Scenes of the Prophet Elijah: Elisha and Elijah's Chariot of Fire, 1604. Jan Saenredam (Dutch, 1565-1607), The Cleveland Museum of Art.
Introduction
Do not touch me is one of several enigmas in Mary Magdalene’s encounter in the garden. Why so many twists and turns in the story? Why does Mary Magdalene think Jesus is the gardener? How about her addressing Jesus as “my teacher”?
That an early written text, termed the Signs Source or Signs Gospel (here, the Source) is embedded in the Gospel of John has come under discussion in recent decades. This Source was written very early, before followers of Jesus separated from Judaism. The Source identifies Jesus with several figures, but especially Elijah, who, according to 2 Kings 2:12, did not die, but went up to heaven in the sight of his disciple and successor Elisha. Mary Magdalene’s encounter in the garden belongs to the Source level of the gospel.
It took the impetus of this project for me to ‘do the math’ – to lay out the coherence of the depiction of Jesus in the Source. And the depiction of Jesus in the Source as Elijah - who does not die but ascends - principally begins to unlock the complex significance of the account of Mary Magdalene’s encounter in the garden. Intriguingly, the encounter situates her as Elisha, disciple and successor to Elijah.
This essay is intended for all readers. Referenced passages are quoted in full, background information provided and summaries given of main points at the beginning of each section. I invite all to join in this adventure of exploration.
1. The Encounter in the Garden
The text:(1) The first of the week Mary Magdalene went early, while it was still dark, to the tomb and saw the stone had been taken up from the tomb. ... (11) Now Mary stood at the tomb outside weeping. As she wept she stooped to look into the tomb (12) and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus was lying. (13) And they said to her, Lady, why are you crying? she said to them that they took my lord, and I do not know where they put him. (14) Having said these things, she turned back and saw Jesus standing and did not know that it was Jesus. (15) Jesus said to her, Lady, why do you weep? whom do you seek? she, thinking that he was the gardener, said to him, Sir, if you bore him away, tell me where you put him, and I will take him up (16) Jesus said to her, Mariam. She, turning, said to him in Hebrew “rabbouni,” which is to say teacher. (17) Jesus said to her, “do not cling to me, for I am not yet ascended to the father. But go to my brothers and tell them I go up to my father and your father and my God and your God. (18) Mariam Magdalene went to announce to the disciples that “I have seen the Lord” and these things he said to her.[1]
Summary §1. Theologically significant words and phrases in this substantial narrative convey the significance of the account of Mary Magdalene’s visit to the tomb. ‘Whom do you seek?’ is also posed to the first two disciples (1:38a) and to soldiers coming to arrest Jesus (18:4, 7). The range of meanings for the verb ‘turn’ (Mary turns twice [20:14, 16]) includes ‘come back’ (to God), ‘be restored’, ‘repent.’
Mary Magdalene’s encounter in the garden (John 20:1,11-18) is a long, coherent episode couched in theologically significant phrases and images recalling scenes and images from throughout the gospel. Mary recognizing Jesus when he speaks her name (20:16) parallels Lazarus emerging from the tomb when Jesus calls his name (Lazarus, come out [of the tomb] [11:43]), situating her as one to whom he gives life. The question ‘Whom do you seek?’ is also posed to the first two disciples (1:38a) and to soldiers coming to arrest Jesus (18:4, 7). Mary turns twice (20:14, 16). Here ‘turn’ is implied to have the semantic range of Hebrew shûv, which includes ‘go back’, ‘come back’ (to God), ‘be restored’, ‘repent.’ In 1:38 it is Jesus who turns: Jesus, turning and seeing them following, said to them, “What do you seek?”
The literary resonances clustered in this complex, layered narrative point to its significance; its significance will become clearer as we explore the depiction of Jesus leading up to this scene.
Text:By the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother’s kinswoman, Mary wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. Jesus therefore seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, said to his mother, Lady, behold your son. Then he said to the disciple, behold your mother; and from that hour the disciple received her as his own. (19:25-27).
Summary §2. The crucifixion account foregrounds Jesus’s biological family. Figures named for the first time are customarily given backstory. Mary wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene are introduced standing by the cross; ‘his mother’ and ‘his mother’s kinswoman’ must be backstories for the two Marys. The kinship status preceding the names emphasizes biological relationship to Jesus.
