The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

I was rather amazed to see the number of Blogs, articles, and media treatments over Easter weekend that triumphantly declared that the issue of whether the Talpiot “Jesus tomb” might have belonged to Jesus of Nazareth and his family to be “dead and buried” forever, to use a bad metaphor. It was as if one could hear a collective sign of relief, if not celebration, over what was declared to be a universal repudiation of any basis whatsoever to the thesis presented by James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici in their Discovery Channel documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.”

Typical of this barrage was the sardonic treatment by Thomas F. Madden titled “Not Dead Yet: The Lost Tomb of Jesus–one year later,” published on the National Review Online Web site. It was predictably picked up in dozens of Blogs and Internet venues and waved like a victory flag. Indeed, Madden ends his article with the tongue-in-cheek declaration “Christians will just have to make do with the empty tomb.” The problem is, Madden’s article was absolutely riddled with factual errors and unfounded assertions, so much so that I found myself wondering if he could have possibly done even the most basic reading of the pros and cons of the discussion over the past year. It is one thing to debate evidence, and to try to come to considered judgments, but quite another for an academic historian to present such a poorly researched treatment of a subject with such obvious theological overtones. It seemed to me to be a case of predisposition and sarcasm ruling over factual deliberation and reasoned discussion.

In the interest of “getting the facts straight,” which surely has to be a prelude to any proper consideration of the topic, I will attempt in a subsequent post or two to offer a fair summary of where the discussion of the Talpiot tomb does stand “one year later.” I also want to present some new evidence that I hope will serve to advance the discussion.

In the end, for so many, theology really controls the discussion. Unfortunately, from an historical perspective, this theology is narrowly conceived and by some measure even “non-biblical.” It presupposes that the hope of “resurrection of the dead” as it developed in late 2nd Temple Judaism, involves reviving the physical body, what Paul calls the “image of dust.” Paul’s metaphor of the physical body being shed like old clothes, leaving the naked “soul,” which is then “re-clothed” with an incorruptible “heavenly” body (i.e., mode of being), goes a long way toward explaining how the “sea” can give up the “dead that are in it’–a conundrum the Greeks liked to use to poke fun at the Jews for believing in a “bodily” resurrection. Their mistake, like those who quizzed Jesus about the nature of the resurrection, was to imagine the “new body” was somehow dependent upon, or even reflective of, the old, i.e., the decayed corpse of dust. To quote Jesus to those literal minded detractors of the idea of resurrection of the dead, “You err, knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Mark 12:24).

The subject heading is the title of a most famous book by Jim Bishop, The Day Christ Died, published in 1957 by Harper Collins with an official Imprimatur by the famous Archbishop of New York Francis Cardinal Spellman–guaranteeing it “free of doctrinal or moral error.” The book is still available in reprint editions. I highly recommend it for a kind of retrospective history reading. I remember devouring this book when it came out. I was eleven years old. It captivated me utterly, I could not put it down.

Fifty years later I write this post on a Thursday night, on the eve of “Good Friday,” that happens this year to also be the night of Purim as well as the Vernal Equinox–a kind of triple package of markers and observances. Today is Thursday. I have been absolutely convinced for several years now, as I explain in my book, The Jesus Dynasty, that Jesus died on Nisan 14th, which in the year A.D. 30, fell on a Thursday not a Friday. So this is indeed, the “day Christ died.” He was put in the temporary rock hewn tomb just before sunset, and Friday, the following day, was the first day of Passover. This means the Passover meal or Seder was eaten that Thursday night, just as the Gospel of John records (John 13:1; 18:28). The next day, Friday, was indeed a “Sabbath,” but not Saturday, the weekly Sabbath, but rather one of the seven “annual” Sabbaths of the Jewish festival cycle (see Leviticus 23:7). This means there were two Sabbaths, back to back, Friday and Saturday, that year. Sunday morning, when Mary Magdalene went early to the tomb and found it empty, it was indeed “three days and three nights” that Jesus had laid in that tomb (Thurs, Friday, Saturday nights), which comports with the tradition that Matthew has received (Matthew 12:40). Surely a million Sunday school kids over the years have asked, not to mention adults, how can you get three nights, from Friday to Sunday morning. It simply will not work.

