This topic contains 0 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
This sort of follows on from previous discussions on the forums but I thought I’d make this a new thread as it may lead somewhere different.
In an effort to ctach up on some of my backlog of books, I started reading Lynn Picknett’s “Mary Magdalene” over the weekend. Coincidentally, Yuri’s “Head of John the Baptist” drawing is reproduced in the book. Also as I was reading it there was a programme on ITV called something like “In Pursuit of the DaVinci Code” and I had a surreal moment where, lost in the book I looked up at the TV, saw Lynn Picknett and got completely disoriented.
Anyway, getting into the spirit of the book I decided to check out what was actually said about Mary Magdalene in the Gospels. Thus in Mark 16:9 we get the famous “Early on the first day of the week, after He had risen, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had driven seven demons.”
However in the original Greek the preposition used for “out of” is “par”. This is unusual since it is the only time that “par” is used in this context – mostly the preposition “ek” (like ex-, as in expulsion) is used to convey the sense that the demons were physically expelled from the person. “Par” normally has the meanings “of”, “from” or “by” in a figurative sense. So, for example in Matthew 2:4 when Herod asked the assembled Jewish elders what they knew of the alleged King who was to be born – “he inquired of (par) them”.
The line in Mark seems curious. I think it is arguable that the sense of “par” makes it seem that we should use an English word like “through” rather than “out of”. So we should have “He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, through whom He had expelled seven demons” and now we get the correct sense that it was somehow “through” Mary Magdalene (i.e. through her power) that Jesus cast out the seven demons. In this scenario the demons were never in Mary Magdalene she is simply the co-agent of their removal.
However, my grasp of biblical Greek is pretty much non-existant so I am open to correction – but it could be an interesting twist which would certainly back up the spirit of what Lynn Picknett is saying about Mary Magdalene being the victim of some revisionist downgrading.
Wow, Simon, thats really interesting, I’ll email Lynn and tell her to read this thread; I’ve got nothing to add though, that you cant find in Lynn’s book.
The same statement about Mary Magdalene is in Luke 8:2 -
Quote:1 Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, 2 as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them F73 out of their resources.I don’t know if the Greek is the same, and I can’t read Greek anyway. One of my theology tutors could read NT Greek well, but he has since retired. My feeling is that it would be a long shot – dangerous to build too much on a reading of a language that one can’t actually read!
Having said that, in the canonical gospels Jesus gives various groups of disciples the power to drive out demons; if Magdalene was indeed a disciple (as seems clear) then perhaps Jesus gave exorcist powers to her as well. In which case your reading would make some sort of sense; Jesus cast out 7 demons through her, i.e. Jesus gave her the authority and Mary did the dirty work (I can hear the women saying ‘tsk, bloody typical man’). The 7 demons could be a symbolic number, showing that Mary had a particular flair for exorcism.
I have read somewhere that Mary Magdalene is to be identified with Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, which is an interesting idea considering your article about Lazarus being the beloved disciple.
I had to email another one of my old theology tutors about another matter and asked her about the translation (she can read Greek, but used to say she always had problems with Greek capitals – which is a problem in NT studies because all the documents were written entirely in capitals!). I don’t think she will dismiss it without looking at it or deferring to someone more knowledgeable, she is very broad minded. I remember having an in-class discussion where we discussed Mary Magdalene as possibly being the apostle to the apostles (something to do with the Gospel of Mary I think).
Obviously I can’t guarantee that she will come back to me on this.
Whatever the translation, the comment certainly seems intended to draw attention to Mary M. If the standard translation is the correct one, then was it intended to be a character assasination, and if so then one has to ask why it was felt necessary to do this. But the standard translation might also have a positive meaning – 7 being a perfect number, perhaps it means that Mary M had been perfectly ‘cleansed’ from all evil?
As an aside, the section of Mark’s gosple from verse 9 is universally (or near as dammit) acknowledged to be a later addition to the gospel, the original either ending at verse 8 or having a lost ending. So the reference in Mark 16:9 might be dependent upon Luke 8:2, even though Luke’s gospel is itself dependent upon Mark. It still begs the question why both authors/editors wanted to include this detail.
