Adding this way late, but I am reviewing all of this, along with all the mentions of Mary Magdalene in the gospels, with an eye to a women's retreat this fall, and I noticed an interesting thing in Luke. After going to the empty tomb, the women go to the apostles, and there's a verse about Peter that isn't in all ancient manuscripts. This doesn't directly connect, except for supporting the idea that some communities wanted to emphasize Peter (and de-emphasize Mary).
Luke 24:10 "Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened."*
*NRSVUE note says other ancient authorities don’t include verse 12.
Sorry for returning to this thread more than a week later, but I found it interesting that the Martyrology for July 29th in the Catholic Church reads: At Tarascon, in Gaul, the holy Virgin Martha, the hostess of our Saviour, and the sister of blessed Mary Magdalene and of holy Lazarus.
I myself am not Catholic, but I found this interesting enough to share.
I portrayed Mary in a production of "Jesus Christ Superstar" during Lent in 2019. I became very intimate with Mary during those months (early Jan-Palm Sunday in April) and I mourned her when it was over. To embody her, to see Jesus as fully human, to consider the acts of other humans, the real and personal relationships of actual humans every day for months, it changed me forever. Every day I wept real tears as my friend and Lord was betrayed and beaten and killed. Thankfully a friend helped get me from crucifixion to resurrection and out of the darkness around Easter time, but I missed her deeply. Mary's authentic power and proximity to salvation deserve a bigger story, and I'm so grateful for the research to share her magnificence more fully. Thank you for this work.
What I felt sitting there listening to you was energy: positive, hopeful energy. And joy! It feels like that is what Mary the Tower brought in her witness and continues to bring in her presence.
As an aside, what an honor to have Dr. Schrader chiming in! I think I'm a fangirl!
I am so glad I asked you to print your notes from this year's Wild Goose. You blew us away again! The excitement of most is palpable I can feel it through my screen. I am also glad that Libbie was here to answer questions. Thank you both!
This idea failed to convince me last year, and it fails again. It is somewhat ironic that in the Orthodox Church, Mary Magdalene’s official designation is “Mary Magdalene, Equal to the Apostles” (Isapostolos in Greek). I say ironic, because the official line against female clergy is that all the apostles were males. Well then, why does the Church call her “Equal to the Apostles” but continue to deny any kind of church leadership to women? Inexcusable, in my opinion.
But I fail to be convinced by Elizabeth Schrader. I have access to Papyrus 66 in digital form on my computer. In its surviving form, it does say ‘Martha” in the beginning of Chapter 11 of John, but there is a note that a corrector has made the change that Dr. Schrader and Diana point out: μαριας (marias) was changed to μαρθας (marthas) by erasing ι and adding θ superlinearly (c1) [Comfort, P. W., & Barrett, D. P. (2001). The text of the earliest New Testament Greek manuscripts. Tyndale House.]
The original scribe of Papyrus seems to have made a mistake and written maria twice. The scholar in the above Tyndale volume distinguishes between two correctors of the scribe. The first corrector is the one who changed maria to martha. There are no corrections to the same effect in the remainder of the papyrus text. So I don't see how one can just bring Mary Magdalene into the narratives and make her a sister of Lazarus. I'm not a scholar like Dr. Schrader, but I just don't see it.
The rest of chapter 11 in Papyrus 66 reads pretty much the way we’re used to - two sisters, not one. Furthermore, if Maria was changed to Martha, does that mean that Lazarus had two sisters, both named Maria (or Mariam, as in verse 19)? Because clearly, despite what Dr. Schrader reconstructs, there is no indication that one sister was turned into two. Throughout chapter 11, there are two sisters; as also at the beginning of chapter 12, where the activities of Mary and Martha are clearly differentiated.
Hello Kostas and thank you for your thoughtful post! My thesis is not based primarily on the odd scribal activity in P66 John 11:1-5; it is based on a study of hundreds of manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Approximately 1 in 5 Greek and 1 in 3 Old Latin copies has instability around Martha's presence. Rather than looking only at P66 or a critical edition, I encourage you to read my peer-reviewed HTR paper to fully understand the argument: https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/18592 Thanks so much for your interest in this work!