A Clopas, Joseph’s brother, is known among later followers of Jesus in Jerusalem. After Jesus’s brother James was killed, Clopas’s son Simeon took James’s place as leader in Jerusalem. Because of the short life expectancy of the time and prevalence of remarriage after death of a spouse, Mary Jesus’s mother likely was widowed and remarried by the time of the writing. Mary wife of Clopas, is how she would have been known to the readers of the time.
Mary Magdalene is first introduced towards the end of the crucifixion episode. New named figures are customarily given backstory when introduced. Example: Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus (19:38)); Nicodemus, the one who first came to him at night (19:39). Mary wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene are introduced standing by the cross; ‘his mother’ and ‘his mother’s kinswoman’ must be backstories for the two Marys. The kinship status preceding the names emphasizes biological relationship to Jesus.
Clopas is a rarely occurring name in early Christian literature, but a Clopas, brother of Joseph (i.e., Jesus’s uncle) is known to us among Jesus’s followers in Jerusalem. Upon the execution (ca. 62-66) of Jesus’s brother James who was the leader in Jerusalem, Clopas’s son Simeon took over.[2] Because of the short life expectancy of the time and prevalence of remarriage after death of a spouse, Mary Jesus’s mother, likely was widowed and remarried by the time of the writing (possibly as a second wife).[3] Mary[wife] of Clopas would be how she was known at that time.
Customarily only figures with dialog are identified by name in a given episode. but Mary Magdalene named at the cross, although she has no speaking part in the scene, reinforces her significance. That she is only introduced in the last episodes does not dimmish her importance. The gospel designates no specific disciples as leaders. Galilean disciples, Judean disciples, members of Jesus’s biological family and other associates are introduced throughout. This is in contrast to ‘the Twelve’ in Mark, Matthew and Luke. Three early disciples from Bethsaida (1:44) - Philip, Peter, Andrew –are mentioned frequently, but ‘disciple’ is a broad category. Individuals identified as one of his disciples may be Judean or Galilean. Two Judeans, Judas Iscariot (12:4), who is mentioned only in Judean episodes, and Joseph of Arimathea (19:38) are identified as disciples. Multiple episodes in Judea single out no Galilean disciples.
Crucifixion and post crucifixion episodes, however, foreground Jesus’s biological family together with the prominent unnamed disciple known as the Beloved Disciple (literally, ‘the disciplewhom he [Jesus] loved’ [e.g., 19:26]). They are singled out as witnesses - Jesus’s brothers as recipients of Mary Magdalene’s announcement (20:18). The Beloved Disciple is adopted, whether formally or informally, into Jesus’s family at the cross (19:26-7).
A brief overview on the Source embedded in the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, as it will be termed here, provide an avenue to delve more deeply into how the gospel interpreted Jesus.
3. The Source Embedded in Fourth Gospel
Summary §3. The Fourth Gospel is built around a very early written source that scholars call the Signs Source or Signs Gospel (here, the Source). The Source is identifiable because the Fourth Gospel is made up of two very different kinds of writing: 1. Narrative, written in the third person with geographical detail; and 2. Discourse: monologues in the form of timeless pronouncements making use of highly symbolic language. The Source is early, possibly as early as 45 C.E., before issues surrounding Gentile participation came to the fore. The Source depicts Jesus active in the temple and not in the synagogue. Mary Magdalene’s encounter in the garden is from the Source.
The Fourth Gospel is built around one very early written source that scholars call the Signs Source or Signs Gospel (here, the Source).[4] This Source is identifiable because the Fourth Gospel comprises two very different kinds of writing: 1. Narrative, written in the third person replete with geographical detail, the syntax of which frequently follows Hebrew / Aramaic word order (verb first in the sentence); and 2. Discourse: monologues in the form of timeless pronouncements that make use of highly symbolic language, inserted into the Source by a later hand, termed the Evangelist-Redactor. The prolog (In the beginning was the word and the word was with God … (1:1)) was also added by the Evangelist-Redactor.
