gospel figures.1 The interpretive process by which Mary
of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were conflated with an anonymous sinner (Luke
7:36-50) and authoritatively pronounced to be one woman, Mary Magdalene, by
Gregory the Great in 591 c.e. has been rehearsed and critiqued by many contem-
porary biblical scholars.2 Today there is wide scholarly agreement that Jacques
Lefèvre d'Etaples (1517) was correct when he challenged the fusion of the two
Marys; according to d'Etaples' analysis of the relevant texts, Mary Magdalene and
1 E.g., Marjorie M. Malvern, Venus in Sackcloth: The Magdalen s Origins and Metamorphoses
(Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1975); Susan Haskins, Mary Magdalene: Myth and
Metaphor (New York: Riverhead, 1993); Katherine Ludwig Jansen, The Making of the Magdalen:
Preaching and Popular Devotion in the Later Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 2000); Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, In Search of Mary Magdalene: Images and Traditions
(New York: American Bible Society, 2002); Ann Graham Brock, Mary Magdalene, The First Apos-
tle: The Struggle for Authority (HTS 51; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003); Jane
Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament
(New York: Continuum, 2002); Karen L. King, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First
Woman Apostle (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2003); Holly E. Hearon, The Mary Magdalene Tra-
dition: Witness and Counter-Witness in Early Christian Communities (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 2004); Bruce Chilton, Mary Magdalene: A Biography (New York/London/Toronto: Double-
day, 2005); Lesa Bellevie, The Complete Idiots Guide to Mary Magdalene (New York: Alpha, 2005);
Dan Burstein and Arne J. de Keijzer, eds., Secrets of Mary Magdalene: The Untold Story of History 's
Most Misunderstood Woman (New York: CDS, 2006).
2 For a summary of this process, see Schaberg, Resurrection, 65-120.
281
282 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012
Mary of Bethany were distinct persons, and neither should be identified with the
sinful woman of Luke, let alone the repentant prostitute of Catholic tradition.3
In this article I will challenge the scholarly consensus that a hard and fast dis-
tinction between Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany is made in the Gospel tra-
ditions. Rather, I will show that the boundaries between the two Gospel characters
are amenable to blurring, especially in John, the only Gospel where Mary of
Bethany figures significantly, and that this becomes evident in early postbiblical
Christian tradition. Further, I will suggest that the qualities of Mary of Bethany as
represented in the NT help to account for the popularity of "Mary" in the many
early Christian - especially Gnostic - writings, where she is portrayed often with-
out further specification (including the Gospel of Mary, which never identifies its
heroine as "Magdalene" or "of Magdala"). The purpose of the argument is not to
reinstate the traditional fusion of the two Marys but to draw attention to the role
of Mary of Bethany, conflated early on with Mary Magdalene, in nascent Christian
tradition.
I. Mary and the "Bethany Family" in the Gospels
Although there is a vast literature on Mary Magdalene and the many ways
she has been interpreted in Western culture, the figure of Mary of Bethany has
been relatively neglected.4 Apart from exegeses (mostly homiletical) of the Gospel
passages in which she is mentioned (Luke 10:38-42; John 11:1-3, 17-37; 12: 1-11), 5
there is little consideration of her possible role in the circle of Jesus (except that
she was one of several female disciples) or of her afterlife in Christian tradition,
except insofar as she symbolizes the virtues of contemplation in contrast to her
sister Martha's active service.6 Her possible role in the many Gnostic writings that
refer to "Mary" without any further description is seldom, if ever, discussed;7 most
3 On d'Etaples' analysis of the relevant texts, see Chilton, Mary Magdalene , 59-60, 177 n. 59.
4 See n. 1 above.
5 E.g., Erin Rouse, "For the Love of Mary . . . and Martha," Lexington Theological Quarterly
36 (2001) 23-29; Joy Douglas Strome, "Kitchen Relief," Christian Century 124 (2007) 18; Holly E.
Hearon, "Luke 10:38-42," Int 4 (2004) 393-95; Sook Ja Choong, "Bible Study: Women's Ways of
Doing Mission in the Story of Mary and Martha," International Review of Mission 93 (2004) 9-16;
Joy Jordan Lake, "Jesus Makes Me Nervous: Mary, Martha, and Me," Christian Century 1 1 (1994)
711-12.
6 E.g., 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," Studia Patristica 44
(2010) 207-12; Jane Boyd, "Picture This: Velasquez' Christ with Mary and Martha," ExpTim 118
(2006) 70-77.
7 The term "Gnostic" is notoriously difficult to define; for the purposes of this paper, it will
refer to documents with the characteristics summarized by John F. A. Sawyer ("Gnosticism," in
idem, A Concise Dictionary of the Bible and Its Reception [Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
RECONSIDERING MARY OF BETHANY 283
scholars assume that the Gnostic Mary is Mary Magdalene, or possibly M