Modern astronomical programs completely confirm this chronology of the Spring of A.D. 30. I have had quite a few dozens of readers write me to point out that the Jewish calendar never allows the 14th of Nisan to fall on a Thursday. But this adjustment in the calendar, based on what are called “postponements,” was not instituted until well into the 2nd century. In the time of Jesus the month of Nisan was set by the new moon, and that particular year, A.D. 30, the 14th day of the first month (14 days after the new moon) fell on a Thursday. The “last supper,” that Jesus ate with his disciples the night before, a Wednesday evening, was not the Passover Seder, but a messianic banquet or Eucharist of “bread and wine,” such as mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Didache. One way of putting it is that Jesus did not eat the Passover, he was the Passover, at least as understood by the Gospel of John and by Paul (1 Corinthians 5:7). According to Josephus it was between 3pm and sundown the Passover sacrifices were made, just as the 14th of Nisan ended and the 15th, an annual Sabbath, began. Christians subsequently saw great symbolism in this chronology.

According to the Coptic Gospel of Philip, found in Egypt in 1945 as part of the Nag Hammadi collection, Jesus had three intimate woman named “Mary,” or Mariam, in his life, namely, his mother, his sister, and his “companion,” Mary Magdalene. However the passage that lists these three Marys is confusing, in that Jesus’ sister Mary is first called his mother’s sister–obviously an impossibility. Marvin Meyer and other translators have actually amended the Coptic text at this point, but I received this most thoughtful treatment of the passage from Jennifer Duba-Scanlan and pass it on with her permission. The Gospel of Philip, is the text that also contains the passage about Jesus loving Mary Magdalene more than the other disciples and kissing her often (Gospel of Philip 59). Several English translations are available on the Web, see the every helpful ECW site.
James Tabor

From Jennifer Duba-Scanlan:

“There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.” Gospel of Philip 36

I was always confused about it, because it first states that the three who always traveled with Jesus were “his mother and her sister” and Mary Magdalene. But the next sentence claims that Jesus’ “sister” (not his mother’s sister, his aunt) along with his mother and companion “were each a Mary.”

As well, if Jesus’ sister Mary traveled with him, why isn’t she mentioned in the first sentence as regards those women who “always walked with the Lord”? Or did both of his sisters travel with him as well, Mary and Salome, but just aren’t mentioned? After all, in the NT it doesn’t even give Jesus’ sisters names. Just a mention of “sisters” on a couple occasions.

This passage in Gospel of Philip, due to it’s puzzling aspect, should tell us something. As you’d be apt to say, James, “something is definitely going on here.”

And now, due to your book The Jesus Dynasty, this passage makes sense to me after reading “The Mystery of the ‘Other Mary’ ” (pg.77-80)

It’s as though, in the Gospel of Philip, they left a ‘clue’, or rather a ‘riddle’ to try to figure out -maybe they (whomever wrote it), also knew that Mary, the wife of Clophas, was not the sister or cousin or sister-in-law of Jesus’ mother Mary, as many others thought, (and still think today), but that both Marys were actually Jesus’ mother, as they are one and the same person, which you wrote about in your very insightful book.

Why else would the Gospel of Philip write it in this puzzling way as regards the trio of Marys and Jesus’ maternal aunt?

It adds, in a sense, more weight to your argument, (which I find highly likely), that the two Marys were really one and the same - Jesus’ mother Mary married Clophas, the brother of Joseph, after Joseph died, ‘possibly’ leaving Mary with no children other than Jesus, whom he wasn’t the biological father of, and thus, the father of Jesus’ half-brothers and sisters would thus be Clophas.

As well, you’d wisely noted in The Jesus Dynasty (pg 79):
“Is it really likely that these two women, both named Mary, whether sisters or sisters-in-law, married to brothers and had three sons with the same names and born in the same order: James, Joses, and Simon?”

No, not likely at all. After all, how many sisters or brothers do you know of who have the same name? Whether today or way back in the days of Jesus and family. A father/son or a mother/daughter with the same name, is one thing, and quite acceptable, but two sisters/daughters or brothers/sons with the same name, no that’s a horse of a different colour, and isn’t something you ever hear of, really. (with the exception of Michael Jackson’s sons!)