Discourse differs so greatly from narrative in genre and style that “the two layers in the text often come apart more or less in our hands.”[5] Removing discourses and discourse-like material yields “a coherent document, organized and integrated within itself ... an articulated narrative ... [with] an unusually explicit conclusion (20:30-31a), in which it refers to itself as a book ... and comes formally to an end.”[6]Jesus did many other signs before his disciples which are not written in this book (20:30).
The Source is considered to be early. The absence of references to separation of Christians from Judaism (there are some in the discourses) suggests the Source was early enough to have been written completely within Judaism, possibly as early as the mid 40’s.[7] The Source locates much of Jesus’s activity in Jerusalem at the temple, whereas later gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) depict Jesus active in the synagogue, an institution absent from the Source.
The Mary Magdalene encounter in the garden belongs to the Source level of the Fourth Gospel. An examination of the depiction of Jesus in the Source sheds light on the garden episode.
4. Depiction of Jesus in the Source
Summary §4. The Source depicts Jesus, through literary allusion and narrative detail, in terms of several expected figures of Judaism, most importantly Elijah, the prophet of 1 Kings 17 - 2 Kings 2, a “miraculous helper” who did not die but went up to heaven in the sight of his disciple and successor Elisha.[8] In the time of Jesus Elijah was expected also as prophesied forerunner of the Day of the Lord of Mal 4:5: I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord.
The Source depicts Jesus in descriptions and pronouncements within dialog, through literary allusions, in terms of three figures of Jewish speculation: Elijah, the expected Prophet like Moses, and the Anointed (Messiah), principally Elijah and Elijah conflated with the Prophet like Moses.[9]Although Jesus is acclaimed as Messiah (1:41), the Source treats Messiah more as an indicator that the Messianic Age has arrived than as a personage per se.
Elijah speculation of Jesus’s time elaborated three characteristics all three of which emerge in the Source depiction of Jesus: 1. the “miraculous helper” who provides food and drink, cures the sick and raises the dead;[10] 2. the prophet who does not die but ascends to heaven in the sight of his disciple and heir (2 Kgs. 2:12b); 3. the eschatological Elijah who is forerunner to the expected Day of the Lord from Mal 4:5: I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord. Characteristics of eschatological Elijah from Second Temple and Rabbinic texts can be further grouped under five functions: [1] “make peace ...; [2] reassemble the members of the people who have been taken away; [3] determine which are the genuine Israelites, thus re-establishing the purity of corpus Israel; [4] restore to Israel the manna [again provide manna to Israel]; [5] raise the dead, thus vanquishing death as he once vanquished the prophets of Baal.”[11]
The judgment of God at Mount Carmel. Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (1606-1669). Konstanz, Wessenberg Museum.
Example: The account of a miraculous feeding of a crowd of 5,000 from five barley loaves and two fish with food left over (6:1-15) echoes Elisha’s command to feed one hundred men with twenty barley loaves and ears of grain (2 Kings 4:42-44). The time notice ([t]he Passover was near(6:4)), signals that with this feeding God again provisions the Israelites with manna (Exod. 16:1-36) because the again-provided (eschatological) manna was expected to be given at Passover.[12]
After they ate, Jesus told hisdisciples, assemblethe overabundant broken off pieces lest anything perish.[13] They brought together, therefore, and filled twelve baskets of broken off pieces of the five barley loaves (6:12-3a) - by analogy, reassembling of the members of the people who have been taken away. The number twelve (baskets) reinforces the symbolism of restored Israel; it stands out because the favored number of the Source is seven (e.g., seven Galilean disciples, and, here, five loaves plus two fishes [6:9]).
5. The Source Interprets the Crucifixion
Summary §5. In the Source, Jesus as Elijah, who went up to heaven in the sight of his disciple Elisha (2 Kings 2:12), does not die on the cross. The Source calls Jesus’s crucifixion his glorification and dialog speaks of his going away. From the cross: inclining hishead, [Jesus] transmitted (Greek: paradidômi) the Spirit (19:30b). The phrase, transmitted the spirit is erroneously translated gave up his spirit on the assumption that it describes the moment of death. The verb paradidômi, however, means ‘transmit’, ‘hand over’ not ‘give up.’ ‘Spirit’ here is pneuma from pneô ‘breathe’ and resembles Hebrew ruah in semantic range. The inner life force of a person would be psychê (resembling Hebrew nefesh).