mother of Jesus.8 Edited works surveying the Marys of biblical and Gnos
tions do not significantly consider Mary of Bethany to be an important
either in the Gospels or early Christian tradition.9 This is a strange lacun
literature with respect to a woman whose sister, Martha, with whom she
associated in the Gospels, has been called "one of the three most importan
figures in the New Testament."10 As the following pages will show, Mary
significant a role as does Martha in the few Gospel passages in which th
women appear, and early Christian tradition credits "Martha and Mary"
title "apostles to the apostles."11
Although scholars often refer to "Mary of Bethany" in contradistinc
Mary Magdalene (or "Mary of Magdala," as she is often called in both sc
and popular literature, but never in the NT),12 the sister of Martha and L
placed in Bethany only by John (1 1:1; 12:1-3). In Luke 10:38-42, Jesus' v
Martha and Mary simply takes place in the house of Martha in a village (
somewhere on the way to Jerusalem (9:5 1, 53). It is usually assumed that
sisters live together, although this is not explicitly stated; Lazarus is not me
Martha is the dominant character in the pericope: Jesus visits her house
her name appears four times (vv. 38, 40, 41), including the emphatic "M
Martha" of v. 41 ; and she engages in a discussion with Jesus (vv. 40-42). Y
2009] 100): "gnostic interpreters understood the biblical creator God, or Demiurge as
him, to be working on a lower level than the supreme unknowable Source of all Being.
Savior was a divine being sent to give humanity the gnosis by which they might escape
evil material world, and he was never required to live and die as a real human being. T
race was then divided between the 'spiritual,' who achieved this special knowledge and
there is a divine spark, and the 'fleshly,' who could not escape from the material world."
8 For the debate regarding the identity of Mary in Gnostic writings, see the essays
Mary ? The Marys of Early Christian Tradition (ed. F. Stanley Jones; SBLSymS 19; Atlan
of Biblical Literature, 2002).
9 See Which Mary? (ed. Jones); Mariam, the Magdalen , and the Mother (ed. Dierd
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005); see also A Feminist Companion to Mario
Amy-Jill Levine with Maria Mayo Robbins; Feminist Companion to the New Testament
Christian Writings 10; Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2005).
10 Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel, A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey: Perspectives
inist Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1986) 57. The other two women are Mary of Naz
Mary Magdalene.
11 Hippolytus In Cant. 25.6. Hippolytus identifies the first witnesses to the resurr
Martha and Mary (24.1-25.5).
12 See, e.g., King, Gospel of Mary of Magdala; Mary R. Thompson, Mary of Magdala
and Leader (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1995); Stephen J. Shoemaker, "Rethinking the 'Gnos
Mary of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala in Early Christian Tradition," Journal of Early
Studies 9 (2001) 555-95; Karen L. King, "Canonization and Marginalization: Mary of
in Women's Sacred Scriptures (ed. Kwok Pui-lan and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza; C
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1998) 29-36.
commends the silent sister, Mary, who sits at his feet listening (rļKOuev) to his dis-
course (v. 39), for her attentiveness in contrast to Martha's "distraction"
(TiepieaTicxTo), "worry" (ļiepiļivāc;), and "upset" (9opußa(r|) (vv. 40-41). In Luke,
this story is the second reference to a "Mary" outside the infancy narrative; the
first is Mary Magdalene, introduced in 8:2 as a follower of Jesus from Galilee from
whom seven demons had been cast (cf. 24: 10). It is likely that the Lucan evangelist
intended Mary Magdalene ([iapia r' (icryScx'r|VT1) and Mary ([iapiáji) the sister of
Martha to be taken as different people. Both are minor characters in the context of
Luke, although in both 8:2 and 24:10 (the only places where she is mentioned by
name in the Gospel), Mary Magdalene is mentioned first among the female disci-
ples (although not among the resurrection witnesses; cf. 24:22-24).
In John, both Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene are more important char-
acters, but the distinction between them is not so clearly drawn. Unlike the Syn-
optic Gospels, John does not introduce Mary Magdalene as a follower from Galilee
(cf. Mark 15:40-41; Matt 25:55-57; Luke 8:2-3). Rather, she simply appears with-
out introduction at the crucifixion, along with Jesus' unnamed mother and either
one or two other women, depending on the referent of the phrase "his mother's
sister" (John 19:25). The first Mary to appear in John is the sister of Martha and
Lazarus, who is said (not surprisingly) to be from the same town as her brother,
"Lazarus of Bethany" (anò Br|0avia<;) (11:1). It is usually assumed that the three
siblings live together in Bethany, but this is not explicitly stated, although v. 18
specifies that the tomb of Lazarus was there. The reader/audience might surmise
that the women were in their hometown due to the illness of their brother. Of the
two sisters, Mary is mentioned first "as the one who had anointed the Lord with
perfume and wiped his feet with her hair" (11:2), an incident that seems to be
known by the reader/audience, although the anointing narrative does not appear
until the next chapter (12:1-8). As Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger notes, the reference to
Mary's anointing of Jesus amounts to her implicit confession of the suffering
Messiah (cf. 12:7). 13 The narrator emphasizes the intimacy between Jesus and the
"Bethany family"; he is pointedly said to love all three of them (11:5; cf. 1 1 :35),
the only characters specifically named as being "loved" (râna) by Jesus in the
Gospel.
The exchange between Martha and Jesus in John 11:17-27, culminating in
Martha's confession of Jesus as "the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into
the world" (v. 27), has rightly been interpreted as the Johannine equivalent of
Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27-30; Matt 16:13-20; cf. Luke
13 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, here 575.
9: 18-20). 14 The next pericope, however, deals with Mary, whom Jesus p
summons (John 1 1:28), and who leaves the house where she is being co
by "Jews" from Jerusalem when Martha goes to fetch her (vv. 29-31).
words to Jesus are identical to Martha's: "Lord, if you had been here, my
would not have died" (v. 33; cf. v. 21). Jesus answers Martha's reproach w
promise that her brother will rise again (v. 23), but the same words from th
ing Mary spark a strong emotional reaction: "When Jesus saw her weep
the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in s
deeply moved" (v. 33). Jesus weeps himself when he sees the tomb (v. 3
negativity of the bystanders in v. 37, who blame Jesus for not healing hi
friend (cf. v. 36) when he had healed a blind man, should not be project
Mary: her sorrow is the catalyst for the raising of Lazarus in 1 1 :38-44.15
In John's anointing story (12:1-8), Mary's role is more prominent tha
of her brother, here identified as the head of the household in Bethany (
Luke 10:38, where the house is Martha's), or that of her sister, who serv
Lazarus, and other guests at table (v. 2). As Adeline Fehribach observes, t
ence of the women at the dinner probably indicates a family meal with
guest list.16 She further notes that the meal was probably meant to be r
"act of reciprocity for Jesus' having raised Lazarus from the dead."17 Mar
ture of anointing Jesus' feet with "a pound of costly perfume made of pu
(v. 3) also conveys this theme; however, her position at the feet of Jes
implies a nuptial motif in keeping with the Johannine theme of Jesus as
sianic bridegroom (John 3:29; cf. 2:1-12): "Because the wife would gener
portrayed as sitting at her husband's feet at these dinners, the reader co
well have envisioned Mary as the affectionate bethrothed/bride of Jesus a
at his feet, anointing them with perfume."18 Fehribach suggests that Jo
which mentions that "the house was filled with the fragrance [òa(if1(;] of
fume [(iúpoi)]," echoes Song 1:12: "While the king was on his couch, my
gave forth its fragrance";19 John frequently refers to Jesus as "king" (1
12:13; 18:33, 37, 39; 19:3, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21) and depicts him "recl
(àvaK8i|iévcov) at table with Lazarus (12:2; cf. Song 1:12 LXX, èv àv
14 See Pamela Thimmes, "Memory and Re-Vision: Mary Magdalene Research Since
Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 6 (1998) 193-226, here 199.
15 See Adeline Fehribach, The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist H
Literary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN:
Press, 1998) 97; Kitzberger, "Mary," 576.
16 Fehribach, Women in the Life , 99.
17 Ibid., 98.
18 Ibid., 99-100.
19 Ibid., 93. See also Jocelyn McWhirter, The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God : Mar-
riage in the Fourth Gospel (SNTSMS 138; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 81-88.
airroü). This surmise is strengthened by the many references in Song of Songs to

