Paper for
presentation at Society of Biblical Languages Atlanta, Georgia
S22-330
Maria, Mariamne, Miriam: Rediscovering the Marys
5:15 PM – 5:35 Nov 22, 2015 Hilton-212 Level 2
Mary of
Bethany: Her Leadership Uncovered?
My premise
is that Mary of Bethany is remembered as a stronger example of early Christian
leadership than previously recognized. Several studies of Mary Magdalene,
including one by Ann Graham Brock, have given Mary Magdalene more accurate and
well-deserved attention.[1]
Mary of Nazareth, the mother of Jesus, has always been the most esteemed Mary.
Usually any character named Mary is assumed to be one of these two Marys. Mary
of Bethany is the last to be considered.
Mary Ann
Beavis has proposed in two articles that many of the earliest references to a
Mary in non-canonical texts could actually be Mary of Bethany. She makes the
case in her papers of 2012 and 2013 that when a Mary is referenced, and there
is no specific indication that it is Mary Magdalene, or Mary of Nazareth, this
could be Mary of Bethany.[2]
In addition, when a Mary is paired with Martha, this is most certainly Mary of
Bethany.[3]
Mark
Goodacre proposes that frequent mention of a Mary Magdalene in early Christian
works, are actually composite or harmonized portraits of two or more Marys. He
points out that the designation Magdalene is rarely paired with a Mary and the
Gospel of Mary does not identify which Mary by the title.[4]
For this paper, I am interested in the accounts that both Beavis and Goodacre have
uncovered, where an unspecified Mary is mentioned in positions of teaching and
missionary activity.
In the 4/5
century Acts/Martyrdom of Philip, a Mary,
otherwise unidentified, is depicted as the one who prepared and distributed the
Eucharistic ministry. This Mary also kept the register of the lands from which
missionary assignments were determined. The same Mary baptizes and preaches to
the women while Philip ministers to the men. Mary’s missionary activities in
the Acts/Martyrdom of Philip are
similar to those of Thecla, or Mary Magdalene in The Gold Legend.
I find the evidence
for Mary of Bethany in early non-canonical and Gnostic works to be convincing. I
also find evidence for her later missionary and teaching activity found buried
in the Greek of Luke 10 and in narrative details of John 11.
Mary and
Martha of Luke 10:38-42 quoting Holly Hearon, “should come with a warning:
proceed with caution!”[5]
For centuries, this well-known text is cited to illustrate the importance of
prioritizing activities following the example of Mary, and minimizing the work
of Martha. G. B. Caird in 1963
remarked, “Few stories in the Gospels have been as consistently mishandled as
this one.” Barbara Reid states, “Our instincts are correct when they tell us
that something is wrong with this picture . . ..”[6]
It is time for a new look at Mary and Martha.
Many variants
testify to long contention over this text since the earliest manuscripts. I
propose an alternate understanding of Greek vocabulary, grammar, and
consideration of the variants. The result will bring a much more empowering
view of both Mary and Martha in new activities. This text is not at all about Mary
passively listening to Jesus at his feet and ignoring Martha’s plea for
household help.
I propose
that this passage reinforces issues that are a main concern in Luke’s gospel
such as giving our resources to serve Jesus, and forming new families in the
Lord. Jesus requires Martha to allow Mary to follow her call, even to leave
home to evangelize. Mary is away from Martha in the countryside engaged in evangelism
and attracting followers to Jesus. Thereby, the foundation is set for later
prominence that has been overlooked.
How do I
get to this?
What really
is Mary doing in this text? The grammar of the verses indicates that Martha is
the most important character, but the implications for Mary in this scene, are
my main interest for this paper. I find no evidence that anyone other than Martha
and Jesus are present. The location is not specified as Bethany near Jerusalem,
but only as a “certain village.” The text indicates that Jesus is by himself,
so the popular story of Jesus with disciples entering Martha’s house unexpectedly
is simply not there. Martha receives or accepts Jesus as a believer, perhaps at
her house but variants make that uncertain and location is not important.
Luke 10:39
continues: “And this one (fem.) has a sister called Mary.” The conjunction to
the next phrase, kai., is often not translated, as in the
NIV: “She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet…” Mary Rose
D’Angelo remarks that if kai. Is translated as “also,” then both
Mary and Martha are equally identified as disciples.[7]
The KJV reads, “And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’
feet, and heard his word.” In this case, the KJV accurately translates the kai. as “also,” which is clearly retained in the UBS text, but
has been dropped in most modern English translations.