You make valid case for the ‘instability’ around the figure of Martha based on the select manuscripts you worked with from four textual families. Your discussion of these manuscripts is excellent and worthy of the scholar that you are. The scholars you cite also make valid statements about P66 and the manuscript witness around the figure of Martha. But I’m sorry I can’t make the jump that you make in the last 9 pages of your paper. I remain unconvinced.
The figure of Mary Magdalene is already very prominent in the resurrection narrative of John, and there is enough other variation among the four Gospels concerning the post-Resurrection events, that I just don’t see why there would have been any serious effort to replace Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany. I’m sorry I just don’t see it, but I respect the quality of your research and the paper that resulted.
Finally, wandering through the pages of your paper and looking at the texts in John, much to my surprise I thought of a theological reason to make the connection you are making! But I have to think it through more carefully before sharing it here. Thank you for this exchange.
Hello Kostas! The manuscript transcriptions I worked with are not from selected families - they are all sourced from the iohannes.com website, which is the University of Birmingham's central resource for examining the text of the New Testament. Instability is found around Martha's presence in every single aspect of the Johannine story's transmission - whether it be the manuscript record (in Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and Ge'ez), the patristic record, or the artistic record. That's pretty much every record that we have.
As for the last 9 pages of my paper, it is, of course, just a scholarly theory. I'm glad to have persuaded you that there is marked textual instability around Martha's presence; considering the substantial controversy around Mary Magdalene in antiquity (as well as the widespread belief that she was the sister of Lazarus), mine is just one competitively plausible hypothesis to explain the strange phenomena we see happening around Martha. I am, of course, interested to hear other theories of why Martha is blinking in and out throughout the entire record. I'm so glad to hear that you found additional inspiration by looking at John as well. It is an endlessly fascinating text - both on the surface of printed editions, and in the manuscripts as well.
I'd like to be convinced, but I'm not. I am a huge fan of Mary Magdalene - indeed, ALL the Marys, and I find the suggested changes in John credible. The same problem exists: the EMMA P EMMA B, James the Great, James the Lesser, James the Brother, which Judas, which Simon, which Mary problem that we run into in Scripture. I am currently preaching a series of sermons on the early followers of Jesus and am tripping over a similar problem regularly. The Marys are simply not distinguished clearly - and it wasn't until Pope Gregory I preached his sermon that all these Marys got conflated into one Mary Magdalene. There may not be a Martha in John, but there does seem to be more than one Mary. However, I'll be happy to share these insights with my congregation; they can decide what they mean to them!
Hi Heidi! You are correct that Pope Gregory was the first to conflate Mary Magdalene with Luke's sinful woman. However, Mary Magdalene was understood to be Mary of Bethany long before Gregory's sermons - as far back as the third (and possibly even the second) century. Hippolytus of Rome and the Manichaeans (3rd century) certainly thought so, and the 2nd-century Gospel of Mary uses several elements of both Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene in its portrait of the title character. If you're interested in knowing more, feel free to check out my Harvard Theological Review article: https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/18592 Enjoy!
A very fine and thought provoking book that has some wonderful comments about Mary …to add to this conversation is That You May Believe by Sandra schneiders.
I did a brief study of Black Madonna figures ... which is really a Madonna or Mary study ... and had the same experience as you expressed. Mary is powerful beyond measure and shows up in surprising, mysterious ways both to support and guide as well as to provoke and move you beyond your comfort zone! Love your work on this and your sharing!
Where can I find an English translation of all of the Papyrus 66 copy of John 11? There are references to both Mary and Martha doing different things in verses 28-38. How does this become reconciled?
Hi Cathryn! I think the only full translation of P66 that I've seen attempted is here: https://www.scribd.com/document/517412493/papyrus-66 It's a bit awkward and very literal, but you should be able to see the changes. I think John 11 starts on page 42. Also note that Martha shows up in the first hand of P66 at John 11:5; the scribe definitely knows Martha. My theory is that the scribe has access to two exemplars: one with Lazarus and Mary only, one with Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. John 11:5 is the verse where the scribe decided to copy from the version that includes Martha. Hope that helps!