"myrrh" (q iúpva) (3:6; 4:6, 14; 5:1, 5, 13), "nard" (vápSoç) (4:13, 14), and "fra-
grance" (oaļiīļ) or "perfume" ((iúpov, |iups'1/ÍKa) (1:3; 2:13; 3:6; 4:11; 5:13) in
descriptions of the lovers and their surroundings.
The close identification between the ļiijpov of the anointing scene and myrrh
(aļiupva) in John is indicated by the correlation made by Jesus between Mary's
ointment (12:7) and the myrrh (aļiupvrļc;) and aloes used to prepare Jesus' body
for burial (19:39). Jesus' approval of Mary's act is conveyed by his answer to
Judas, who complains that the valuable perfume should have been sold and the
money given to the poor (John 12:5): "Leave her alone. She bought it so that she
might keep it for the day of my burial" (12:7). Here Mary's love and prophetic
insight are contrasted with Judas 's hypocrisy, for, as the narrator informs the reader,
Judas was about to hand Jesus over (12:4). Not concerned about the poor, he was
a thief who stole from the common purse (12:6). Although it is Nicodemus and
Joseph of Arimathea who actually anoint Jesus' body for burial (19:38-40), Jesus'
pronouncement associates Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus with the entomb-
ment.20 Mary's commendable act, already mentioned twice in the Gospel (11:2;
12: 1-8), is echoed in the next chapter, where Jesus washes the feet of his disciples
as an example of mutual service to his own loved ones (13: 1-20).
As noted above, in John, "Mary Magdalene" first appears in 19:25 after the
Bethanian Mary, without introduction, where she is numbered among the women
at the cross. Whether the Johannine reader/audience would have recognized the
name and made a distinction between ļiapia r) [iaySa'r|vr| and the ļjapiciļi of the
Bethany stories is questionable. Both spellings of the name Mary, ļiapia and
[iapiáji, are used with reference to Mary Magdalene later in the Gospel (see 20:1,
11, 16, 18).21 It is also debatable whether the title |iay6a'r|VT1 would have been
taken as a gentilic ("Mary of Magdala"), since, as the popular Mary Magdalene
scholar Margaret Starbird has noted, there is no reference to such a town in sources
contemporary with Jesus. The city at the site of present-day Mejdel/Migdal was
consistently called Tarichea by Josephus, never Magdala; likewise Strabo ( Geogr.
16.2, 42), Pliny the Elder (Nat. 5.71), Suetonius ( Titus 4), and other contempora-
neous sources.22 The only first-century references to such a place are found in one
20 Fehribach ( Women in the Life, 101) speculates: "If one assumes . . . that Mary did not use
all the perfume and that the community of disciples in conjunction with Lazarus, Martha, and Mary
constitute a fictive kinship group, then one could assume that Mary, as bethrothed/bride, was to
'keep the remainder of the perfume for the men in the fictive family to use for Jesus' burial."
21 This is true also of the Synoptic references to Mary Magdalene: ļiapia in Matt 27:56; Mark
15:40, 47; 16:1; Luke 8:2; 24:10; cf. Mark 16:9; âpiáî in Matt 27:61; 28:1. The manuscript tradition
shows many variations between the two spellings of the name.
22 Margaret Starbird, Mary Magdalene: Bride in Exile (Rochester, VT: Bear, 2005) 52-55.
Starbird argues that "Magdalene" is a title derived from Mie 4:8-1 1, which addresses the migdal-
variant of Mark 8: 10 and one of Matt 15:39; in both verses, the preferred
are respectively Dalmanutha and Magadan.23 Although it is usually assu
scholars that the Galilean town of Tarichea went by two names, one Gr
one Aramaic, apart from the Sea of Galilee/Lake Tiberias (or Beth-
Scythopolis), few examples of such bilingual place-names come to mind
observation that Mary was "the one called Magdalene" (8:2) sugges
(iayôaXrivr) was a nickname or title from the Aramaic magdala ("Mary th
or "Mary the Great"), like "Simon called Peter" (Matt 10:2; Acts 10:32; 1
John 1:42), "Simon called the Zealot" (Luke 6:15), or "Joseph called Bars
(Acts 1:23), not a reference to her place of origin.24 If the Johannine read
ence perceived "Magdalene" as a title as opposed to a gentilic differentia
from the sister of Martha and Lazarus "of Bethany," it is conceivable tha
spective of authorial intent, the reader/audience would have associated th
at the cross with the Mary earlier associated with his death (12:7).25
Kitzberger detects other intertextual echoes between the narratives o
of Bethany and Mary of Magdalene. She calls the scene where Mary Ma
looks into the tomb and sees two angels sitting at the head and feet of t
where Jesus had lain (1 1 : 1 1-12) a "signal of interfigurality" (or "config
evoking the anointing stories of the Gospel tradition: "in Marks and M
stories (14.3-9; 26.6-13) the woman anointed Jesus' head as a substitute f
whole body; in Lukes story the woman anointed Jesus' feet, and so did
Bethany ."26 Although it is uncertain whether the Synoptic anointing stories
into John's empty tomb/resurrection narrative, in view of the resonances
the Johannine anointing and the Song of Songs, it may be significant th
cēder , the "watchtower of the flock," the daughter of Zion deprived of her king, "the deso
crying over her deceased bridegroom king. ... the Magdalene in her role as Daughter of
profaned and denigrated bride of Jesus forced into exile" (p. 62).
23 See Esther de Boer, Mary Magdalene: Beyond the Myth (trans. John Bowden; Ha
PA: Trinity Press International, 1997) 21.
24 The first Christian writer to translate "Magdalene" as "tower" is Jerome {Letter to P
127, 255), a title he interprets as referring to the earnestness and radiance of Mary's faith
25 The question could be raised whether John's audience, possibly in late-first-cent
Minor, would have known enough about Palestinian geography to question whether "M
was a gentilic or a title, and the answer is admittedly equivocal. However, the de
|icryôaAr|Víí - never Mary "of Magdala" or "from Magdala" (àTió/ÈK MayÔaXiíç) - is fo
four Gospels, which originate in different times and places. The absence of any refere
Gospel to the most-often named woman in the NT being from (anó/èic) any specific tow
worthy, especially when it comes to the Gospel of John. John's usual designations of c
places of origin, including Jesus', use constructions with ànó or ck (cf. 1 :44, 45, 46; 4:7; 1 1
21:2; Jesus is also called "Jesus the Nazorean" (not "the Nazarene") three times (18:5, 7
Matt 2:23; 26:17; Luke 18:37; 24:19; the Synoptic expression "Jesus Nazarene'YIqaou NaÇ
(Mark 10:47; cf. Mark 1 :24; Luke 4:34) is not used in John.
26 Kitzberger, "Mary," 582 (emphasis original).
20:1-18 contains similar echoes. This has been recognized since Hippolytus of
Rome identified "Martha and Mary" at the tomb seeking Christ with the female
lover of Song 3:1-6 separated from her beloved.27 The parallels between the two
passages are impressive: the woman wakes early to seek a beloved man (Song 3:1;
John 20: 1), but initially she does not find him (Song 3:2; John 20:2); she converses
with men concerning his whereabouts (Song 3:3; John 20:2, 13) and then joyfully
encounters him (Song 3:4; John 20:14-16). The Shulamite clings to her beloved
and will not let him go until they reach her mother's house (Song 3:4); Mary is
told by Jesus not to hold him, for he must ascend to the father (John 20:17). The
embalming spices mentioned in John 19:39-40 resonate with the myrrh, incense,
and spices of Song 3:6 (cf. 1:13; 4:6, 14; 5:1, 13; 6:2), as does the garden setting
(John 19:41; Song 4:12, 15, 16; 5:1; 6:2). If, as Kari Syreeni notes, the Gospel ref-
erences to Jesus as Bridegroom (Matt 9:15; 25:1-13; Mark 2:19, 20; Luke 5:34,
35; John 3:29; cf. John 2:9) are discreet about the identity of the bride,28 John,
with its multiple echoes of the Song of Songs, is the only one to allow a hint that
she is Mary.
As noted above, "Mary" is connected with the death of Jesus in the Johannine
anointing scene (12: 17), enhancing the "interfigurality" between Mary of Bethany
and Mary Magdalene. My argument here is not that the two Marys are deliberately
conflated by the evangelist, but that they are described in similar ways using similar
imagery, including images redolent of the female lover of the Song of Songs.
Although it could be demurred that nuptial imagery pervades John's Gospel and
that other women, especially Jesus' mother and the Samaritan woman, are por-
trayed in similar terms,29 the shared name of "Mary" interfigures the Bethanian
Mary and Mary Magdalene in a manner conducive to the subtle blurring of the
boundaries between the two.30
The non-Johannine references to Mary Magdalene are very brief and portray
her together with other women (Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1; Matt 27:56, 61; 28:1; Luke
8:2; 24:10). John's account of the encounter between Mary and the risen Jesus at
the tomb singles her out and provides a more developed portrait of the character,
but Mary of Bethany is arguably given more prominence: she is the first Mary to
appear in the Gospel, and she appears in two highly significant episodes - the rais-
27 See Brendan McConvery, "Hippolytus' Commentary on the Song of Songs and John 20:
Intertextual Reading in Early Christianity," ITQ 1 (2006) 21 1-22, here 217; cf. McWhirter, Bride-
groom Messiah, 88-105.
28 Kari Syreeni, "From the Bridegroom's Time to the Wedding of the Lamb: Nuptial Imagery
in the Canonical Gospels and the Book of Revelation," in Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human
Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (ed. Mariti Nissinen and Risto Uro; Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 343-70, here 344.
29 For scholars who make these connections, see McWhirter, Bridegroom Messiah , 50-56,
58-76; Fehribach, Women in the Life , 23-39, 58-68.
30 Jesus' mother is not named in John (cf. 1 :2- 1 2; 19:25-27).
ing of Lazarus, where Jesus is moved by her sorrow over her brother's de
the anointing, where she is commended by Jesus for her attentiveness to
ence (12:8). If, as suggested above, John leaves room for the blurring or "
uration" of the two Marys, the ļjapia/ļiapiciļi of the Gospel tradition b
more rounded figure, who follows Jesus, learns from him, is commended an
by him, anoints him for burial, and figures in the empty tomb and resurre
ries. It also paves the way for the fuller conflation of Mary of Bethany a
Magdalene in the early reception of the Gospel.
II. The Composite Mary in Early Christian Tradition
Although the Johannine evangelist portrays Mary of Bethany and Mar

