tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post7041686548698892947..comments2024-03-04T10:47:31.894-08:00Comments on The Textual Mechanic: A Text Without Martha: Implications of an Earlier Textual Layer of John’s GospelTimothy N. Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-19638395039917328682023-11-15T21:43:38.113-08:002023-11-15T21:43:38.113-08:00Hi Timothy, as you probably know, my take on the B...Hi Timothy, as you probably know, my take on the Bethany account is now published in TC. See here: http://jbtc.org/v28/TC-2023_Fellows.pdf Thanks to Elizabeth and all those who contributed to the productive discussions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-18939594352356599522023-08-07T13:45:11.040-07:002023-08-07T13:45:11.040-07:00I am saying that the text of the original hand of ...I am saying that the text of the original hand of P66 is changed from the original.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-72220097151317205022023-08-03T04:59:48.768-07:002023-08-03T04:59:48.768-07:00Richard, usually a superscripted asterisk refers t...Richard, usually a superscripted asterisk refers to the original hand. When you say that "P66* changed it," to what are you referring?Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-48398459127492655172023-08-03T04:50:37.365-07:002023-08-03T04:50:37.365-07:00I read this post when it first came out and just r...I read this post when it first came out and just realized that I was missing an excellent scholarly give-and-take in the comments. It is amazing that the obscure idea that Magdalene was a pun on Mary's occupation as a hairdresser made it into The Chosen TV series, where this is in fact what she does for a living. They may have used Google Translate for the placards that their literate Mary wrote up, but at least they bothered access to some deep scholarship on her occupation. Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-12604247957991851722022-10-12T11:41:16.177-07:002022-10-12T11:41:16.177-07:00Great discovery Schrader! Following this conversat...Great discovery Schrader! Following this conversationMartha Ambarangunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-1655952053197074422020-07-23T10:21:40.268-07:002020-07-23T10:21:40.268-07:00Thanks for your detailed insight. I hadn't loo...Thanks for your detailed insight. I hadn't looked at these variants in this way before. Perhaps you could be right. Unfortunately, we do not have access to the scribe's motives for these apparent changesTimothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-46113644664168183822020-07-22T21:17:57.087-07:002020-07-22T21:17:57.087-07:00Hello again, Timothy. In this blog post you wrote:...Hello again, Timothy. In this blog post you wrote:<br /><br />"The changing of the pronoun from masculine to feminine in John 11:1 (αυτου > αυτης) after the dittography of μαριας could again be explained by the scribal peculiarities of P66. The scribe alters the gender of a pronoun at 4:11a"<br /><br />John 4:11a reads λεγαι αυτω η γυνη (The woman said to him) but P66* changed it to λεγαι αυτη η γυνη, (This woman said). Here I propose that αυτη should be taken as the feminine nominative of οὗτως (otherwise it makes no sense). John 4:11-12 in P66* would then be translated "This woman said to him, "Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well, and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?"". So, this variant in P66* does not produce a nonsense reading. Might it not be a sexist change, since οὗτως can have "a connotation of contempt" (BDAG).<br /><br />So, this change to the pronoun at John 4:11, the change in gender of the pronoun at 11:1, and the omission of the pronoun at 11:5 might all have the effect of reducing the standing of women.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-642915605202764602020-07-13T19:12:50.494-07:002020-07-13T19:12:50.494-07:00So they are saying that it could mean "Mary o...So they are saying that it could mean "Mary of Magdala" (which no-one disputes). They then leap to the conclusion that it cannot mean anything else.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-51975755187392716822020-07-13T05:53:12.352-07:002020-07-13T05:53:12.352-07:00For what it’s worth, in Journal of Roman Archaeolo...For what it’s worth, in Journal of Roman Archaeology 32/1 (2019), 390-414, here page 407, in “A Monastery in Magdala (Taricheae)?” by Stefano De Luca and Uzi Leiber:<br /><br />Important to our topic is the epithet Mary Magdalene (Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή) for Jesus’ female disciple, which appears in all four canonical Gospels (Matt. 27:56 and 61; 28:1; Mark 15:40, 15.47; 16:1, 16.9; Luke 8:2, 24:10; John 19:25, 20:1, 20.18). Already in late antiquity this epithet was understood to be indicative of her geographic origin and to be derived from the toponym Magdala (see below). Indeed, Aramaic-, Arabic- and Syriac-speakers com-monly formed ethnic attributes in Greek by adding the suffix -ηνός, feminine -ηνή, to the place of origin. In Syriac, too, the simple meaning of the epithet Māryām Maġdəlāyt�ā, being the feminine of Maġdəlāa ̊/Maġdəlāyā ̊, is an ethnonym and means Mary of Magdala (and not “Mariam the Tower-ess,” as suggested by Taylor50). [note 50: . E. Taylor, “Missing Magdala and the name of Mary ‘Magdalene’,” PEQ 146.3 (2014) 208.]