In the source Jesus is also the Passover lamb of God (as John the Baptist identifies him (1:29, 1:36)). The Source timeline has Jesus crucified as lambs for Passover are slaughtered in the temple.
The question, why the crucifixion at this moment? the Source addresses explicitly: Zechariah prophecies are shown to be fulfilled around the crucifixion, indicating That Day, the Day of the Lord has arrived, the time that brings peace after strife and sacralization of Jerusalem.
The Source’s interpretation of Jesus’s crucifixion is complex. The event is treated very differently in the Source than in other writings.[14] Jesus, like Elijah who went up to heaven heaven in the sight of his disciple (2 Kings 2:12), does not die. His crucifixion is called his glorification: Father glorify thy son that thy son might glorify thee (17:1).[15]From the cross Jesus confers the spirit: inclining hishead, [Jesus] transmitted (paradidômi) the Spirit (19:30b). [T]ransmitted the spirit is erroneously translated gave up his spirit on the assumption that it describes the moment of death. The verb paradidomi, however, means ‘transmit’, ‘hand over.’[16] ‘Spirit’ here is pneuma from pneô ‘breathe’ (resembling Hebrew ruah in semantic range). The inner life force of a person, however, would be psychê (resembling Hebrew nefesh); the one loving his life (psychê) destroys it (12:25)). Also, blood flowing from Jesus’s pierced side would indicate he was alive They did not break his bones but one of the soldiers stabbed his side with a spear and immediately blood and water came out (19:34): when one is deceased and the heart no longer pumping, blood pools at the lowest point, in this instance, the legs, hence would not flow from the side. That Mary Magdalene thinks Jesus for the gardener, implies that he has the appearance of a physical person.
In the Source, what is the motivation for the crucifixion? On this the Source is narratively explicit but complex.[17] In the opening scenes John the Baptist points out Jesus as the Lamb of God: The next day [John with two of his disciples] saw Jesus approaching him and said ... See the lamb of God (1:29, 35). The Source sets up a parallel between Jesus’s crucifixion (in the afternoon as lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple) and sacrifice of a Passover lamb.[18] This identification is reinforced by scripture citation: These things happened [Roman soldiers not breaking Jesus’s bones] so that the scripture might be fulfilled, ‘[his/ its] bones will not be broken (19:36) [Exod. 12:46, Num. 9:12 that the bones of the Passover lamb not be broken].
Explicit motivation for Jesus’s crucifixion/ glorification is set in a framework of multiple prophecies from the minor prophet Zechariah. Jesus will be glorified (and depart) because events show that a series of Zechariah prophecies are fulfilled, i.e., that That Day, the Day of the Lord has arrived, the time that brings peace after strife and sacralization of Jerusalem; Jerusalem has become, as prophesied, radically pure.
Two of the important Zechariah prophecies are touched on here. A citation when the soldier’s stab Jesus: and again other scripture says,[t]hey will look upon one whom they stabbed (19:37), from the minor prophet Zechariah, full text of which reads: I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, a favorable spirit in answer to their supplications. They will look upon him whom they stabbed. They will lament over him as. one laments an only son. They will grieve over him, as one grieves over one’s firstborn. i.e., are overcome with compassion.[19]
The Zechariah citation at 19:37 complements a statement of the high priest Caiaphas that the Source labels a prophecy: Caiaphas, who was High Priest that year said ... neither do you calculate that it is better that one man die on behalf of the people and the entire people not be destroyed. He did not say this of himself, but, being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die on behalf of the nation, and not on behalf of the nation only, but in order that the scattered children of God be gathered into one. (11:49-52).