Thanks, Yuri, Supernaturalist. Can’t wait for the feedback.
I’ve done a little more fumbling around in the dark and found the following:
The second mention of Mary Magdalene having seven demons cast out is, as Supernaturalist mentions, Luke 8:2 (usually translated as “Mary Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out”). Here the preposition used is “ap” (not the usual “ek”, but not the unique “par” either).
To me (and here I’m relying on schoolboy Latin so caveats as before) this suggests that the demons made a diving attack for Mary Magdalene but they were repelled *before* they ever entered. (Ab has that sense of “away from” in Latin). Thinking that I was quite probably mad I did a little bit of searching to see if this could be backed up at all.
Amazingly I found this diagram
on a webpage which is entirely devoted to the meaning of Greek prepositions in the Bible ([url:av5akvrs]http://www.biblestudysite.com/104.htm[/url]). This illustrates exactly what I’m saying (and so much more succinctly!) and I now believe that we are actually on to something here.
Instead of the usual “ek” (which we *do* see in the exorcism accounts in 1 Corinthians 1:25,26; 1 Corinthians 5:8; 1 Corinthians 7:26,29; 1 Corinthians 9:25) we get either “par” or “ap” – neither of which suggests that the demons came from within MM. Thus, the only two mentions in the Gospels of MM being possessed by seven demons seem highly questionable based on the original Greek. Now we just need some unbiased Greek scholars to properly scrutinise this.
Supernaturalist, you say:
Quote:I have read somewhere that Mary Magdalene is to be identified with Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, which is an interesting idea considering your article about Lazarus being the beloved disciple.However, if you examine the Gospel story closely, there does seem to be an inner circle based in Bethany. If Lazarus/John and Mary were brother and sister this would make perfect sense. Lazarus/John is Jesus’ closest male apostle who appears to have been initiated in some special way that the others weren’t (see the secret gospel of Mark) while his sister is Jesus’ closest female apostle (shall we say!). Martha appears to be left out of this circle, as does “Simon the Leper”/the Pharisee if he is also part of the family.
Regarding the notion that Jesus had an inner group of disciples that were distinct from the twelve apostles, I have had the following barmy idea (apologies if anyone else has already thought of this):
Jesus apparently appointed 12 apostles to symbolically represent the 12 tribes of Israel (never mind for now what the 12 tribes represent), and I think this is confirmed by Matthew 19:28 where Jesus says to the Twelve “you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Among these 12 there are three who appear to be especially favoured; Simon Peter and James and John the sons of Zebedee. But are these three really Jesus’ inner core?
Further to the discussion on the icon beasts in the Icon Trail thread I have been looking at the arrangement of the tribes around the tabernacle (the portable sanctuary that preceeded the first temple – never mind whether it’s legendary or not). This is described in Numbers 2 and 3. The 12 tribes of Israel are encamped in specific positions around the tabernacle. However, Levi’s tribe is separate from this arrangement, the tribe of Joseph being divided into the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh to keep the number at 12. The tribe of Levi is divided into various clans according to the sons of Levi who are encamped directly around the tabernacle, having special responsibility for it. Aaron’s sons (from whom the priesthood descends) are on the east, along with Moses.
In terms of symbolism, if the 12 apostles were appointed to represent the 12 tribes, then at least it would make symbolic sense if there was an inner group that was appointed to represent the Levites around the tabernacle. It would also make sense if this group was based in or around Jerusalem, and Bethany is only a very short distance from Jerusalem. If Lazarus really was related to the High Priestly family that would make even more sense. What this inner group might be privy to is up for discussion, as is whether there really was an inner group at all (but I hope I’ve shown that the idea might not have been entirely alien to Jesus’ mind).
If there was an inner group, did James the brother of Jesus belong to it? I find it interesting that the early church is based in Jerusalem rather than Galillee (Jesus’ headquarters seemed to have been Capernaum), and that the head of the Jerusalem church isn’t one of the 12 but James. The Jerusalem church only loses its special position after 70 CE when Jerusalem is destroyed by the Romans.