“Who” h[ is inserted in a widely dispersed set of manuscripts and is included by
the UBS in brackets. By using this
important variant kai. and translating it as “also”, the
transition is completed as : “And this woman has a sister called Mary, who also
having sat at his feet. .” in addition, with this relative pronoun h[ as the subject, the participle parakaqesqei/sa can be read substantively, “a person
who sat herself.” Nolland notes that if the h[ is accepted then it should be linked
to the following kai. with the result that whatever Mary
is doing, Martha has also done.[8]
Christopher Hutson also concurs with this use of the variants.[9]
In summary,
there are two possible ways of understanding the phrase. The more familiar,
which I am questioning, describes Mary as sitting at the feet of Jesus in the
narrative setting. The option proposed for this paper is that the participle
could also name her as one who is “a sitter.” “Sitting at the feet”, as in Acts
22:3, is the traditional vocabulary of discipleship. So both Martha and Mary
are known as “sitters at the feet” or disciples of Jesus. This is a figurative
description, not literal.
But Martha
was distracted periespa/to peri pollh.n in verse 40 which literally means,
“was constantly being pulled concerning much.” The Greek imperfect tense
indicates that this was not a one-time event, but was ongoing. Martha had
overwhelming worries; it was not frantic preparations for a meal.
The source of Martha’s distraction, diakoni,a has been studied extensively. J.N. Collins in 1990
determined that diakoni,a may be taken in the classic Greek
sense of one who is a go-between or emissary,” Phoebe being an example in
Romans 16:1.[10] Further,
I agree with Warren Carter’s 1996 article, who argues that Martha is engaged in
house church ministry.[11]
On this day, Martha is not overwhelmed in kitchen work, but she is burned out
with diaconal work in her village, whatever it could be, and for my purposes
the meaning of diakoni,a is open to anything other than being
confined to kitchen work. She is overworked by the demands of ministry.
The next
item is Martha’s question, “Do you not care that my sister (regularly) leaves
me to serve alone?” Several variants
replace the aorist kate,lipen for the imperfect kate,leipen. If the imperfect verb is considered, then Mary has
regularly deserted Martha over a period of time. The addition of the word mo,nhn also adds to the sense that the distance between the sisters
is more than a few steps between the kitchen and the dining room.
In verse 41
two very strong words describe Martha’s worry. She is described as merimna/j and qoruba,zh. These two words indicate that
Martha is enduring a considerable and long-term state of emotional stress. This
describes stronger stress than being temporarily overwhelmed with duties as a
hostess. Perhaps Martha’s worry is stated in language more appropriate to even greater
distress than being left alone to do all the diakoni,a.
More to the point, Martha may be worried about Mary’s safety out in the
countryside as a disciple.
Mary has
physically left Martha and perhaps frequently leaves to pursue her own diakoni,a. She is involved in some discipleship that does not involve
Martha, who is obliged for an undisclosed reason, to stay in the village for
her own unspecified diakoni,a. Martha assumes that Jesus knows
where Mary is, because she asks Jesus, “Tell her therefore, that she may help
me.” She pleads with Jesus to speak to her sister that she will come back to give her a hand. Perhaps needing help is only a pretense;
maybe Martha just wants her sister home under her supervision.
Jesus’ reply
to Martha is essentially the climatic teaching, yet his answer is puzzling and
has been interpreted many ways. The oldest variant from the western tradition
is also the simplest: “But one thing is necessary. For Mary has chosen good,
and it will not be taken away from her.” Th.n
angaqh.n meri,da
does not have to be taken comparatively to mean that Mary chose the “best
portion,” but can also mean she chose “a good thing.”
The summary
of immediate topics preceding the Luke 10:38-42 pericope, hints at the reason
that Mary had “left Martha alone.” Mary is following Jesus as a traveling
disciple and this pericope is an illustration of how followers of Jesus must
leave their family behind. In Luke 8:1-3, Jesus is noted to be traveling with
the twelve as well as “some women.” This scene is followed closely by the
sending of “the seventy” in Luke 10:1.
Martha
assumes that Jesus knows where Mary is, and he does, because apparently it is
in his power to convince her to return home. If Luke 10 gives Mary the space to
be involved in “feet on the ground” itinerate ministry, does John 11 give any
indication that this was indeed the reality?
Evidence
from John
In the
opening of John 11, Lazarus is introduced in relation to his sisters, Mary
being mentioned first. In verse 2, is a prolepsis, apparently a referral to an
event that has not occurred yet. The reader is reminded that this is the Mary
who anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped them with her hair. Why would the
audience be expected to know of this anointing scene, while the story of
Lazarus was yet to be revealed? Mary seems to enjoy recognition from some prior
activities attached to her. I think Mary had performed an anointing prior to
this point of time, which had attracted much attention.
Moving
forward in John 11:31, “The Jews who had been with Mary consoling her, noticed
the haste with which she got up and left, and they all followed her, supposing
she was going to the tomb to mourn” A detail that caught my attention early in
my research is the curious reason the visitors from Jerusalem kept a more
watchful eye on Mary than Martha. How is it that Mary attracts this notice from
the Jerusalem visitors and Martha did not? Martha was able to leave the house
to meet Jesus without attracting attention; she slipped out either without
anyone noticing or caring about her activity.