Yes, it helps. Especially after listening to your interview in the podcast "The Bible for Normal People". It seems your assessment of your findings is more measured than Bass's, which is important to know. Thanks! I will continue to follow with interest.
This makes me laugh a little. If you knew Libbie this probably wouldn't be the assessment! Our public enthusiasms are contextual - she's compelled by being a text critic and I'm an author and preacher. Different vocations make for different presentations. But you should hear us at dinner! lol.
I've consistently heard criticisms of the authenticity of various versions of the Bible. It seems to me that your correction of Biblical text will certainly encourage more pursuit of its authenticity. What you've accomplished goes far beyond your specific correction. It also will serve to right some of the misogyny
for which men have claimed as their privileged biblical interpretation.
Yesterday before your post was posted, our discussion group was considering Makoto Fujimura's understanding of the Lazarus story in his book Art+Faith. He takes up in turn the tears of Jesus, Martha, and Mary. Mako emphasizes the need to see the reactions of Martha and Mary as complementary and necessary moments in the first proclamation of Jesus as the Resurrection and the Life. As our conversation unfolded I tried to offer a clumsy overview of Libby's evidence and argument and its coincidence with Fujimura's text. Some in the group reacted reflexively, wanting to defend the traditional reading while most had the expression of gears turning, pondering deeply.
I mentioned that coincidentally this coming Saturday is the relatively new Feast of the Magdalen, elevated by Francis to the same status of the rest of the Apostles. And coincidentally a few hours later, your post arrived in my inbox. Almost like some kind of conspiracy unfolding. ;)
I've always been a Mary Magdalene fan. Nice research is proving what I have intuited for a long time. Won't it be interesting when we discover someday that the Gospel of John was written by a woman!
In the crowdfunded television series on the life of Jesus, The Chosen, there's a subplot involving the Magdalene teaching Ramah how to write. Will be interesting to see where they take this storyline, what possibilities they consider.
Adding this way late, but I am reviewing all of this, along with all the mentions of Mary Magdalene in the gospels, with an eye to a women's retreat this fall, and I noticed an interesting thing in Luke. After going to the empty tomb, the women go to the apostles, and there's a verse about Peter that isn't in all ancient manuscripts. This doesn't directly connect, except for supporting the idea that some communities wanted to emphasize Peter (and de-emphasize Mary).
Luke 24:10 "Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened."*
*NRSVUE note says other ancient authorities don’t include verse 12.
Sorry for returning to this thread more than a week later, but I found it interesting that the Martyrology for July 29th in the Catholic Church reads: At Tarascon, in Gaul, the holy Virgin Martha, the hostess of our Saviour, and the sister of blessed Mary Magdalene and of holy Lazarus.
I myself am not Catholic, but I found this interesting enough to share.
I portrayed Mary in a production of "Jesus Christ Superstar" during Lent in 2019. I became very intimate with Mary during those months (early Jan-Palm Sunday in April) and I mourned her when it was over. To embody her, to see Jesus as fully human, to consider the acts of other humans, the real and personal relationships of actual humans every day for months, it changed me forever. Every day I wept real tears as my friend and Lord was betrayed and beaten and killed. Thankfully a friend helped get me from crucifixion to resurrection and out of the darkness around Easter time, but I missed her deeply. Mary's authentic power and proximity to salvation deserve a bigger story, and I'm so grateful for the research to share her magnificence more fully. Thank you for this work.
What I felt sitting there listening to you was energy: positive, hopeful energy. And joy! It feels like that is what Mary the Tower brought in her witness and continues to bring in her presence.
As an aside, what an honor to have Dr. Schrader chiming in! I think I'm a fangirl!
I am so glad I asked you to print your notes from this year's Wild Goose. You blew us away again! The excitement of most is palpable I can feel it through my screen. I am also glad that Libbie was here to answer questions. Thank you both!
This idea failed to convince me last year, and it fails again. It is somewhat ironic that in the Orthodox Church, Mary Magdalene’s official designation is “Mary Magdalene, Equal to the Apostles” (Isapostolos in Greek). I say ironic, because the official line against female clergy is that all the apostles were males. Well then, why does the Church call her “Equal to the Apostles” but continue to deny any kind of church leadership to women? Inexcusable, in my opinion.