dalene as two women with similar names and characteristics, there is evide
the two were sometimes fused in early Christian writings. Hippolytus's p
of "Martha and Mary" as the first witnesses to the resurrection (In Can
seems to be based on the assumption that the "Mary" at the tomb was the
Martha, not a distinct Mary Magdalene.31 The Ethiopie version of the E
the Apostles places three women at the cross: "Sarah and Martha and Mar
dalene" (9:3), apparently identifying Mary Magdalene with the sister of M
The title "Magdalene" appears only once in the Epistle , but "Mary" is me
repeatedly (3.10; 4.2), sometimes with reference to the mother of Jesus
and sometimes with reference to the "Mary" of the passion and resurrec
ratives (10.3 [Ethiopie]; 10.8 [Coptic]; 10.9 [Ethiopie]; 11.1; 14.1, 5, 7
early proto-orthodox writers who conflated Mary Magdalene and Mary of
include Tertullian (Pud. 1 1.2) and Clement of Alexandria (Paed. 2.8; cf.
PG 13: 172 1-22). 33 Robert M. Grant cites Clement Exc. 50.1 and Origen
Jo. frag. 78 as evidence of early conflation of the two Marys.34 Allie M. Ern
that the tradition of Martha along with Mary at the tomb is geographica
temporally widespread, against J. A. Cerrato's surmise that it was localize
31 The presence of the Bethany sisters at the tomb is mentioned also in a frag
Hippolytus's commentary on Exodus (see Allie M. Ernst, Martha from the Margins : The A
of Martha in Early Christian Tradition [VCSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 2009] 99).
32 See Julian V. Hills, The Epistle of the Apostles (Early Christian Apocrypha 2; San
CA: Polebridge, 2009) 30.
33 J. A. Cerrato, "Martha and Mary in the Commentaries of Hippolytus," in Studia Pa
Papers Presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held
1999, vol. 1, Histórica, Biblica, Theologica et Philosophica (ed. M. F. Wiles et al.; Studia
34; Leuven: Peeters, 2001) 294-97, here 295-96. In the Apostolic Constitutions (26-27
women who enter the dialogue among the male disciples are Martha and Mary; see J. P.
"An Entire Syriac Text of the 'Apostolic Church Order,"' JTS 3 (1901) 59-80.
34 Robert M. Grant, "The Mystery of Marriage in the Gospel of Philip," VC 15 (19
40, here 138.
35 Ernst, Martha , 7.
questionable whether the tradition of the sisters at the tomb was an extrabiblical
tradition known to these witnesses, or whether it developed as an antidote to the
emerging Gnostic exaltation of Mary Magdalene.36 Just as likely, it was based on
the conflation of the Marys of John, along with the assumption that Martha would
have accompanied her sister on her sacred errand.37 Cerrato opines that "a tradition
did flourish in the second century which placed Martha and Mary (perhaps with
Mary Magdalene already identified as Mary of Bethany) at the tomb and made
much of their presence."38 In view of the homiletical nature of Hippolytus's Com-
mentary, it is likely that the placement of the Bethany sisters at the tomb was well
known to his audience.39
In the light of this early Christian tendency to merge the two Marys,40 the fre-
quent scholarly assertion that "Mary Magdalene" figures in a variety of Gnostic
documents needs to be interrogated. Pamela Thimmes, for example, lists eleven
"gnostic/apocryphal texts" in which Mary Magdalene is presented as a character:
" Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), Pis tis Sophia , Gospel of Philip,
Epistula Apostolorum, Gospel of Peter, Dialogue of the Savior, Sophia of Jesus
Christ, the First Apocalypse of James, the Great Questions of Mary and the
Manichaean Psalm-book ."41
Few of these texts, however, refer clearly to Mary Magdalene. The Gospel of
Thomas mentions a figure called "Mary" twice (21, 114), neither specified as
"Magdalene," as well as a female disciple called Salome (61). Similarly, the doc-
ument frequently referred to as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene features dialogues
between various male disciples and a woman called Mary (5.2, 4, 5, 7; 9: 1, 5), but
the title "Magdalene" does not appear. In Pistis Sophia (fourth century c.e.), Mary
(sometimes specified as "the Magdalene," sometimes as "the Mother")43 is credited
36 Cerrato ("Martha and Mary," 295) mentions this possibility, but rejects it in favor of the
hypothesis that the conflation of Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany was pre-Hippolytan. It will
be shown below that the Gnostic Mary is not as clearly identified as Mary Magdalene as is often
assumed.
37 On Martha's role in early liturgy, hymnody, and iconography (especially as one of the holy
myrrh bearers), see Ernst, Martha , 1 19-76; see also Diane E. Peters, The Many Faces of Martha of
Bethany (Ottawa: St. Paul University, 2008).
38 Cerrato, "Martha and Mary," 296.
39 Ibid., 297.
40 It should be noted that this was not universal; many early Christian writers refer to Mary
the sister of Martha and Mary Magdalene as different women (e.g., Ep. Ap. 9.3 [Coptic]; Ap. Cons.
3.6.2; Ambrose Comm. Luke 164).
41 Thimmes, "Memory and Re- Vision," 206.
42 See Dierdre Good, "Pistis Sophia," in Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2, A Feminist Com-
mentary (ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza; New York: Crossroad, 1994) 678-707, here 687.
43 Ann Graham Brock, "Setting the Record Straight - the Politics of Identification: Mary Mag-
dalene and Mary the Mother in Pistis Sophia in Which Mary? (ed. Jones), 43-53, here 46. "Mary
RECONSIDERING MARY OF BETHANY 29 1
with thirty-nine of the forty-six questions posed to Jesus by his disciples.44