Just to update on this, the tutor I asked re the translation wasn’t able to help, though she did comment that where an unusual word is used it is often understood to indicate the presence of an oral source. However, as luck would have it, my wife has had to have dealings with my retired tutor (who does know NT Greek), and he is allegedly quite happy for me to ask him questions – so I have. Failing that I do have a name of someone at the University of Exeter. With any luck we might have something on this soon.
I’ve had a reply from Adrian Thatcher, former head of Theology and Philosophy at the College of St Mark and St John. I’ve not reproduced his comments exactly – they’ve been edited for convenience. Any comments I have to make on his comments will be in italics.
The section of Mark’s gospel is almost certainly not the original ending to the gospel. Most of the ancient manuscripts end at verse 8. Every verse from 16:9-20 is taken from one of the other canonical gospels, and the reference to Mary Magdalene is thus dependent on Luke 8:2.
As far as the exegesis goes, he comments that the Greek language just wasn’t used in such a precise and determined way. He considers it unwise to have any exegesis hinge on this, especially considering that the language of demon possession may be largely metaphorical anyway. Fair comment on language, and it is true that almost all religious language is figurative; what the demon-possession metaphor might be referring to is open to debate of course. What is really needed is an analysis of how exorcism stories are used in the gospels. Having said that, and I think you’ll agree Simon, I don’t think accounts of exorcism can be so easily explained away. I fear that Adrian, like so many theologians, has bought into the materialist paradigm.
Adrian does point out that several English translations render Luke 8:2 in the passive case – “Mary of Magdala, from whom seven demons had come out…”, thereby avoiding the suggestion that Jesus actually exorcized them. I find this a curious comment, and one that I am taking up with Adrian. If the Greek is trying to avoid the suggestion that Jesus had exorcised Mary, what exactly is it suggesting?
I’m not an educated theologian or scholar of ancient Greek but to me it only seems common sense to keep looking for various interpretations of the word… to me the error would be to stick to one interpretation when nothing is certain… (which the church has done)
For instance (and a bigger SCREAMER than this ‘casting out’ debate) When Herod hears of Jesus’s popularity he becomes worried that Jesus is John the Baptist reincarnated… which makes no sense at all as Jesus and John were alive at the same time and new each other… so it can only mean that in some ‘other’ way, Herod believed that Jesus ‘owned or had’ John’s spirit. So what kind of ‘spirit ownership’ was that?
That’s good info, Supernaturalist. Apart from the particularly relevant question that you raise, the other issue is that if we disregard the “seven demons” passage in Mark as being a later addition, then we are only left with a single, ambiguous reference to the event (whatever it was!). So you do wonder what really went on. Maybe, to pick up on Yuri’s thread, John the Baptist had a hand in the proceedings.
On the Jesus is John-back-from-the-dead thing, some time ago I came across something to do with Jewish ideas on reincarnation. Unfortunately I can’t remember any details, I believe that a Jewish scholar had written a book which was traditional Jewish tales that involve reincarnation.
Anyway, some Jews apparently thought that there were different types of reincarnation or transmigration. One is what we normally think of, a person dies and their soul or what-have-you returns as a new-born baby. But another is where the soul of a spiritually powerful person, such as a prophet, becomes joined to someone still living (though without ‘possessing’ them). This might be the kind of thing Herod had in mind.
It is interesting to note that other people apparently had the same idea as Herod. In Mark 8:27-28 Jesus asks his disciples who people think he is, and they answer that some people think he is John the Baptist, others think he is Elijah, and others one of the other prophets.
Coming back to the verses re Mary and the 7 demons, I agree that the issue isn’t settled, but it probably can’t be settled on the text alone. I think Adrian’s main point is probably valid, which is that the Greek is too ambiguous to build very much on. Modern translations do attempt to express something of the ambiguity in Luke 8:2: “Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out…” (from New Revised Standard Version). It doesn’t say that Jesus cast anything out of Mary, just that 7 demons had gone from Mary. So it could mean that Mary was possessed, or it could mean that the demons went in some other way (Mary was an exorcist or something else?) As the text stands we can’t take a definitite position, we need other material besides the one verse.