But I fail to be convinced by Elizabeth Schrader. I have access to Papyrus 66 in digital form on my computer. In its surviving form, it does say ‘Martha” in the beginning of Chapter 11 of John, but there is a note that a corrector has made the change that Dr. Schrader and Diana point out: μαριας (marias) was changed to μαρθας (marthas) by erasing ι and adding θ superlinearly (c1) [Comfort, P. W., & Barrett, D. P. (2001). The text of the earliest New Testament Greek manuscripts. Tyndale House.]
The original scribe of Papyrus seems to have made a mistake and written maria twice. The scholar in the above Tyndale volume distinguishes between two correctors of the scribe. The first corrector is the one who changed maria to martha. There are no corrections to the same effect in the remainder of the papyrus text. So I don't see how one can just bring Mary Magdalene into the narratives and make her a sister of Lazarus. I'm not a scholar like Dr. Schrader, but I just don't see it.
The rest of chapter 11 in Papyrus 66 reads pretty much the way we’re used to - two sisters, not one. Furthermore, if Maria was changed to Martha, does that mean that Lazarus had two sisters, both named Maria (or Mariam, as in verse 19)? Because clearly, despite what Dr. Schrader reconstructs, there is no indication that one sister was turned into two. Throughout chapter 11, there are two sisters; as also at the beginning of chapter 12, where the activities of Mary and Martha are clearly differentiated.
Hello Kostas and thank you for your thoughtful post! My thesis is not based primarily on the odd scribal activity in P66 John 11:1-5; it is based on a study of hundreds of manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Approximately 1 in 5 Greek and 1 in 3 Old Latin copies has instability around Martha's presence. Rather than looking only at P66 or a critical edition, I encourage you to read my peer-reviewed HTR paper to fully understand the argument: https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/18592 Thanks so much for your interest in this work!
You make valid case for the ‘instability’ around the figure of Martha based on the select manuscripts you worked with from four textual families. Your discussion of these manuscripts is excellent and worthy of the scholar that you are. The scholars you cite also make valid statements about P66 and the manuscript witness around the figure of Martha. But I’m sorry I can’t make the jump that you make in the last 9 pages of your paper. I remain unconvinced.
The figure of Mary Magdalene is already very prominent in the resurrection narrative of John, and there is enough other variation among the four Gospels concerning the post-Resurrection events, that I just don’t see why there would have been any serious effort to replace Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany. I’m sorry I just don’t see it, but I respect the quality of your research and the paper that resulted.
Finally, wandering through the pages of your paper and looking at the texts in John, much to my surprise I thought of a theological reason to make the connection you are making! But I have to think it through more carefully before sharing it here. Thank you for this exchange.
Hello Kostas! The manuscript transcriptions I worked with are not from selected families - they are all sourced from the iohannes.com website, which is the University of Birmingham's central resource for examining the text of the New Testament. Instability is found around Martha's presence in every single aspect of the Johannine story's transmission - whether it be the manuscript record (in Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and Ge'ez), the patristic record, or the artistic record. That's pretty much every record that we have.
As for the last 9 pages of my paper, it is, of course, just a scholarly theory. I'm glad to have persuaded you that there is marked textual instability around Martha's presence; considering the substantial controversy around Mary Magdalene in antiquity (as well as the widespread belief that she was the sister of Lazarus), mine is just one competitively plausible hypothesis to explain the strange phenomena we see happening around Martha. I am, of course, interested to hear other theories of why Martha is blinking in and out throughout the entire record. I'm so glad to hear that you found additional inspiration by looking at John as well. It is an endlessly fascinating text - both on the surface of printed editions, and in the manuscripts as well.
I especially loved her view of the women standing at the foot of the cross - no male beloved disciple. Why haven’t we seen that before?
I'd like to be convinced, but I'm not. I am a huge fan of Mary Magdalene - indeed, ALL the Marys, and I find the suggested changes in John credible. The same problem exists: the EMMA P EMMA B, James the Great, James the Lesser, James the Brother, which Judas, which Simon, which Mary problem that we run into in Scripture. I am currently preaching a series of sermons on the early followers of Jesus and am tripping over a similar problem regularly. The Marys are simply not distinguished clearly - and it wasn't until Pope Gregory I preached his sermon that all these Marys got conflated into one Mary Magdalene. There may not be a Martha in John, but there does seem to be more than one Mary. However, I'll be happy to share these insights with my congregation; they can decide what they mean to them!
