Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and the Unnamed Woman of Luke 7:36-50
Introduction
What is the greatest sign of respect that you can have for a person?
Some might say that it’s imitation. I consider imitation not necessarily to be a sign of respect or admiration but is often an attempt to capture an element of a person, usually chosen selectively, and represent it to the world as an act of appreciation. Imitation can also be a sign of disrespect, especially when it is used to mock, deride, or parody someone.
I believe that a genuine sign of respect is a well-reasoned criticism, not undertaken to necessarily refute a position but to perhaps demonstrate that a conclusion does not follow from the premises given, or that there is some evidence that is not being considered that could make the argument better.
But sometimes…the person just completely steps in it.
The BLOGCAST
Watch on RUMBLE!
One…Two…Hold Your Horses
A few years ago, right before James F. McGrath blocked me on what used to be called Twitter, he posted a link to a guest post on Dr. James Tabor’s blog of an article by a Lutheran pastor by the name of Jeffery J. Bütz.
Rev Bütz’s article, titled “Mary Magdalene = Mary of Bethany: A Case for Equivalence”, repeated much of the argumentation that has a long, traditional understanding by Roman Catholics that the two women are the same. Now whether this is simply the result of Gnostic texts paving over any disambiguation between the women is debateable.[1] Bütz argues that the Roman Catholics are correct while most Protestants and even Eastern Orthodox hold to the conclusion that these are separate and distinct people.
I responded to Bütz’s article in short order and put the whole mess to the side. But the other day, I noticed that Pastor Doug Wilson had posted an argument, drawing from the dinner anointing scenes found in the gospels that closely resembled Bütz’s and any other number of scholarly conclusions that see, “Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany and the ‚woman sinner can be read as the same person, making her story a case study in gospel transformation.”[2] Or as Wilson puts it with his usual polish,
The woman in John is identified as Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. The woman in Luke is unnamed, but in the verses immediately following this incident, we are introduced to Mary Magdalene for the first time. An unnamed woman does this for the Lord at the end of Luke 7, and then at the beginning of Luke 8, Mary is named among the Lord’s followers. This harmonization I am proposing would also mean that Mary Magdalene and the sister of Martha were the same person. It would mean, in addition, that the common understanding of Mary Magdalene as a sexual sinner is correct.
Now, here’s my question: why should we assume that the woman is a sexual sinner? There is nothing about the word translated as “sinner” (harmartolos) in Luke 7:37’s presentation that in any way communicates a particular type of sin, in fact it could simply imply that the woman was a pagan or simply was habitually ritually unclean. Something that appears to be ignored though is that the anointing incident appears to take place in the town of Nain where Jesus had just raised a widow’s only son, something that should be considered before drawing any other conclusions about the woman’s identity.
Triggermanblog 