Jesus overturning tables and driving out animals from the temple (2:13-22)[20] for the Source brings to fulfillment Zech. 14:21: Moreover, there will no longer be traders in the temple of Yahweh of Hosts on that day.[21] Immediately thereafter, in the Source, Greeks, former enemies, who had come to Jerusalem to worship, want to see Jesus:
Text: (12:20) There were some Greeks from among those going up to Jerusalem to worship at the festival; (21) these therefore went to Philip who was from Bethsaida in Galilee and asked him, saying, Sir, we wish to see Jesus. (22) Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus. (23) And Jesus answered them saying … (27b ) what should I say? Father, save me from this hour? But on account of this I have come to this hour; (28) Father, glorify thy name … .[22]
The Greeks wanting to see Jesus, demonstrates fulfillment of Zech. 14:16: All those who had attacked Jerusalem and who survived will come annually [t]o worship the king, Yahweh of Hosts, to celebrate the feast of booths [as pilgrimage feast].[23] Prophesied former enemies coming to Jerusalem to worship, demonstrates “radical sacrality ‘on that day;’” Gentiles who come to worship are pure (Zech. 14:16). Jesus’s work as forerunner to this prophesied Day of the Lord is complete (Mal 4:5: I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord).[24]
Phrasing in 12:20-22 parallels phrasing in the account of Jesus’s first disciples, literarily signaling a new gathering of disciples, initiated by the sacralization of Jerusalem. The parallel is strengthened by noting, with Boismard, that the second disciple of John the Baptist (1:35-9) is Philip, i.e., Philip and Andrew bring the first disciples to Jesus, and subsequently the Greeks to Jesus thereby initiating the new community.[25]
6. Redaction of the Source
Summary §6. The prolog added by the evangelist-redactor (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (1:1)) presents Jesus as a divine figure, pre-existing with God. This depiction of Jesus radically recasts Elijah, the miraculous helper, as a more abstract figure. The redaction also brings forward Peter suggesting conflicts of authority that presumably coincided with increasing number of Gentile converts and separation from Judaism.
The foregrounding of Jesus’s biological family in the crucifixion episodes associates the Source with the Jerusalem community of followers of which Jesus’s brother James was the leader and, upon James’s death, Simeon son of Joseph’s brother Clopas. That Jesus’s mother is identified by her presumed remarriage to this Clopas reinforces the connection. The Evangelist-Redactor’s additions to the Source function to shift focus, altering the depiction of Jesus and shifting attention away from Jerusalem and the biological family to Peter and Galilee, presumably connoting Antioch where Peter was prominent. These shifts of focus would have arisen from differences in the understanding of Jesus and conflicts of authority
The evangelist-redactor added to the Source a prolog that shifts the focus in depiction of Jesus, presenting him as a divine figure existing with God before descending (i.e., pre-existing) and subsequently reascending: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God. He was in the beginning with God. Everything through him came into being and apart from him not one thing which is came into being (1:1-3).
Jesus depicted as ‘pre-existing’ - the Word (in the prologue) and Son of Man - gives his ascent after the crucifixion a nuance very different from that of Elijah. The ascent of the Son of Man is the departure of a divine figure who briefly ‘tabernacled among us’ (1:14). The particularity of Elijah is thereby subsumed into an abstract, ‘universal’ figure. By contrast, consider in the images - the Saenredam and the Chagall – the physicality of the powerful human bond, an almost visible thread that connects Elijah and Elisha, stretched, not broken, the mantle mediating the distance between them, as Elijah is torn away.
Depiction of Jesus as Lamb of God also underwent changes; to John the Baptist’s declaration See the lamb ofGod at 1:29 the phrase who takes away the sins of the world was added. This addition redefines the sacrifice as an atoning sacrifice, no longer the protective Passover sacrifice.
Regarding authority in the community and the foregrounding of Peter, the Evangelist-Redactor reworked a sign with Galilean disciples at the Sea of Tiberias as a Galilean post-crucifixion appearance that foregrounds Peter and serves as a second ending (John 21). Along the same lines, the race to the tomb between Peter and the Beloved Disciple undercuts the long episode with Mary Magdalene and diminishes focus on her.[26] Both redactional changes likely reflect the growth of Christian groups at Antioch where Peter was a central figure, and where issues arose around the process for Gentile inclusion in the community.