Jesus' other female interlocutors is Martha (Pistis Sophia 1.38, 39, 57; 2.6
80), who, like Mary, is repeatedly commended for her words.45 The Gosp
Philip refers to three Marys - Jesus' mother, Jesus' sister, and "the Magda
the last called his "companion" (59), whose close relationship to Christ is
rated: "The companion of the [savior] is Mary Magdalene. The [savior] lov
more than [all] the disciples, [and he] kissed her often on her [mouth]" (63
noted above, the Ethiopie Epistle of the Apostles (9:3) places "Sarah and M
and Mary Magdalene" at the tomb of Jesus,"47 the only verse where the
"Mary" is paired with the title "Magdalene" (cf. 10.3 [Ethiopie]; 10.8 [C
1 0.9 [Ethiopie]; 11.1; 14. 1 , 5, 7). The fragmentary First Apocalypse of James
to "Salome and Mary" and possibly to "[Martha and Ars]inoe."48 The Gosp
Peter briefly mentions that a female disciple named Mary Magdalene visite
tomb with other women ( 1 2.50). The Dialogue of the Savior contains fourte
ings attributed to "Mary," never specified as "Magdalene." Mary asks two
tions in the Sophia of Jesus Christ ; again, the title "Magdalene" is not used
brief excerpt from the Great Questions of Mary preserved in Epipha
Panarion 26.8.4-26.9.2, which recommends the soteriological consump
semen and menstrual blood, the Mary in question is not specified as the
lene.49 The Manichaean Psalms refer frequently to figures named "M
"Marihammē," and "Marihama," but the name "Magdalene" occurs onl
(book 2, 192.21-22). Both Marihammē and Marihama are mentioned togethe
Martha, as J. Kevin Coy le notes, "The reference to 'Martha . . . her sister' str
Magdalene" is specified in Pistis Sophia 2.83, 85, 87, 88, 90, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99; 3.127, 132
the Mother" in 1.8, 59, 61, 62.
44 De Boer, Mary Magdalene , 65.
45 In view of Martha's presence in the document, the debate as to whether the predo
Mary of Pistis Sophia is Mary Magdalene or Mary the Mother of Jesus does not seriously
whether Mary of Bethany might be one of Jesus' dialogue partners. See Stephen J. Shoem
Case of Mistaken Identity? Naming the Gnostic Mary," in Which Mary ? (ed. Jones), 5-30
the same volume, Antti Marjanen, "Mother of Jesus or the Magdalene? The Identity of Mary
So-Called Gnostic Christian Texts," 31-42. See also Brock, "Setting the Record Straight,"
Marjanen briefly raises the question in The Woman Jesus Loved: Mary Magdalene in the N
madi Library and Related Documents (NHMS 40; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 122-45, here 136.
46 See Marvin Meyer with Esther A. de Boer, The Gospels of Mary: The Secret Tradi
Mary Magdalene, the Companion of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004) 49.
47 See Hills, Epistle of the Apostles , 30.
48 See Meyer and de Boer, Gospels of Mary , 1 16. For further discussion of the figu
Antti Marjanen, "Mary Magdalene in the First Apocalypse of James," in his Woman Jesu
122-45.
49 See Antti Marjanen, "Mary Magdalene in The Great Questions of Mary," in his Woman
Jesus Loved , 189-202.
if not irrefutably, indicates that in Marihama the psalmist has Mary of Bethany in
mind."50 To Thimmes's list should be added the second Greek version of the
Gospel ofNicodemus , which places "Martha, and Mary Magdalene, and other vir-
gins" at the foot of the cross with Jesus' mother,51 and the Acts of Philip , which
portrays Mariamne the sister of Martha (here, portrayed as "sisters" of Philip) as
the preeminent female disciple.52 In Against Celsus , Origen notes that his opponent
knew of sects named after Marcellina, Salome, Mariamne, and Martha (5.62), pos-
sibly indicating that the Mary (Mariamne) revered by the Gnostics was Martha's
sister.53
The following table summarizes the evidence:
Mary "Magdalene" Mary and Mary "Magdalene" Mary (not