<br />Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-32785269340653325272020-02-09T09:22:41.173-08:002020-02-09T09:22:41.173-08:00Remind me, Elizabeth, do you have an explanation f...Remind me, Elizabeth, do you have an explanation for why someone wanting to diminish Mary would a) name Mary ahead of Martha in 11:1 and define Martha as Mary's sister (rather than as Lazarus's sister), b) list Mary (albeit without naming her) ahead of Lazarus in 11:5? It seems to me that the text in the majority of manuscripts gives Mary more prominence that your conjectured Martha-free text, which defines Mary as Lazarus's sister in 11:1, and places her after Lazarus in 11:5.<br /><br />Stephen, matrilineal descent did not appear until the second century. See Shaye Cohen "Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1-3)? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic Law, and Matrilineal Descent" JBL 1986.<br /><br />Greg, do you have any further information on "Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (megaddela): Mary ‘the Honoured one’, ‘the Exalted one’."? What are your sources for this? It's intriguing.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-16705328558708216482020-02-09T03:08:44.990-08:002020-02-09T03:08:44.990-08:00To be clear about my current views (which may chan...To be clear about my current views (which may change):<br />a) The meaning of the second name of Mary Magdalene is an open question, a good question, and one not yet settled. I might like to see a bit more discussion of, say, a town possibly having more than one name, as well as of towns that existed but with names not recorded in available texts until long after their foundings (such as some of the 24 priestly course relocations). And of Nazareth. Or Qumran’s perhaps earlier name. Or of a name possibly having two connotations. If the meaning is recoverable, or the meanings, whatever that may turn out to be is fine with me.<br />b) Mary Magdalene was quite important. How much so, compared to other individuals, is more difficult. And zero-sum games may mislead. If one supposes Mary Magdalene was diminished (by some) was then Martha raised? Or Peter? Or if Mary Magdalene was raised was Mother Mary diminished? (A side question, at the time of Jesus, what was the stage of transition from patriarchal to matriarchal lineage, the latter attested in Mishna, for Jewish identity? For example, I recently read a claim that some worried that Titus’ wife Berenice’s children would be Jewish, but is that known?) <br />c) I do not think it has been demonstrated that text of the Gospel of John was changed in order to diminish Mary Magdalene.<br />d) Origen does not provide help for assuming item c).<br />Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-84977297283385696032020-01-27T16:21:39.928-08:002020-01-27T16:21:39.928-08:00According to the most widespread explanation, Mary...According to the most widespread explanation, Mary comes from the region of Magdala, on the banks of the Sea of Galilee. But this explanation is most likely incorrect for several reasons. The two main counter-arguments are: firstly, that it was not common usage, at that time and in that place, to name a woman after her place of origin. Secondly, moreover, the way that Luke uses hê kalouménê (ἡ καλουμένη) between ‘Mary’ and Magdalênê (Μαγδαληνή) seems to exclude any reference to a place name. Luke writes (in Luke 8 :2): Maria hê kalouménê Magdalênê (Μαρία ἡ καλουμένη Μαγδαληνή), Mary whose nickname was the Magdalênê. Yet, in the Bible, when the word kalouménos (καλούμενος) – in the feminine in Luke – separates two other terms, and when the first of the terms is a proper noun, the second is never a place name. It is always therefore a nickname that is understood to underline a physical or moral characteristic of the person.<br />Going back to the Aramaic, the terms that are translated as ‘Mary of Magdala’ can have many meanings. Notably they can mean Mary ‘the Great one’, even ‘the Tower’(magdela). Or even, in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (megaddela): Mary ‘the Honoured one’, ‘the Exalted one’. Initially, then, it was a eulogistic epithet attributed to Mary, meant to single her out (on average one in four Jewish women was called Mary in Palestine in this period) and to underline her importance. She had been chosen among women: Luke 1:42. In designating her thus, the evangelists would have had no reason to have been more precise: their first audience knew immediately who she was. Once translated into Greek, however, the sense of the semitic root word was lost and it ended up being falsely interpreted as a toponym...