The passage quoted here from Gospel of Philip at first leaves one with the impression that there were three Marys who constantly traveled with Jesus - yet his aunt isn’t mentioned in the second group of women named Mary in Jesus’ life, so she wasn’t a Mary, least not going by what is stated here, or she’d have been listed as such - shouldn’t it have thus said: “His sister and his mother and his aunt and his companion were each a Mary.”

Also, while it lists the three Marys in Jesus’ life whom he was close to - his mother, sister and companion - it doesn’t state that all three of them traveled with him. While we know his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene did, his sister Mary may or may not have traveled constantly with him.

John 19:25:
“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary [the wife] of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

I think it’s ‘possible’ that Salome is the wife of Zebedee, mother of James and John, and though it’s not mentioned directly, is the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Salome was at the cross and went to the tomb to anoint the body, with Jesus’ mother Mary, and Mary Magdalene, so she was close to Jesus and family, likely a family member of some kind.

In the above quote from John you could add Salome:

“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister Salome, Mary [the wife] of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

Or, add Salome (as Mary’s sister) to your “decrypted version of John” in your book (pg 80):

“Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother Mary wife of Clophas, his mother’s sister Salome, and Mary Magdalene.”

And while Jesus had a sister named Salome, I believe the Salome I’m writing of here has two sons who are perhaps close in age to Jesus’ brothers, as they’d be first cousins, so it wouldn’t be Jesus’ sister.

Mark 15:40:
“There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and of Joses, and Salome.”

So here it could be speaking about Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ mother Mary, and his aunt Salome - his mother’s sister.

The most intriguing passage, if Salome (though not mentioned by name here) is viewed as Jesus’ aunt, his mother’s sister, is from Matthew 20:21:

“Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s sons, kneeling down, desiring a certain thing of him. And he said to her, What wilt thou? She said to him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom.”

Jesus gently rebukes them and in Matthew 20:23, Jesus notes “..to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give..” And in Matthew 20:24 it states “And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.”

Though in Mark, they leave out “the mother of Zebedee’s children” and have the sons of Zebedee making the request of Jesus. (Mark 10:35)

This could be seen/interpreted to fit with your ‘Jesus Dynasty’, because she asks Jesus for special privileges for her sons (or else her sons do on their own, as per Mark), and if she’s Jesus’ mother’s blood sister, his aunt, she carries the same maternal royal bloodline as Jesus’ mother Mary, and thus her sons have the same bloodline as Jesus and his brothers and sisters, so they are part of the dynasty - a main branch of it.

Why else would she dare to ask Jesus such a thing? And she must have known Jesus well enough to be so bold. Not to mention, in those days, first off, women weren’t apt to speak to men unless they were part of the family in some way. Secondly, women at that time also weren’t likely to speak up like this, be so forward, and make such an (audacious) request of any man. Though if she’s of the bloodline of Jesus, as she’s his maternal aunt, it at least makes a bit more sense why she would ask this of her nephew, Jesus. Even if it wasn’t the ‘proper’ thing to do (thus the other apostles were annoyed. Perhaps some were actually envious?)

Mark 16:1:
“And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.” (i.e., Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ mother Mary, and her sister, his aunt Salome.)

Thus, on the hypothesis that Salome is the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary, we can add Salome to the passage in the Gospel of Philip, so it makes more sense, or at least it causes one to read the sentences as separate statements, and not mistakenly conclude that three Marys “always walked with the Lord.” (thus I’ll split them up here):

“There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister Salome, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion.”

“His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.”

There are three areas of Jerusalem that have had the name “Mount Zion” at various points in history: The City of David, or Ophel, to the south, that in the time of Jesus was called the “lower city”; the Temple Mount itself to the north; and the highest point in the city itself, today called Mount Zion. The latter Josephus called the “Upper City,” where the wealthy lived along its slopes just where we are excavating. At the top and along the western side of the city was the location of Herod’s Palace and the Praetorium judgment seat of the Roman military governors (Mark 15:16).