Following
immediately after the revivification of Lazarus, John 11:45 appears to
inadvertently omit the mention of Martha. Such is how the few commentaries that
actually notice the omission seem to understand it. In 11:45 is the offhand
remark, “Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen
what Jesus did, put their faith in him.”
The few words, “who had come to visit Mary” could have been omitted with
no loss to the sentence.
Research
How is it
that Mary seems to enjoy recognition from some prior activities attached to
her? Apparently, she had a history. Reasons for Mary’s almost, but not quite
concealed, prominence raise questions about information hidden just beneath the
surface. The first source which drew me onto a path of uncovering the mystery
of Mary of Bethany was Schüssler Fiorenza. Her suspicion is that
in an earlier tradition, Mary may have had followers around her who were led to
believe in Jesus.[12]
In a later work of 2002 Yamaguchi is one of the few to notice and agree with
this idea.[13]
She notes that Mary is a leader with Judean followers. Prior to the events of John 11 and 12, Mary of
Bethany had somehow become well-known and beloved with a devoted following. How
could have this happened given that a quick reading of John 11 yields a very
unimpressive resume: she is almost speechless and overcome with grief?
Mary’s prior
reputation and ability to attract a crowd is an important piece of what Jesus
is accomplishing in his final and greatest sign at the end of his public
ministry. Schneiders notes that Mary of Bethany is the literary means for the
Jews’ arrival on stage for the raising of Lazarus.[14]
Conway adds that John 11:31 gives the first indication of one of the roles that
Mary will play in the narrative. “Unbeknownst to the Jews, she is actually
leading them to Jesus.”[15]
The climax
of narrative tension occurs in 11:42 when Jesus prays aloud, “I knew that you
always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here,
that they may believe that you sent me.” This statement makes clear that the
presence of the crowd is important to the total scene. Jesus had master-planned
the entire Lazarus narrative with the goal of bringing as many people possible
out into the open, that they may be brought to belief by the performance of his
final sign.
Conclusion:
The
foundation is laid in Luke 10 and John 11 to see how Mary of Bethany was
recognized in the tradition as a figure with influence. Jesus took advantage of
her leadership to bring a crowd of Judeans from Jerusalem to witness his final
miracle and witness of who he really was. If she had so many followers before
the crucifixion, then she could have been more prominent than previously
recognized as an early church leader.
In the
Gnostic writings, Gospel of Thomas,
Pistis Sophia, Dialogue of the Savior, Sophia of Jesus Christ, and Gospel of Mary an otherwise unidentified
Mary is in a conversation with Jesus. I propose this could be Mary of Bethany.
In the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, a Mary is rebuked by a
male disciple. This is more likely to be Mary of Bethany who was rebuked by
Judas in John 12. In Pistis Sophia
Jesus defends her right to speak. I conclude that many of the early Mary texts
may be actually describing the activities of Mary of Bethany.
[1]
Ann Graham Brock, Mary Magdalene, The First
Apostle: The Struggle for Authority (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
2003).
[2]
Mary Ann Beavis, “Reconsidering Mary of Bethany,” CBQ 74 (2012) 281-97.
[3]
Mary Ann Beavis. “Mary of Bethany and the
Hermeneutics of Remembrance.” The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75, (2013): 739-755.
[4] Mark
Goodacre, “The Magdalene Effect: Misreading the Composite Mary in Early
Christian Works.” Unpublished
[5]
Holly E. Hearon, “Luke 10:38-42,” Interpretation
58, no. 4 (October 2004) 394-395.
[6]
G. B. Caird, The Gospel of St. Luke (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963).
[7] Mary Rose
D’Angelo, “Women in Luke-Acts: A Redactional View,” JBL 109 (1990): 454-455.
[8] Nolland, Luke, 600, n. d.
[9] Christopher
R. Hutson, “Martha’s Choice: A Pastorally Sensitive Reading of Luke 10:38-42” Restoration Quarterly 45 no 3 2003
139-150.
[10]
John N. Collins, “Did Luke Intend a Disservice to Women in the Martha and Mary
Story?”, Biblical Theology Bulletin
28 (1998), pp; 104-11, at p,. 110; also his Diakonia:
Reinterpreting the Ancient Sources (New York: Oxford University Press,
1990).
[11]
Warren Carter, “Getting Martha Out of the Kitchen: Luke 10:38-42 Again.” In A Feminist Companion to Luke, edited by
Amy-Jill Levine, 214-231 (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 2001).
[12]
Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. "A
Feminist Critical Interpretation for Liberation: Martha and Mary: Lk.
10:38-42." Religion and Intellectual
Life 3 (1986): 21-36.
[13]
Satoko Yamaguchi, Mary & Martha: Women in
the World of Jesus (Maryknoll:
Orbis Books, 2002).
[14] Sandra M. Schneiders,.
"Death in the Community of Eternal Life: History, Theology, and Spirituality
in John 11." Interpretation 41
(1987): 44-56.
[15]
Colleen M Conway, Men and Women in
the Fourth Gospel: Gender and Johannine Characterization (Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 1999).