<br /><br />http://thierry-murcia-recherches-historico-bibliques.over-blog.com/2017/12/mary-of-magdala-the-mother-of-jesus.htmlGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12686131053667212069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-7880834320311838642019-11-08T02:20:17.284-08:002019-11-08T02:20:17.284-08:00A few notes, though Elizabeth Schrader has done mu...A few notes, though Elizabeth Schrader has done much more research on these verses than I have.<br />On page 15 from which Hugh Houghton was quoted (above), he also recognized the "similarity of the names... is likely to have led to copying errors." I'm not sure how to compare his statement about what can not be "reconstructed" with the "tentative reconstruction" E. S. offered in the HTR 2017 article (p. 381). Perhaps different views about "reconstrucion" are involved. I'm not sure.<br />Though we have mss that Origen did not see, I venture to bet that Origen had access to various early mss that we, in fact, do *not* have, and that he was an expert in text criticism, and an avid ms collector, and very smart (even if his type of allegory may go beyond literal text issues here), and that his writings, as far as I know, do not support the thesis of an interpolation intended to demote Mary Magdalene. If Origen had called Magdalene something such as spiritually great, or the like, then that would seem to go in the opposite direction of demoting. And perhaps not cohere with the proposed history.<br />As to demoting or elevating M.M., I thought Tertullian's misogyny might be relevant. Is it suggested that he "got" the claimed subtly-urged parallels? Or that he had Greek ms evidence leading to enlisting him in this view>?<br />And if there was a movement to demote MM, would the proposed locus be the choice and sole method?<br />I do not know much about Mani, but I thought Manichaeans, or some of them, thought he was the Paraclete. Hence I was intrigued but puzzled, Elizabeth Schrader, by your 2019 SBL abstract about a Manichaean text that posited MM as Beloved Disciple and also Paraclete. But I haven't read or heard that paper, so await clarification on that: "Manichaeans" agree?--all, some, or one?<br />In sorting out the individual NT women including the Marys, I am surprised by the call for support from Gregory the Great.<br />Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-74350490449092522692019-11-07T11:27:55.826-08:002019-11-07T11:27:55.826-08:00*"To retroject that inaccurate interpretation...*"To retroject that inaccurate interpretation of Origen as if historical to the time of Jesus [and Qumran mss] would be misleading" - of course I don't assume that Origen's interpretation of the word "Magdalene" was historical to the time of Jesus. I don't assume that any of the early interpretations of the word are historical to the time of Jesus. My point is, we do not and cannot know what the word means (other than that it probably had something to do with a tower) and Bauckham has overstated his case.<br /><br />*Dr. Goranson is correct that Origen believes Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany to be two different women. However, Origen was not the only interpreter in antiquity! To his question "Who might perceive proposed subtly-urged hints and parallels (as in HTR [2017] 360-92) on a Mary identification in John?" well... lots of people! Such as the Manichaeans, Hippolytus, Gregory the Great (and there are others). Shall we just say that people in antiquity were not as smart as we are? Or can we concede that if such a widespread phenomenon is taking place, there may be a reason for it? Just as with the meaning of the word "Magdalene," there was no consensus on this question in antiquity, and to suggest otherwise is to overlook the breadth of the evidence. That said, text critics do have simultaneous access to more manuscripts today than at any other point in history, and this new vantage point can provide us with valuable new insights. My hope is to have contributed a competitively persuasive hypothesis (which may be confirmed and/or overturned) to explain the many interesting phenomena going on around Martha in John 11.<br /><br />*Dr. Goranson is also correct that Origen has carefully read the text of John, and his interpretation of the women's identities makes the most sense if Martha is present in the Lazarus story. However, it's plain from Origen’s Commentary on John that his version of the text does indeed have Martha; moreover the Commentary itself does have at least one relevant textual variant (whether Mary or Martha serves at John 12:2). Origen’s Commentary on John is in fact the terminus ante quem for the presence of Martha in the text. Tertullian, on the other hand, seems not to know Martha in the Gospel of John (whether or not he was a misogynist seems beside the point!).