One of the Psalms declares: “Beautiful in height, a rejoicing of all the earth, is Mount Zion” (Psalm 48:2). This might well be a reference to what is still called Mount Zion today, since of the seven hills that make up Jerusalem, this one has always been the highest. I think there is good evidence, presented by my beloved friend Bargil Pixner, who died in April, 2002, that Jesus ate his last supper with his intimate followers the night he was betrayed in a guest house on Mt Zion, the site of which is still visited by millions of Christian pilgrims each year as the Coenaculum or “Upper Room.” You can find a summary of his thesis in this regard, published in Biblical Archaeology Review, on the Century One Web site. Although I can not assent to Pixner’s entire “Essene Quarter” theory, I do indeed find the evidence he presents to be quite strong that Jesus did indeed eat his last meal in this section of the city. Since this is the most wealthy section of the city, one would assume a wealthy or influential follower made the space available to him on that fateful last night before Passover. Later, according to Acts, the synagogue of James, the brother of Jesus, established its headquarters in that very location. Indeed, the building with its courtyard, the outlines of which are still visible today, might well have become the house of James, his brothers, their families, and of course their beloved mother Mariam.

Our excavation is a tiny “toe hold” on the southern slope of the mountain. Last summer we reached the 2nd Temple levels in two areas but suspended our work there until we could take the rest of the areas down in chronological phase. From Broshi’s excavations in the 1970s, we can clearly see well preserved vaults and rooms from the 2nd Temple period, not just basement levels as were found in the Jewish Quarter excavations. These were apparently sealed over with fill resulting from the construction of the Nea Church in the 6th century C.E., fortuitously preserving them to an extraordinary degree.
Here are a few photos from today’s work at the site:

This is Mt Zion viewed toward the Northeast from my hotel

Here is an overview of the site with our initial working area under the plastic cover.

Here are three “squares” we have opened for our initial efforts with our team hard at work.

Eglon Lass working on the upper levels above the main site with a clear surface exposed that predates the Ottoman period and the building program of Suleiman (early 1500s).

Removing yesterday’s soil by crane.

It is already Sunday afternoon here in Israel. We just completed our first day of digging at the Mt.Zion site. It has been a most wonderful and successful day. We have a exceptionally dedicated and hard working group of Team members/volunteers, ranging from my students to several adults, including two gentlemen in their 70s, who, by the way, work as hard as any of us! We worked seven hours today, expecting to perhaps remove from three to five bags of soil–but as the photo shows, we ended up clearing out sixteen (yes, 16!) ballasts or soil bags. I can not remember when I have seen a team work with such enthusiasm and excitement. We had quite a few visitors to the site today, including a well known German film crew. Our task today was mainly just to clear vegetation, trim things down, remove rocks, and get the site ready for this season. We also inaugurated, under the incredible supervision of Egon Lass, taking down the upper areas of the site, so we can eventually dig in sequence. These areas were left from the 1978 digging and are from the Turkish period. Everything needs to be brought down to the Byzantine level, then and only then we will move along to the Roman/Herodian period, that lies in places just under our feet. More to come, including pictures…

I just received a copy of The Jesus Dynasty in Chinese produced by Locus Publishing Co. in Taiwan. This marks the 12th of an eventual 25 foreign languages in which the book has sold. It will circulate in all markets except the Mainland and is produced in Chinese Complex Characters. I am working with some very high level contacts in the Mainland now who are quite interested in seeing a version come out there, which would be in Simplified Chinese. There is a tremendous interest among Chinese populations in the historical Jesus, Biblical archeology, and associated subjects.

I am in the airport at Newark International ready to fly over to Israel for the Mt. Zion dig. I expect to send reports from the field through next week as well as continue posting on a number of topics, including new material on the form of the name Mariamene as related to Mary Magdalene.

I am working steadily on the sequel to the The Jesus Dynasty, a book mainly dealing with Paul and the development of early Christianity during the first 20 years (30-50 CE), the period Crossan called the “dark ages” of the movement in terms of our dearth of sources. The working title is The Paul Dynasty, but what I mean by that title has a surprising twist that I don’t want to reveal until the book is published. It is one of the major discoveries I have made on Paul over the past 25 years since I published my dissertation, Things Unutterable.