7. Conclusion
Text with addition:(1) The first of the week Mary Magdalene went early, while it was still dark, to the tomb and saw the stone had been taken up from the tomb. ... (11) Now Mary stood at the tomb outside weeping. As she wept she stooped to look into the tomb (12) and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus was lying. (13) And they said to her, Lady, why are you crying? she said to them that they took my lord, and I do not know where they put him. (14) Having said these things, she turned back and saw Jesus standing and did not know that it was Jesus. (15) Jesus said to her, Lady, why do you weep? whom do you seek? she, thinking that he was the gardener, said to him, Sir, if you bore him away, tell me where you put him, and I will take him up (16) Jesus said to her, Mariam. She, turning, said to him in Hebrew “rabbouni,” which is to say teacher, and she ran ahead to grasp him (17) Jesus said to her, “do not cling to me, for I am not yet ascended to the father. But go to my brothers and tell them I go up to my father and your father and my God and your God. (18) Mariam Magdalene went toannounce to the disciples that “I have seen the Lord” and these things he said to her.[27]
Summary §7. Mary’s dialog with Jesus about to go up to the Father (20:17) positions her as Elisha, disciple and successor of Elijah; her address to Jesus, Rabbouni (‘my teacher’), reinforces this identification. Do not cling to me (20:17) may follow up on an originally longer account in which Mary grasps Jesus in greeting, a phrase to that effect is found in multiple witnesses (bolded phrase in v.16 of translation above). Many factors likely contributed to Mary Magdalene having minimal presence in the canonical record, despite her importance in the Source.
The depiction of Jesus in the Source as Elijah and Lamb of God clarifies the importance of Mary Magdalene’s encounter in the garden. Mary arriving at the tomb before light (20:1) is consistent with the requirement the Passover sacrifice disappear by morning, a departure determined by passage of time (not death per se): You shall not leave any of it over until morning; if any of it is left until morning, you shall burn (Exod. 12:10).[28]
The two angels in the tomb one at head and one at feet (20:12) are positioned as cherubim on the cover of the ark: Make two cherubim of gold ...at the two ends of the cover. ... one cherub at one end and the other cherub at the other end; ... The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, shielding thecover with their wings ... There I will meet with you, and I will impart to you – from above the cover, from between the cherubim that are on top of the Ark of the Pact – all that I will command you concerning the Israelite people (Exod. 25:19-22).[29] The allusion sets the tomb as a locus of sacred encounter also possibly indication that the sacred place has been protected by the sacrifice.
The garden setting has multiple connotations (There was in the place where he was crucified a garden, and in the garden a tomb … in which no one had been put, … there, therefore, on account of Jewish preparation because it was nearby they placed Jesus [19:41-42]). And Jesus was arrested in a garden (18:1). The act of sending Mary Magdalene out of the garden on commission to tell Jesus’s brothers constitutes a reversal of Adam’s expulsion from the garden, a restoration of pre-fall condition. The garden setting, in the name Mt. Carmel (‘garden land’), evokes Elijah’s confrontation with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:42-45), and evokes his servant seeing the rain cloud form that broke the drought (1 Kings 18:20-40).[30]
Elijah Carried Off to Heaven, 1958. Marc Chagall (1887-1985).
Language and imagery associate Mary Magdalene and Jesus with Elisha and Elijah. Mary Magdalene asking where Jesus has been placed (20:13, 15) echoes the search in vain for Elijah (2 Kings 2:17) after his ascent (2 Kings 2:12).[31] The commission to Mary Magdalene tell [my brothers] I am ascending (20:17) has her present on the verge of his ascent. Mary Magdalene’s address to Jesus, rabbouni (20:16), resonates with Elisha’s cry watching Elijah ascending (Avi,my father (2 Kings 2:12), in Targum Jonathan, rabbi. Elisha witnesses Elijah’s ascent and his presence anchors the event. The parallelism and length and complexity of Mary Magdalene’s encounter in the garden confer a weightiness to her part in the encounter.
Do not cling to me does not prohibit touch, rather it urges Mary to go to Jesus’s brothers. The redaction of the Source undercuts physical witness and may have removed mention of description of Mary Magdalene grasping Jesus in greeting, though several manuscripts have Mary grasp Jesus in greeting at 20:16 (she ran ahead to grasp him).[32] A similarly emotional, specifically supplicatory gesture from Lazarus’s sister is found at 11:32: [upon]seeing him [Jesus] she fell at his feet.