<br />Elizabeth Schraderhttps://scholars.duke.edu/person/elizabeth.schradernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-76938249774229687242019-11-07T11:20:14.335-08:002019-11-07T11:20:14.335-08:00What a great find above from Richard Fellows! That...What a great find above from Richard Fellows! That quotation from Homilies on Numbers is quite relevant here.<br /><br />To answer Dr. Goranson's points:<br /><br />*"But that may not be a comparable opportunity for confusion, and we do not have a p66-scribe copy of Luke." As you know from my article, approximately one in five of the Greek manuscripts has some sort of problem around Martha - it is not just a mixup of the words μαρια and μαρθα. We get dative feminine singulars in John 11:4, a dozen different versions of the name list in John 11:5 (including some where Lazarus is first and neither sister is named), patristic quotations where the same woman is assumed at John 11:32 and 11:39 (even without mentioning the women's names), etc. etc. As I replied above to our blog host, let's not just focus on a single piece of the evidence here (e.g. looking only at P66); mine is an argument made from the global text transmission of John.<br /><br />*Thanks for the additional bit of info that Edward Hayes Plumptre wrote the entry in Dr. Smith's dictionary.<br /><br />*Thanks also for giving a bit more info on the catena fragments, and Heine's comment that catena fragments are brief and "show the common tendency of catenists to abbreviate the text that they excerpt." You may be right that this knowledge has influenced Heine's translation decision in the Greek fragments of section 141. However in section 144 we also see Heine translating the Latin word Magdalenae as "the one from Magdala" (which misleadingly suggests that the Latin text was rather "quae ex Magdala"). The more straightforward choice would be for Heine to simply translate the Latin as "the two Marys, the Magdalene and the mother of Jacob and Joseph." Thus Heine's tendency to insert his own geographical interpretation into this word must be taken into account when we are looking at his translations. Would it not have been better for Heine to simply translate the Greek catena fragment as is, instead of implying from his English translation that the word τόπος is present in the text?<br /><br />*"There are many NT mss; to my knowledge, not a single one evidences the version of John that ES proposes and supposes was utterly suppressed"; that is certainly true, although several important manuscripts do have multiple problems around Martha (P66, A, 579, ff2, c). I am not arguing that I have *proven* that Martha is an interpolation; rather, I am arguing that it is a reasonable position to take considering all of the evidence in front of us. The interpolation would need to have taken place at a very early stage in the text transmission. See the comment of Hugh Houghton in the 2018 Oxford Handbook of Johannine Studies (pg. 15): "The presence of Martha at some point in every witness indicates that any such reworking precedes the earliest consistent text which can be reconstructed. Still, it remains possible that early redactional activity could leave traces of this sort." In other words, I realize that you do not agree with this position; but that does not mean that the position is untenable ;)<br />Elizabeth Schraderhttps://scholars.duke.edu/person/elizabeth.schradernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-39758617606576013462019-11-01T04:10:36.713-07:002019-11-01T04:10:36.713-07:00Of course second names or nicknames are possible d...Of course second names or nicknames are possible during the time of Jesus, and before and after, and sometimes retrojected explanations or folk etymologies (e.g., perhaps, Samaritans as true *keepers* of Torah).<br />A mediaeval Latin work about Mary Magdalene was ascribed to Origen, mistakenly. I mention that because scholars revealed the misattribution in part by comparing it to relatively more reliable text by Origen, in particular Origen’s views on the various NT Marys. Apparently, analysis of which Marys Origen identified or did not do not match the proposal by Elizabeth Schrader. E.g., John P. McCall, “Chaucer and the Pseudo Origen De Maria Magdalena: A Preliminary Study,” Speculum 43 (1971) 491-509.<br />Who might perceive proposed subtly-urged hints and parallels (as in HTR [2017] 360-92) on a Mary identification in John? Evidently not Origen, one of the most intelligent and interested of Greek readers as well as an expert on and collector of ms variations. Would the Latin Tertullian, a misogynist, “get” this? The scenario seems untenable.<br />Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-15194814944768719642019-10-30T21:47:57.752-07:002019-10-30T21:47:57.752-07:00Firstly, last comment is misleading. I meant to sa...Firstly, last comment is misleading. I meant to say that "So <i>according to Origen</i> ....".