This is an informal post sent to me by e-mail from Wendy Pond. I asked her for her permission to pass it on. This matter of sorting out the Marys in the three anointing scenes in our gospels (Mark/Matt; Luke, and John) is a complex one. I have shied away from identifying Mary “called Magdalene” with “Mary of Bethany” in John, and also leaned toward the idea of two pair of sisters named “Mary and Martha,” one in the Galilee and another in Jerusalem/Bethany (Luke 10 & John 11 being a different family) but I remain open and consider this matter unresolved. Here is Wendy’s take on things:
Luke seems purposefully to juxtapose the introduction of Mary Magdalene (as exorcised of 7 demons in 8:1-3) with the woman of the city identified as a sinner in 7:37-38 who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair and anoints his feet - perhaps to cause intentional blurring/association of MM with the sinful woman of the city, i.e., to obscure/demote/sully any close relationship MM might have had with Jesus and thus her important status as part of Jesus’ inner circle of disciples.

Further to this, the act of washing and anointing the feet so intimately as done in Luke would be expected to be performed only by a man’s wife or servant/slave. It would have been considered sinful for any non-attached woman to do this to a man (especially in front of witnesses!). If the author of Luke was intentionally distancing MM from Jesus, he would have known this (whether he was Jewish or Gentile, I think!), so if, from Luke’s original knowledge or source, MM actually had performed this act and was close to Jesus such as wife/companion, but Luke did not wish to present her as such, Luke would have had to paint her as a sinner - even if he didn’t name her - therefore he made the association by juxtaposing 7:37-50 with 8:1-3. (”Woman from the city” could also be a true remnant from an early source descriptive of MM - from Magdala or another large, possibly Hellenized/pagan - “sinful” - city.)

I will add that within that Jewish-Mediterranean culture, when women were traveling with men, it would have been assumed they were either wives, sisters, daughters or servants/slaves, i.e., attached to the men as family/household/property, and a man meeting a mixed group of travelers on the road would likely never even bother to ask another man about the relationships of women traveling with him. The fact that Jesus’ group had independent women traveling with them was probably highly unusual, and why Luke mentions it 8:3 - maybe he couldn’t avoid/omit it. Once again, Luke associates MM with these important, independent women (wealthy? and/or had left their families/husbands?) who provided for Jesus/the group from their means. But was MM truly independent - as in, unattached, no relation to Jesus at all other than spiritually/part of the movement? Luke has sandwiched MM between these two vignettes, and has painted her as a woman who was (at least formerly) ill/mentally unstable, on top of it all.

While Mark does not identify the woman, John identifies her as Mary, sister of Lazarus and Martha, and both annointing accounts take place in Bethany. In both accounts, “some” present (disciples? other guests?) or Judas Iscariot complain/s about the waste of the costly spikenard, but no-one complains about how sinful or shocking it would have been for a woman not related to Jesus to perform such an intimate act (any form of touching!), especially the case in John where, again, the act involves Mary wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair! Clearly the authors of both gospels wished to emphasize the act of anointing the Messiah, but I believe any close relation the woman/Mary had to Jesus was quietly omitted from the story - the fact that there is no shocked reaction from the men in attendance to this intimate act is the loud, red flag, and it seems to indicate that those in attendance either knew or just assumed the woman/Mary (especially Mary in John) was closely related to Jesus. (That, or Jesus’ disciples and friends just accepted the fact that Jesus had an unusually open, egalitarian and casual attitude/approach toward all women - which I do believe at any rate.) I think I pointed this out in an earlier email to you, but in contrast, in the account of the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (John 4:27), the disciples are rather surprised to find Jesus talking to a strange woman; a man would never bother - a woman was unimportant or it wasn’t even proper. But in the annointing account with Mary, no surprise at all - why? Because Jesus’ and Mary’s relationship may have been omitted.

I believe Mary of Bethany in John is the same as the woman in Bethany in Mark 14:3-9 (clearly in that she wipes his feet with her hair - a memorable scene in deed!), and same as the woman in Luke 7:37-50, and she is Mary Magdalene. And she would have to have been Jesus’ wife or close/intimate companion. Luke unwittingly connects the dots with Mark and John, ID’ing her as MM, even though he tries to paint her in the worst light. Matthew doesn’t even mention her until the crucifixion! It’s why MM is at the tomb (with Jesus’ mother - the 2 most important women in his life, in that order!) to anoint Jesus’ body - she was his wife/companion, the first person to whom he appeared, and why none of the gospel authors could omit her completely from the story. Thus we have:

(A) Woman in Bethany - Mark
(B) Sinful woman of the City; wipes J’s feet with hair - Luke
(C) Mary of Bethany; wipes J’s feet with hair - John

Because A and C are the same (it’s doubtful 2 anointings took place in Bethany), and because B and C are also likely the very same, highly memorable story (intimate/sensual wiping of Jesus’ feet with the hair - again, it’s not likely to have happened twice with different women!), then A and B must also be the same woman. Luke connects the dots to Mary Magdalene. Luke also put the anointing story much earlier in Jesus’ mission and turns it into a moving story about forgiveness of sins rather than the anointing of the Messiah before his death - a way of downplaying Messianism vs. Son of God or the Jewishness of Jesus? What’s also amazingly odd is that Mark omits the woman’s name even tho’ he cannot erase/omit Jesus’ words about her - his proclamation that “what she has done will be told in memory of her.” A woman to be remembered the world over with no name….

There is a most intriguing stained glass window in the Kilmore church (”Church of Mary”) in the village of Dervaig on the Scottish Isle of Mull. The scene shows a Jesus figure in a most intimate pose with a woman named Mary who appears to be pregnant. Under the figures is a quotation from Luke 10:42 “Mary hath chosen that good part which shall not be taken away from her.” I want to thank Jennifer Duba-Scanlan, a colleague I know through e-mail, for pointing this out to me, as well as calling my attention to the Keith Akers post on the Talpiot tomb that I mentioned recently.The Web site to which I was referred understands the “Mary” in the image to be none other than Mary Magdalene, but Luke’s account (10:38-42) is set in an unnamed village, presumably in the Galilee, in the home of two sisters–Martha and Mary. It is a story unique to Luke in which the sister Mary is commended for her desire to “sit at Jesus feet” and listen to his teaching, presumably with the male disciples, while Martha attends to household serving.

**Wendy Pond just pointed out to me that the text actually says that “Martha welcomed Jesus into her house,” when “they,” namely the Jesus entourage, came to a certain village. It does not say that Mary lived there, but just that Martha had a sister called Mary. It is possible that this “Mary” has been traveling with the group, suggests they stop at her sister’s house for a meal and rest, and she has developed the practice of gathering and sitting with the men. Even though Luke introduces these women as if they are “new” to the story, it is clear from the way Jesus speaks to them in the core tradition that he knows them both well. The “good portion” that Mary has chosen appears to be her desire to hear and learn the words of the Teacher.

The scene raises a most interesting question. Who is this particular “Mary,” in Luke’s story and is she possibly to be identified with “Mary of Bethany,” in Jerusalem, mentioned only in the gospel of John, who also has a sister named Martha and a brother named Lazarus? This is the Mary who anoints the feet of Jesus (11:1-2). The answer is neither easy nor obvious, despite the similarity of names. Are there two pair of sisters named “Mary and Martha” or just one?

Other than Jesus’ mother Mary, there are two other intimate Marys in Jesus’ life about whom we have narratives–Mary Magdalene and Mary, sister of Martha. One of the most puzzling challenges in our New Testament gospel traditions is to sort through the various stories regarding these two (or three?) Marys, and the ways in which they intersect with the stories of Jesus being “anointed” before his death. Here are the bare facts in outline form:

• Mark (14:3-9) contains the core story of Jesus being anointed by an unnamed woman at Bethany two days before Passover while reclining at a meal in the house of “Simon the leper.” The woman pours an alabaster flask of expensive oil over his head. Jesus accepts her gesture, defends her against those to call it a waste, and says that “she has anointed my body beforehand for burial.”

• John (12:1-8) recounts that six days before Passover, also at Bethany, Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped them with her hair. Jesus defends her in a similar manner but says that she should keep the ointment “for the day of my burial.”

• Luke (7:36-40) relates a separate story, much earlier in Jesus’ career, in which an unnamed “sinful woman” anoints Jesus’ feet with an alabaster flask of ointment, wetting them with her tears and drying them with her hair. Jesus tells this woman that her sins are forgiven. The story is strangely juxtaposed, in the immediate verses following, with Luke’s first reference to “Mary called Magdalene” from whom seven demons had gone out. Does Luke intend to imply that Mary Magdalene was a “street woman,” a sinner, and thus healed by Jesus of demonic influence?