The preceding analysis leaves us with a puzzle - why is Mary Magdalene, so important in the Fourth Gospel, mentioned so little in the rest of the New Testament? Several factors come to mind, and all may play a part. Mary Magdalene is associated with the Jerusalem followers of Jesus about which little information remains. Other centers of Christianity became more prominent. Less information about female figures was preserved. The parallel with Elisha associates Mary Magdalene with prophecy, but the function of prophecy in the community may have changed; one section of the Zechariah prophecies, Zech. 13:2-6, concerns the end of prophecy on That Day that could have motivated a rejection of prophecy in the community. Finally, Acts hints as lesser importance of women in the Jerusalem church; Acts speeches open with the address ‘Gentlemen’ (e.g., Acts 3:12) until Acts 16:12-15 when Paul baptizes Lydia and her household. It is intriguing that Mary is prominent in non-canonical texts (together with Thomas who is also important in the Source (11:16 and the appearance in the closed room [20:24-29]). Likely, all of these factors played a role and further research should provide a clearer picture.
Notes
[1]Translations are mine unless noted. Italic font is used for Biblical quotations. Inserted into the Mary Magdalene narrative in the garden is a race to the tomb between Peter and an unnamed disciple termed Beloved Disciple (literally, disciple whom Jesusloved), a figure mentioned only in the Gospel of John. Translation is n.26, discussion in §6.
[2] Hegisippus in Euseb. Hist. III.11; 32.1-4, 6. Hist. IV.22.4.
[3] “Assuming a life expectancy at birth of thirty years, nearly 20 percent who reached the age of thirty would not live to see their fortieth birthday. Similarly of women who lived to the age of fifteen, we expect that about 15 percent will die before their twenty-fifth birthday. ... assuming some, but not complete, overlap, anyone who married around the age of twenty would have expected to have been widowed within the next twenty-five years. ... There can be little doubt that Jewish men and women throughout antiquity were regularly widowed and regularly remarried.” (Michael L. Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, (Princeton: Princeton Univ., 2001), 182-3). Satlow (Ibid., 341.n6) also quotes Ilan “To judge from our sources, not many Jewish women remained widows for very long.” (Tal Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine: An Inquiry into Image and Status, (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995) 151.)
[4] Tom Thatcher sets out the history of scholarship on the Signs Source and Robert Fortna’s work analyzing it as a coherent text (Tom Thatcher, “The Signs Gospel in Context” in Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher, eds., Jesus in Johannine Tradition, (Westminster John Knox: Louisville, KY) 2001), 191-7).
[5] Robert Tomson Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 6.
[7] Von der Wahlde, and Martyn attribute phrases expressing an adversarial relationship with Judaism to the later stage of the text. (Urban C. von der Wahlde, The Earliest Version of John’s Gospel, (Wilmington DE: Michael Glazier, 1989), 32-3; J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 35-68). Martyn observes that Jesus drops out of the healing account in John 9 in the controversy about the healing (9:18-34) and concludes that the controversy depicts a later stage of the community, a literary device that he labels ‘two level drama.’
[8] On Elijah as “miraculous helper” J. Louis Martyn, The Gospel of John in Christian History, (New York: Paulist, 1978), 19.
[9]The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your own people, like myself; him you shall heed. (Deut.18:15) Translation: Jewish Publication Society. (Commentary: Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary:Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.
[10] J. Louis Martyn, The Gospel of John in Christian History, (New York: Paulist, 1978).
[11] J. Louis Martyn, Gospel of John, 18 n25. Under (4) Martyn also includes “the sprinkling water [Num. 19:9], and the anointing oil” for which there is no immediate correlation in the Source. Martyn observes “I am not at all certain that the firm and focused connection between Elijah and the call to repentance as such was made without John the Baptist serving as the middle term (cf. Ginzburg Legends, IV, 233). Talmudic students ... will note that I have not mentioned Elijah’s role in clarifying obscure points of Torah. ... This function of Elijah would seem to belong closely to that of making peace.” Op. cit.
[12] Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According toJohn, AB 29 and 29a (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970), 246.