<br /><br />Secondly, I looked up Lange (mentioned by Stephen Goranson above). Lange argued that Origen was dependent on the Rabbis for his interpretations of many Hebrew names, and one of his examples is <b>Migdol</b> (p120):<br /><br />"<b>Migdol</b> (Exodus xiv.2, Numbers xxxiii.7, etc.)<br />Origen: 'tower' or 'magnificence'.<br />Rabbis: 'There was the magnificence (<i>gedullah</i>) of Egypt'.<br /><br />'Tower is the 'obvious' interpretation of this name. The rabbinic interpretation is found in the <i>Mekilta</i>, which, even if it is not a tannaitic compilation, indubitably contains a great deal of tannaitic material."<br /><br />Numbers 33:7 (NRSV) reads, "They set out fro Ethan, and turned back to Pi-hahiroth, which faces Baalzephon; and they camped before <b>Migdol</b>."<br /><br />Origen's interpretation of Migdol in Numbers 33:7 is found in his Homilies on Numbers XXVII.9 (GCS VII.269.22).<br /><br />Here is what he says in the English translation of Thomas Scheck (Ancient Christian Texts: Homilies on Numbers Origen p176-7).<br />"Now Iroth is situated opposite "Beelsephon and opposite <b>Magdalum</b>." Beelsephon translates as "the ascent of the watchtower or citadel" So then, the soul ascends from small things to great things, and it is not yet placed in the watchtower itself, but "opposite" the watchtower, that is, in sight of the watchtower. For it begins to watch and to look for the future hope and to contemplate the height of the progressions and little by little one grows, while it is more nourished by hope than fatigued by toils. This camp or stage is "opposite <b>Magdalum</b>," but not yet in <b>Magdalum</b> itself. For <b>Magdalum</b> means "<b>magnificence</b>." So then, since it has in view both the ascent of the watchtower and the magnificence of the things to come, [the soul,] as we have said, is fed and nourished by great hopes.""<br /><br />I checked the Latin and it has "Magdalum enim <i>magnificentia</i> dicitur."<br /><br />So, it seems to me that Origen's interpretation of Magdalene was in keeping with is interpretation of the Migdol of Num 33:7, which he may have got from the Rabbis. We have no reason to suppose that Origen had special historical knowledge of Mary's epithet. Origen does, however, illustrate that the ancients readily gave symbolic meanings to names. Did Jesus and the disciples, like Origen and Jerome, attribute a symbolic meaning to "Magdalene"? A weakness of Bauckham's work is that he seems to assume that Jesus and his disciples were (in contrast to Origen, Philo, Jerome, and the Rabbis) linguistic purists with no imagination or interest in finding meanings in names.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-8632576343461370362019-10-28T02:48:28.621-07:002019-10-28T02:48:28.621-07:00I wrote, drawing on Tal Ilan’s name lexicon (cited...I wrote, drawing on Tal Ilan’s name lexicon (cited above), that Mary and Martha are the two relevant common names most easily confused. To deny that claim, one must needs present another relevant pair of names that are more easily confused. Rather, Elizabeth Schrader, in what may be a non-sequitur, countered that a shorter passage in Luke does not display the confusion shown in John. But that may not be a comparable opportunity for confusion, and we do not have a p66-scribe copy of Luke. Confusion of names popped up even in these comments (Roland—I may have had former Duke Prof. Roland Murphy in mind at the time—rather than Ronald; and Robert instead of Richard.) There are many NT mss; to my knowledge, not a single one evidences the version of John that ES proposes and supposes was utterly suppressed. As our host wrote: “I think that, at least in the case of P66, a better explanation for the unusual readings are the blunders and slips peculiar to the scribe of P66.”<br />William Smith’s Dictionary--cited above, though the article is actually by Edward Hayes Plumtre--gives four possible explanations for the name Mary Magdalene, including the hair-plaiter one, but does not decisively plump for any. Even if it had, that would not end discussion.<br />Ms. Schrader cites what she calls Origen’s Greek text--actually a cantena version of same--and dismisses the Latin translation as having additions that she selects and rejects. Both assertions, presented as if certain, are questionable, as further reading in Heine might suggest. Heine, translator and commenter on many Origen texts, has warned, in more than one publication, that catena texts claiming to be Origen’s text are often unreliable and *shortened*, so the Latin may actually be a closer approximation. J. of Theological Studies 2000, v. 51 no. 2, pages 479-80: “Most of the [Greek catena] fragments [of Origen] are brief, however, and show the common tendency of catenists to abbreviate the text that they excerpt.13”[Footnote 13: “See R. E. Heine, “Can the Catena Fragments of Origen’s Commentary on John Be Trusted?” VC 40 (1986), pp. 118-34. {My synopsis: no.