and Martha Martha (no Martha) "Magdalene"; no
Martha)
Gospel of Hippolytus, On Gospel of Peter Gospel of Thomas

Nicodemus (2nd the Song of
Greek Version) Songs
Epistle of the Origen, Against Gospel of Philip Gospel of Mary

Apostles Celsus
(Ethiopie)
Pistis Sophia Apostolic Sophia of

Constitutions Jesus Christ
Manichaean Acts of Philip Dialogue of the

Psalms Savior
First Apocalypse Great Questions

of James of Mary
Only two of these documents ( Gospel o

"Mary Magdalene" without any referenc
Magdalene" and Martha ( Gospel of Nicod
50 J. Kevin Coyle, "Twelve Years Later: Revisit

(ed. Good), 197-212, here 199. Coyle goes on to dem
with Mary of Magdala that both early Christian a
51 James de Quincey Donehoo, ed., The Apocryp
Hodder & Stoughton, 1903) 345, cited by Diane
Pseudo-Marcilla," TS 58 (1997) 441-60, here 442
52 See the excerpts in de Boer, Mary Magdalen
53 See Diane E. Peters, "The Legends of St. Ma
the Later Middle Ages," American Theological Li
(1994) 149-64, here 150.
Sophia, Manichaean Psalms ), six refer to both "Mary and Martha" without
the title "Magdalene" (Hippolytus, Origen, Apostolic Constitutions , Acts of
First Apocalypse of James), and five simply refer to "Mary" ( Gospel of T
Gospel of Mary, Sophia of Jesus Christ, Dialogue of the Savior, Great Qu
of Mary). Thus, the confidence and frequency with which the Mary of thes
is identified as "Mary Magdalene" do not seem to be justified.
III. Mary of Bethany and the Gnostic Mary
It is particularly difficult to account for the Gnostic interest in "Mary"