These appear to be three separate scenes of anointing, with important differences in content and setting, yet somehow related or “intertwined.” Many scholars have suggested that behind the three accounts lies a single core story, but the consistent elements are rather bare: Jesus is anointed with a costly ointment by a woman; the woman is criticized by others, but defended by Jesus.

In subsequent Christian tradition Luke’s “sinful woman” was indeed identified with Mary Magdalene, who was in turn, quite often, identified with “Mary of Bethany,” sister of Martha. However, since we know of “Mary of Bethany” only in the gospel of John, and she seems clearly distinguished from Mary Magdalene, this identification does not seem to stand up–in John at least. But to further complicate matters, it is indeed Mary, known as Magdalene, who does go to the tomb early Sunday morning with the intention of “anointing” Jesus body for burial–so somehow that motif is connected to her, on one level or another.

The anointing stories in John and Mark are close enough, despite differences of details, to be related. The story in Luke seems to stand independently, and could well be a way of introducing Mary Magdalene. However, the Mary, sister of Martha, in Luke 10, is not so readily identified with Mary of Bethany–who clearly lives in Jerusalem. In fact, it seems hard to make such a case. She could be just “another Mary,” or it is possible, as in the stained glass window in the Kilmore church, that she was indeed the one known as Mary, “the one called Magdalene.” What most characterizes her in this story is that she is a woman among the male disciples, strong and confident of her place of “sitting at the feet” of the Rabbi. It is certainly interesting that this image of Mary as the one who conveys the message of Jesus is the dominant image one finds in subsequent non-canonical traditions about Mary Magadalene, as Jane Schaberg and others have so ably pointed out.

I remain convinced, for reasons I will soon explore in this Blog, that the ossuary inscription in the Talpiot tomb that Rahmani read as “Mariamene also known as Mara,” is the best interpretation of the names, however, as many are now suggesting, if it does indeed read “Mariam and Mara=Martha,” referring to two women, they would indeed most likely be sisters. Given the complexity of our evidence above it is entirely possible that Mary Magdalene did have a sister named Martha.

Two weeks from today, on March 2, which just happens to be my birthday, we will officially inaugurate our Mt Zion Excavation for 2008. We have three sessions planned this year, the first running March 2-28, the other two in the summer running June 15-July 25 and August 17-September 12. Minimum stay in March is one week; and two weeks for the summer sessions. Volunteers, whom we call “Team Members,” of whatever age, level of experience, or affiliation are welcome to join us, as long as they are physically fit. Full details are on our Web site: DigMountZion. Although we are past our deadline for registration there are still a few spaces left in March if anyone wants to join us at the last minute.

I have had quite a few people ask me just where we are digging. In this case, a photo is worth a thousand words. You can see below that we are just along the road, outside the Old City Wall on the south, at the base of Mt Zion, between the Dung Gate and Zion Gate. In Roman times this area of Herodian Jerusalem was square inside the city walls, in fact, fairly much at the center of the main city itself. Our Web site explains some of the exciting potential we anticipate lies just below the ground.

University sponsored excavations are usually funded by private donations. We are in the process of raising money for our Mt Zion efforts as described in this Proposal that we welcome you to download, print out, and otherwise circulate. If any of you wish to help with funding or point us to individuals or sources with which you are in touch, please contact me directly via e-mail: jdtabor@uncc.edu

I always enjoy reading Antonio Lombatti’s Web site and Blog, both the rich mixture of news and analysis he brings out as well as the chance to practice my Italian a bit. Antonio and I have our sharp disagreements on the matter of the Talpiot Tomb, but in recent personal e-mail exchanges we are trying to understand one another more fully, despite differences.

I wanted to highlight here his recent post “New Finds in Magdala” that has short English introduction plus links to a full report in Italian with over thirty lovely photos of the latest discoveries of the Franciscans, under the direction of Michele Piccirillo at the Galilean coastal city of Midgal, known also as Taricheae in Roman times. The team is excavating a new area of about 500 square meters with amazing preliminary results. It looks like the “tiny Jewish fishing village,” a phrase that discounts all that Josephus reports, is awakening to the 21st century.