Hi Heidi! You are correct that Pope Gregory was the first to conflate Mary Magdalene with Luke's sinful woman. However, Mary Magdalene was understood to be Mary of Bethany long before Gregory's sermons - as far back as the third (and possibly even the second) century. Hippolytus of Rome and the Manichaeans (3rd century) certainly thought so, and the 2nd-century Gospel of Mary uses several elements of both Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene in its portrait of the title character. If you're interested in knowing more, feel free to check out my Harvard Theological Review article: https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/18592 Enjoy!
ELIZABETH SCHRADER HAS ENTERED THE ROOM!
Thanks! I will do so for sure!
A very fine and thought provoking book that has some wonderful comments about Mary …to add to this conversation is That You May Believe by Sandra schneiders.
I love that book!!
I did a brief study of Black Madonna figures ... which is really a Madonna or Mary study ... and had the same experience as you expressed. Mary is powerful beyond measure and shows up in surprising, mysterious ways both to support and guide as well as to provoke and move you beyond your comfort zone! Love your work on this and your sharing!
Barb Turner Delisle
Where can I find an English translation of all of the Papyrus 66 copy of John 11? There are references to both Mary and Martha doing different things in verses 28-38. How does this become reconciled?
Hi Cathryn! I think the only full translation of P66 that I've seen attempted is here: https://www.scribd.com/document/517412493/papyrus-66 It's a bit awkward and very literal, but you should be able to see the changes. I think John 11 starts on page 42. Also note that Martha shows up in the first hand of P66 at John 11:5; the scribe definitely knows Martha. My theory is that the scribe has access to two exemplars: one with Lazarus and Mary only, one with Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. John 11:5 is the verse where the scribe decided to copy from the version that includes Martha. Hope that helps!
Yes, it helps. Especially after listening to your interview in the podcast "The Bible for Normal People". It seems your assessment of your findings is more measured than Bass's, which is important to know. Thanks! I will continue to follow with interest.
This makes me laugh a little. If you knew Libbie this probably wouldn't be the assessment! Our public enthusiasms are contextual - she's compelled by being a text critic and I'm an author and preacher. Different vocations make for different presentations. But you should hear us at dinner! lol.
I've consistently heard criticisms of the authenticity of various versions of the Bible. It seems to me that your correction of Biblical text will certainly encourage more pursuit of its authenticity. What you've accomplished goes far beyond your specific correction. It also will serve to right some of the misogyny
for which men have claimed as their privileged biblical interpretation.
YES, May it be so! 🙏🤗🙌
Yesterday before your post was posted, our discussion group was considering Makoto Fujimura's understanding of the Lazarus story in his book Art+Faith. He takes up in turn the tears of Jesus, Martha, and Mary. Mako emphasizes the need to see the reactions of Martha and Mary as complementary and necessary moments in the first proclamation of Jesus as the Resurrection and the Life. As our conversation unfolded I tried to offer a clumsy overview of Libby's evidence and argument and its coincidence with Fujimura's text. Some in the group reacted reflexively, wanting to defend the traditional reading while most had the expression of gears turning, pondering deeply.
I mentioned that coincidentally this coming Saturday is the relatively new Feast of the Magdalen, elevated by Francis to the same status of the rest of the Apostles. And coincidentally a few hours later, your post arrived in my inbox. Almost like some kind of conspiracy unfolding. ;)
Mary Magdalene is like that. Also, send them my sermon!
My comment would be Mary Magdalene is more than just the Most Important woman in the New Testament But for and in History of Humanity.
Absolutely
I changed.
I've always been a Mary Magdalene fan. Nice research is proving what I have intuited for a long time. Won't it be interesting when we discover someday that the Gospel of John was written by a woman!
In the crowdfunded television series on the life of Jesus, The Chosen, there's a subplot involving the Magdalene teaching Ramah how to write. Will be interesting to see where they take this storyline, what possibilities they consider.