the sketchy portrayal of Mary Magdalene in the Synoptics, where she is b
mentioned, along with other women, as a follower of Jesus from Galilee a
witness to the empty tomb and/or resurrection (Mark 1 5:40, 47; 16: 1 ; Matt
61; 28:1; Luke 8:2; 24:10). The Johannine stories, particularly the postresur
encounter between Jesus and Mary (20: 11-18), develop the Mary Magdalene
somewhat,54 but once John's blurring of the two Marys is recognized (as i
to have been by the early Christian writers noted above), the hybrid Mary
to reveal some of the characteristics of the Gnostic Mary.
Esther A. de Boer has argued that Mary Magdalene is the "beloved di
of John (13:23; 19:26; 20:2, 7; 21:20). 55 Antti Marjanen describes her
woman Jesus loved," with particular reference to her depiction in the G
Philip and the Gospel of Mary as the companion of the savior whom he lo
often kissed (Gos. Phil. 63), the one whom the savior loved more than other
(Gos. Mary 10).56 If these references are at all grounded in the Johannine tra
it is plausible that the idea of a love relationship between Jesus and Mary orig
not specifically with reference to Mary Magdalene but in John's referen
Jesus' love for Martha, Mary, and Lazarus (1 1 :5), perhaps in combination w
intertextual echoes among Song of Songs, the anointing at Bethany (John 1
and the story of Mary Magdalene at the tomb (20: 1 1-1 8). 57 The intimacy b
54 On the portrayal of Mary Magdalene as a prophet in John 20:1 1-18, see Schaberg
rection , 300-356; Mary Rose D'Angelo, "'I Have Seen the Lord': Mary Magdalen as Vi
Early Christian Prophecy, and the Context of John 20: 14- 1 8," in Mariam, the Magdalen (e
95-122. Brock situates Mary's "apostolic authority" in early Christianity in her status as firs
to the resurrection commissioned to report the news to the other disciples, as evidenced by
title of her book, The Struggle for Authority (see n. 1 above).
55 Esther A. de Boer, "Mary Magdalene and the Disciple Jesus Loved," Lectio Diffic
(2005), http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/00_l/m-forum.htm (accessed January 29, 201 1).
56 Marjanen, Woman Jesus Loved ; see also his "Mary Magdalene, a Beloved Disci
Mariam (ed. Good), 40-62.
57 Another factor in the depiction of the love relationship between Jesus and Mary /Mar
dalene is the parallels between John 20: 1 1 - 1 8 and type scenes (a lover visits an empty tom
recognizes a lost spouse) from Greek love novels (see Fehribach, Women in the Life , 63).
the Bethany family and Jesus is indicated by the message the sisters send to him
in John 11:5: "The one whom you love is ill." Unlike the members of the Bethany
family, Mary Magdalene is not specifically said to be "loved" by Jesus in John or
in the Synoptics.
Several Gnostic writings ( Gospel of Thomas, Pistis Sophia, Dialogue of the
Savior, Sophia of Jesus Christ, and Gospel of Mary) portray Mary/Mary Magdalene
as a dialogue partner with Jesus. Apart from the postresurrection encounter
between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in John 20: 1 1-18, there are no canonical ref-
erences to conversations between the two, before or after the resurrection. Yet,
when Mary of Bethany is factored into the Gnostic Mary figure, her Gospel origin
becomes more apparent: she is one who listens attentively at the feet of Jesus to
his Xóyoc; (Luke 10:38-42; cf. Acts 22:3)58 and who converses with him prior to
the raising of Lazarus (John 11:28-33). In both the Gospel of Thomas (114) and
the Gospel of Mary (17-18), Mary is rebuked by a disciple - Simon Peter in the
former and Peter and Andrew in the latter. In Pistis Sophia , Peter complains to
Jesus of Mary's loquaciousness, but Jesus defends her right to speak (71); subse-
quently, Mary expresses her fear of Peter because of his hatred of her gender, and
"the first mystery" addresses her as a woman "filled with the spirit of light" (72). 59
The canonical Mary Magdalene is never rebuked by a disciple, but the Mary who
anoints Jesus at Bethany is rebuked - by Judas (John 12:4-5) and, in Luke 10:38-
42, when Martha complains about Mary to Jesus. In the Gospels, Mary the sister
of Martha is defended by Jesus (Luke 10:42; John 12:7), as is Mary in Gos. Thorn.
58 It has often been suggested that Mary is portrayed as "passive" in this anecdote, in that she
does not engage in dialogue with Jesus like the disciples of rabbis in later Jewish tradition (e.g.,
Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Theological Criteria and Historical Reconstruction: Martha and
Mary. Luke 10:38-42. Protocol of the Fifty-third Colloquy 10 April 1986 [Berkeley: Center for
Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1986] 29; Turid Karisen Seim, "Luke,"
in Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2, A Feminist Commentary [ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza; New
York: Crossroad, 1994] 745-47; Jane D. Schaberg, "Luke," in The Women s Bible Commentary [ed.
Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992] 275-92, here
289; Barbara E. Reid, Choosing the Better Part ? Women in the Gospel of Luke [Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 1992] 1 53-54). The brevity of the narrative, however, makes it difficult to determine
whether the reader/audience would assume that Mary's "female" discipleship was qualitatively dif-
ferent from the men's. Certainly Martha is portrayed as confidently speaking her mind to Jesus in
the pericope. In addition, Luke's Mary of Nazareth engages in dialogue with the angel (1:28-38)
and rebukes her son for remaining behind in the temple (2:48-51). In other Lucan pericopes, the
disciples do not so much engage in dialogue with Jesus as pose questions (or think critical thoughts)
that Jesus answers definitively in a pronouncement, often with an element of correction or rebuke
(e.g., 5:8-10; 8:9-10; 9:10-1 1, 46-48, 54-56; 18:26-30; 22:24-30; cf. 24:13-35). In view of the cor-
rective nature of Jesus' exchanges with other disciples (including Martha and Mary of Nazareth; cf.
2:49), Mary's silence may indicate her superior receptivity to Jesus' teaching, the "better part" cho-
sen by her and commended by Jesus (10:42).
59 See Meyer and de Boer, Gospels of Mary , 68.
1 14 and in the postresurrectional Gospel of Mary { 18), where Levi takes

of Jesus in speaking in her favor. In the canonical Gospels, Mary of Beth
Mary Magdalene, is portrayed as a disciple who listens to the Lord and wh
with him in the company of others. Martha's presence with Mary "Mag
among the dialogue partners in Pistis Sophia may also be grounded in the
stories in which Jesus speaks with her, as with her sister (Luke 10:38-4
11:17-27).
Several Gnostic documents portray Jesus commending Mary/Mary Magda-
lene for her spiritual insight. The Dialogue of the Savior famously refers to "Mary"
as "a woman who understood everything" ( 1 39) and as one who shows "the great-
ness of the revealer" (140).60 In Pistis Sophia, Jesus calls Mary "Blessed ... for
you are one whose heart is set on heaven's kingdom more than all your brothers"
(17), "more blessed than all women on earth" (19), and "pure, spiritual woman."61
In the Gospel of Mary, Levi describes Mary as one made worthy by the savior
(18). In the Gospel of Philip , the savior explains his love for Mary in terms of her
spiritual vision, in contrast to the male disciples' "blindness" (49). In the First
Apocalypse of James , Mary and the other female disciples (possibly including
Martha) are shown as powerless vessels who "have become strong by a perception
which is in them" (38. 22-23). 62 In the canonical Gospels, Mary Magdalene is never
commended by Jesus, but Mary the sister of Martha is: she is the one who has cho-
sen the "better part" by attending to his words (Luke 10:42), and who shows true
discipleship in the Johannine anointing account (John 12:7-8). Blended with the
Mary (Magdalene) who figures in the empty tomb story and resurrection appear-
ances, the attributes of Mary of Bethany help explain the frequent portrayal of
Mary as the Gnostic apostle par excellence. Moreover, in view of the early ten-
dency to place Mary and Martha at the tomb of Jesus, it is plausible that the qual-
ities of Martha's sister would inform the Mary/Mary Magdalene of Gnostic
Christianity.
The table on the following page summarizes the motifs associated with Gnos-
tic portrayals of Mary/Mary Magdalene and their affinities with the Mary of
Bethany of the canonical Gospels.
IV. Restoring Mary of Bethany
In scholarship, the reasoning behind preferring Mary Magdalene over Mary

of Bethany as the Gnostic Mary (if the issue is raised) is that the two women are
distinct in the NT Gospels. Since Mary Magdalene is a first witness to the empty
60 See ibid., 59-60.