}]<br />There is considerable literature on Origen on Hebrew and names (e.g., N. de Lange, Origen and the Jews; RPC Hanson, Vig Ch 1956 103-23; F. Wutz, Onomastica Sacra 1914-15, especially Second Section pp. 739-748 listing names and interpretations in Origen—available at HathiTrust.) Some interpretations (like some in Philo) are bogus.<br />One name that comes to my mind is Ebionites (cf. my article in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1992, II:260-1). Though Origen got the Hebrew sense partly right, meaning poor, he added to that what, I say, was not the original sense by supposing Ebionites to be “poor in understanding.” To retroject that inaccurate interpretation of Origen as if historical to the time of Jesus [and Qumran mss] would be misleading. And to retroject it as if certain would be misleading and overstatement.<br />Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-21035110099319895252019-10-27T20:27:24.025-07:002019-10-27T20:27:24.025-07:00So the epithet Magdalene indicates that this Mary ...So the epithet Magdalene indicates that this Mary was worthy of high praise. This sounds very much like a "benefactor name" similar to those that I identified in my 2016 Tyndale Bulletin paper (e.g. Epaenetus, Stephanas).Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-58872970476174369452019-10-27T14:31:25.562-07:002019-10-27T14:31:25.562-07:00Thank you Elizabeth for your detailed, thoughtful,...Thank you Elizabeth for your detailed, thoughtful, and well-researched responses. It makes for a lovely interchange between scholars.Timothy N. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10696299768205488795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-86349690044366777582019-10-26T17:08:23.528-07:002019-10-26T17:08:23.528-07:00ALSO: I am looking further along in the Heine tran...ALSO: I am looking further along in the Heine translation of Origen, and in section 144 this is how he translates Origen's text: "the two Marys, the one from Magdala and the mother of James and Joseph..." (pg. 763). But this again suggests that Heine is reading his own "place-name" view into the translation; although only the Latin is extant here, it does not say "quae ex Magdala." It says "Magdalenae" ("duarum Mariarum, Magdalenae et matris Iacobi et Ioseph"). In other words, I don't think we can cite Origen as believing that Mary's title referred to a place name. The most straightforward reading of the Greek in section 141 is that he understands Μαγδαληνὴ to mean "greatly praised."<br /><br />Here is the information on this Origen critical edition: Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten Drei Jahrhunderte. Origenes: Elfter Band (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1933), pp. 293-294, 297.Elizabeth Schraderhttps://scholars.duke.edu/person/elizabeth.schrader#18592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-85531225810117667542019-10-26T15:49:14.400-07:002019-10-26T15:49:14.400-07:00As Dr. Goranson notes above, I was previously awar...As Dr. Goranson notes above, I was previously aware of Origen referring to the word "Magdalene" as a title, and he is right that Bauckham and Taylor seem to be unaware of this important fact. Dr. Goranson generously helped track down the work this was from, and I have since looked at the critical edition. <br /><br />Although Dr. Goranson is correct that Heine has translated Origen’s Greek text as "Mary from *the place* greatly praised (for Magdala is interpreted to mean '*a place* greatly praised')", Origen does not quite say this! Origen's Greek text is: ἡ ἀπο τοῦ μεγαλοσμοῦ Μαρία (Μάγδαλα γὰρ ΜΕΓΑΛΥΣΜΟΣ ἑρμηνεύται). Although a sixth-century Latin translator later expanded Origen's statement to refer specifically to a place name (the addition of nominis patriae suae to the first phrase, and the addition of the words locus ille after interpretatur autem magnificatio), it must be noted that the word τόπος is nowhere present in Origen's Greek. Heine has apparently assumed it from the phrase ἀπο τοῦ μεγαλοσμοῦ, but one wonders if he is reading a modern scholarly position (that Magdalene refers to a location) into his translation. By contrast, William Smith's reading of the Origen quote seems quite valid: "Origen, lastly, looking to the more common meaning of גָּדִל (gâdal, 'to be great'), sees in her name a prophecy of spiritual greatness as having ministered to the Lord, and been the first witness of his resurrection."[1] To my eye that seems a more straightforward reading of Origen's Greek, though Heine may have other reasons for inferring a place name here (e.g. if I'm overlooking some Greek rule about locative use of ἀπο, please do fill me in).