With both this and the Jesus is John-back-from-the-dead, I get the feeling that the writers felt that the readers would understand what was meant. Unfortunately they didn’t think about the poor sods who would try and make sense of their words nearly 2000 years later!
Just as an aside in defense of my brethren and sistren in the church, I know of at least one academic theologian who is more than happy to consider Mary Magdalene as possibly a super-apostle. Christian theology taken as a whole is not as dogmatic as it is often made out to be. Individuals can certainly be very clear that they think their interpretation is the only correct one (a fault found in monotheists, pagans, materialists and just about everybody really), but in the history of Christian thought everything is constantly being questioned. Admittedly, this came as a huge surprise to me when I started studying the subject academically, having spent most of my adult Christian life in an ‘evangelical’ culture that doesn’t worry itself about divergent opinions except to shoot them down (which is probably why many evangelicals seem to be suspicious of academic theology – it causes too many wobbles among the faithful).
Love, peace and respect to all!
Michael
Sorry to resurrect this, but I was looking through Mircea Eliade’s book “Myths, Dreams and Mysteries” and came upon something interesting. In shamanic cultures demons are often the masters of initiation. They inflict various torments and sufferings upon the initiate (madness, illness, dismemberment), killing them, which is necessary for the initiate to be reborn. Thus the demons, although nasty pieces of work, nevertheless have a positive role in the economy of the spirit.
There are Christian parallels to this. The gospels mention Jesus spending 40 days (probably a symbolic period of time) in the desert being ‘tempted’ by the devil immediately after his baptism. There are also legends about St Anthony being tormented by demons (a classic dismemberment I believe), which enables him to attain to sainthood.
Which brings me back to Mary Magdalene. I think I have previously mused about 7 demons being a symbolic number. Drawing attention to 7 demons going out of or from Mary could indicate that she has undergone an especially intense initiatory crisis and rebirth, or perhaps a series of initiations, or even a perfect initiation (7 is frequently used in biblical texts to indicate perfection or completion). This may be linked to her being the first witness to the resurrection, however that is understood.
In this vein I wonder if Jesus’ role as exorcist might translate to Jesus as initiator, inasmuch as the exorcisms represent liberation from darkness and the coming of the Kingdom of God, which Jesus said is within (Luke 17:21, also translated ‘among you’). Traditionally baptism is preceeded by exorcism.
Michael
Thats really interesting Michael,
Just recently a friend was explaining various Gnostic beliefs to me. About the ladder between hell and heaven, how angels try and encourage you up and devils pull you down… and that if the devils devour you then in a way you are crushed and refined and phoenix-like can rise anew out of the ashes to fly up the ladder…
…It turns everything up-side-down… In a way, the devils serve your evolution more so than the angels, and the angels are holding you back from getting refined and crushed.
Its an interesting conundrum. The Waterboys sang something about the afterlife either being ‘Summoned by Angels or punished by Demons for the same time endlessly’… Me personally, I dont care for either, Angels or demons and would rather stay balanced…. My friend described the Demons crushing and destroying the ego so that the self can become enlightened, yet the desire itself to become enlightened has an element of ego to it… So, if you desire to go up the ladder, by default you’re going to get pulled down….. lol
If your idea is true about the Magdalene (and I think its a great idea) then surely this means she is a very powerful person, having been refined and thus ‘enlightened’, making her more profound than J C’s disciples who are still very human and full of uncertainties.
And the thought of Mary Magdalene being some special initiate again raises the question of what her relationship was to the other “special initiate” – Lazarus. On the face of it they are brother and sister. But from the Secret Gospel of Mark we know that Lazarus was given a special initiation by Jesus. Possibly there were two special initiations in the same family but the odds are against it (particularly as Martha is clearly *not* initiated) so you begin to wonder if Mary Magdalene/Lazarus might not be the same character whose identity has been deliberately distorted. The idea that MM was The Beloved Disciple is not particularly new (e.g. see [url:1pweqz5f]http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/magdalene.html[/url] for a more coherent version than what you’ll find in the Da Vinci Code) but if you are appropriating the unamed male youth, why not go all the way and suggest that MM and Lazarus are the same person too?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.