61 Ibid., 66-69.
62 See Marjanen, Woman Jesus Loved , 136.
tomb and/or resurrection in the canonical tradition, she is the best candidate.63 A
more complex line of reasoning is offered by Marjanen in his consideration of the
identity of "Mary" in the First Apocalypse of James:
Gnostic Motif Gnostic Writings Canonical Writings
Love of Jesus for Gospel of Philip John 11:5; cf. 12:1-8

Mary Gospel of Mary
Jesus converses with Gospel of Thomas John 1 1:28-33; Luke 10:38-42

Mary Pis tis Sophia
Dialogue of the
Savior
Sophia of Jesus
Christ
Gospel of Mary
Mary rebuked by a Gospel of Thomas Luke 10:40; John 12:4-5

disciple Gospel of Mary
Pis tis Sophia
Mary defended by Gospel of Thomas Luke 10:41-42; John 12:7-8

Jesus (or another Gospel of Mary
disciple) Pistis Sophia
Jesus commends Dialogue of the Luke 10:42; John 12:7-8

Mary Savior
Gospel of Mary
Pistis Sophia
Cf. Gospel of Philip
First Apocalypse of
James
Martha present Pistis Sophia Luke 10:38-42; John 12: 1-8

First Apocalypse of
James
Manichaean Psalms
Acts of Philip
63 See, e.g., Chilton, Mary Magdalene, 9; cf. 117-18, 122, 123-28, 129, 131, 133, 137, 140-
41, 142, 148, 190-91, 193. Bart D. Ehrman, Peter, Paul , and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of
Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 1 88-90, 206- 1 6; Meyer repeat-
edly opines that the unspecified Mary of various Gnostic writings is "most likely Mary Magdalene"
( Gospels of Mary, 100 n. 14; cf. 103 n. 43; 107 n. 116; 110 n. 2; 112 n. 2); de Boer, in Meyer and
de Boer, Gospels of Mary, 5.
[I]n addition to Magdalene another woman can be forwarded as an alternative

fication of Mary. If one of the persons in the list of women is Martha, as argued
one can ask whether Mariam of the text could be her sister, Mary of Bethan
11,19; 12,3). There are two arguments which render this interpretation unlikel
in Pis tis Sophia I- III, the only known Gnostic text where Martha indisputably
besides the Manichaean Psalm-book II, she does not do it together with her s
indeed with Salome and Mary Magdalene (and Mary, the Mother of Jesus).
one of the lists of four women in the Manichaean Psalm-book II makes it expl
Mary of the text is Mary Magdalene ( 1 92,2 1 -22).64
The presence of other women with Mary and Martha in Gnostic docum
hardly probative, but, more fundamentally, this line of reasoning fails to
account the evidence for the early non-Gnostic conflation of Mary Magda
Mary of Bethany noted above. Moreover, the hybridization of the two Mary
explains the characteristics of the Gnostic figure. Deirdre Good has call
unspecified "Mary" of the Gospel of Mary a "figure whose religious lea
and spiritual authority are linked to Mary Magdalene of the Christian Te
and Miriam of Hebrew Scriptures. . . . The figure Mariam/Mary/Mariham
on a composite identity, to which layers of Manichaean tradition also a
De Boer mentions Stephen J. Shoemaker's argument that "the Gnostic Ma
be a composite figure, in which Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother
are merged."66
If the Gnostic Mary is a composite figure, the part of Mary of Bethany,
with that of the canonical Mary Magdalene, should be acknowledged rath
discounted (e.g., Marjanen) or overlooked (e.g., Shoemaker, Good, de Boe
is not to say that the Gospel depictions of Mary Magdalene as resurrection
apostle, and visionary are not intrinsic to the Gnostic Mary figure. Nor is it
that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are represented as distinct ch
in the canonical Gospels (although, as noted by Kitzberger, there is sign
"interfiguration" of the two in John and, as argued above, John's presen
the two figures is conducive to their blending). Rather, it is to assert that
Bethany - the beloved friend of Jesus who listens to his word, converses wi
anoints him for burial, and is commended and defended by him - is a sig
component in the Mary/Mary Magdalene figure of early Christian writin
Gnostic and proto-orthodox.
64 Marjanen, Woman Jesus Loved , 131.

65 Good, "Pistis Sophia," 696.
66 De Boer, in Meyer and de Boer, Gospels of Mary, 5 n. 12; for Shoemaker's argum
his "A Case of Mistaken Identity? Naming the Gnostic Mary," in Which Mary ? (ed. Jon

Reconsidering Mary of Bethany

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Reconsidering Mary of Bethany

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reconsidering Mary of Bethany

Author(s): MARY ANN BEAVIS

MARY ANN BEAVIS

After some forty years of scholarship focused on the figure of Mary

I. Mary and the "Bethany Family" in the Gospels

scholars assume that the Gnostic Mary is Mary Magdalene, or possibly M

airroü). This surmise is strengthened by the many references in Song of Songs to

II. The Composite Mary in Early Christian Tradition

Although the Johannine evangelist portrays Mary of Bethany and Mar

with thirty-nine of the forty-six questions posed to Jesus by his disciples.44

The following table summarizes the evidence:

Mary "Magdalene" Mary and Mary "Magdalene" Mary (not

Gospel of Hippolytus, On Gospel of Peter Gospel of Thomas

Epistle of the Origen, Against Gospel of Philip Gospel of Mary

Pistis Sophia Apostolic Sophia of

Manichaean Acts of Philip Dialogue of the

First Apocalypse Great Questions

Only two of these documents ( Gospel o

50 J. Kevin Coyle, "Twelve Years Later: Revisit

III. Mary of Bethany and the Gnostic Mary

It is particularly difficult to account for the Gnostic interest in "Mary"

1 14 and in the postresurrectional Gospel of Mary { 18), where Levi takes

IV. Restoring Mary of Bethany

In scholarship, the reasoning behind preferring Mary Magdalene over Mary

60 See ibid., 59-60.

Gnostic Motif Gnostic Writings Canonical Writings

Love of Jesus for Gospel of Philip John 11:5; cf. 12:1-8

Jesus converses with Gospel of Thomas John 1 1:28-33; Luke 10:38-42

Mary rebuked by a Gospel of Thomas Luke 10:40; John 12:4-5

Mary defended by Gospel of Thomas Luke 10:41-42; John 12:7-8

Jesus commends Dialogue of the Luke 10:42; John 12:7-8

Martha present Pistis Sophia Luke 10:38-42; John 12: 1-8

[I]n addition to Magdalene another woman can be forwarded as an alternative

64 Marjanen, Woman Jesus Loved , 131.

You might also like