[13] The Greek words for ‘bring together’ and ‘they brought together’ are synagagete and synêgagon and can be used for religious assembly.
[14] In, e.g., Mark, Jesus is betrayed to hostile authorities, suffers and dies on the cross, is laid in a tomb; the morning of the third day Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of Jesus find the tomb open (stone rolled away); a young man in sitting inside tells them that Jesus who was crucified has been raised up (Mark 14:10 – 16:6).
[15] Dialog refers to Jesus’s ‘departing,’ ‘going to the Father’ (e.g., 20:17).
[16] William Klassen, Judas, Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 41.
[17] In Mark, for example, that the crucifixion will happen is stated (He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer much … and be killed (Mark 8:31)) but is motivated narratively obliquely at best, as comparison with the Source shows.
[18] Mark, Matthew and Luke have a different timeline; Jesus celebrates Passover with his disciples and is crucified the next day.
[19] Zech. 12:10. Translation, Peterson Zechariah 9-14, 106. Petersen explains: “In sum, [12:1- 13:6] provides material stemming from the normative Zion tradition and a promissory note that Yahweh will act beneficently toward those in Jerusalem after they have made supplication and, possibly, engaged in human sacrifice as a way of averting attack.” (Ibid., 121).
[20] Scholars agree that the temple incident has been moved (evident from breaks in the text where it was inserted). Most conclude that in the Source the temple incident was after 12:15 and before 12:20. The framework of Zechariah prophecies supports that conclusion.
[21] Translation David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary, (Louisville KY: Westminster, 1995), 135.
[22] Verses inserted by the Evangelist-Redactor, pertaining to death, Jesus’s departure omitted.
[23] Translation Petersen, Zechariah 9-14, 134-5. “[T]he absence of traders must reflect the radical holiness that would obtain on ‘the day of the Lord.’” (Ibid., 160.) Greeks are named as enemies in Zech. 9:13b: I will arouse your sons, O Zion, against the sons of Yawan [Greece]. (Translation Petersen, Zechariah 9-14, 54.)
[24] The Elijah oracle, Mal 4:5: I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord, Petersen argues, should be understood as part of the Zechariah section from which the other crucifixion citations and allusions are taken (David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary, (Louisville KY: Westminster, 1995), 2-3.
[25] “A partial solution proposed by Boismard is to identify the second disciple of verse 35-39 as Philip, thus achieving a balanced picture: Andrew and Philip, disciples of the Baptist, first attend to his witness, then become themselves apostles, both to the Jewish world (to Simon, v. 41; and to Nathaniel, v. 45) and to that of the Gentiles (to the Greeks of 12:20-22). It is, thus, thanks to the witness of the Baptist, as 1:7 predicts, that all – both Jews and Gentiles – come to believe in Christ.” Martyn, Gospel, 35. M.-E. Boismard, “Les traditions johanniques concernant le Baptiste,” RB LXX (1963), 5-42 (40).
[26](20:1) The first of the week Mary Magdalene went early, while it was still dark, to the tomb and saw the stone had been taken up from the tomb. (2) She ran therefore and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved and told them “they took up the Lord from the tomb and we don’t know where they put him.” (3) Peter therefore went out and the other disciple and they went to the tomb. (4) Now the two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came first to the tomb. (5) and stooping to look in saw the linen wrappings lying. But he did not enter. (6) Therefore Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered into the tomb and saw the linen wrappings lying. (7) And the cloth, which had been on his head was not lying with the linen wrappings but separately folded up in one place. (8) Then therefore also the other disciple, the one who came first to the tomb, entered and saw and believed; (9) for they did not yet know the scripture that he was to be raised from the dead. (10) So the disciples departed again to them.
[27] Phrase in bold text in v.16 is found in some manuscripts.
[31][T]hey sent fifty men who searched for three days but did not find him.
[32] The bolded phrase at v.16 in the translation.
Sara Winter is retired from teaching at the Eugene Lang College of Liberal Arts division of The New School in New York.
Our project takes the words spoken by Jesus to Mary Magdalene in the garden after she discovers his empty tomb — noli me tangere (“touch me not”) — as a provocation for reflection on the COVID-19 pandemic, and on other pandemics, viral and social, that engulf us.