<br /><br />I don’t mean to be disrespectful to Heine and Bauckham; they are far more magisterial scholars than I will likely ever be. Yet I do believe their position on the meaning of Μαγδαληνὴ falls short of the caliber of their generally excellent scholarship. Certainly it appears that Bauckham's hard line position is at odds with the evidence that he himself presents re: the testimony of Jerome and Rav Hisda, and also the testimony of Origen and Eusebius (which he does not mention!). If Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and the rabbis are completely at odds on a subject, it seems rather presumptuous to say that *we* know the answer for certain - especially when our answer accords with none of their positions!! To me it seems so much more charitable, and in line with the evidence, to simply say that we are not certain what the word “Magdalene” meant.<br /><br />By the way, Dr. Goranson is right to point out that "Magdala is the Aramaic version and Migdal the Hebrew" (information I have gotten clearer on since writing my master's thesis!), and of course to note that I should have included the breathing mark with Ἑλένη. I disagree on this point though: "No other pair of common names are as easily (one letter different) mis-copied." If this is the case, then why are these names copied always faithfully in the Greek and Latin transmission of Luke 10:38-42? The graphic similarity is not enough to explain the discrepancy between the two Gospels.<br /><br />Hope this makes my position clear! And thanks so much Timothy for the opportunity to discuss these subjects on your blog.<br /><br />PS: my apologies to Richard Fellows for calling him "Robert" in an earlier post :) <br /><br />[1] See William Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1863), 256a.<br />Elizabeth Schraderhttps://scholars.duke.edu/person/elizabeth.schradernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-11495621323457571712019-10-26T15:39:11.482-07:002019-10-26T15:39:11.482-07:00Hello and my apologies for the delayed reply here!...Hello and my apologies for the delayed reply here! To answer Dr. Goranson's last couple of posts:<br /><br />I've finally gotten the chance to look at Bauckham's book, and I see several issues with the evidence there. First of all, when Bauckham says there is "no philological basis" for the idea that the name Magdalene is a title (pg. 359), he is making a very bold argument against one of the most gifted philologists in antiquity: St. Jerome, whose position Bauckham acknowledges, but apparently finds irrelevant (see pp. 359-360). Moreover Bauckham does not acknowledge Eusebius of Caesarea's To Marinus 2 - which I believe is the earliest clear attestation of Mary's epithet "Magdalene" as referring to a geographical location. Yet Eusebius apparently thought that "Migdal" refereed to Migdal Gad - in Judaea! (See Onomasticon 130.9). So much for Bauckham's assertion that his Magdala "must have been much the most important and best known of the various places called Migdal or Magdala in first-century Palestine" (pg. 360); or perhaps he thinks Eusebius' fourth-century testimony is too late to be relevant - despite it being the earliest attestation of “Magdalene” clearly referring to a location?<br /><br />I admit I'm also a bit confused when Bauckham cites Rav Hisda, who explicitly says that the word "Megaddela" is an epithet for Mary being a hairdresser; Bauckham is oddly certain when he says that this is "undoubtedly a pun on the name of Mary Magdalene's home town." (pg. 349) But hasn't Rav Hisda just clearly stated that the word is a reference to hairdressing?!<br /><br />Bauckham also says a few times that there is no reference to "Migdal (Nunayya)" prior to rabbinic literature (since apparently it was referred to as Taricheae by the Romans); he even admits that "we do not know that it existed in the time of Jesus" (pg. 360)! So, if we don't know for certain that the town was referred to as "Migdal" in the time of Jesus, how can we be certain that the word "Magdalene" refers to the hometown of a follower of Jesus? <br /><br />Re: Bauckham’s statement that -ηνη was "a common way of creating from the name of a city or village a term referring to inhabitants of that place" (pg. 358), his evidence is quite slim; he only provides one example of the feminine form (Βισαρηνή). He is probably right that "Magdelā’îtā" could only mean "Woman from Magdala" (pg. 359). But that is not Mary's epithet ;)<br />Elizabeth Schraderhttps://scholars.duke.edu/person/elizabeth.schradernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-77179426517066128842019-10-21T01:03:31.300-07:002019-10-21T01:03:31.300-07:00PS. I made a mistake above. The Commentary transla...PS. I made a mistake above. The Commentary translator is Ronald E. Heine, not Roland.Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8925011239177942231.post-23669785602943133602019-10-20T23:54:52.878-07:002019-10-20T23:54:52.878-07:00That's an interesting find, Stephen. Thank you...That's an interesting find, Stephen. Thank you for sharing it. By what etymological theory did Origen suppose that Magdala meant "a place greatly praised"? How can he have that that her ministry caused her to have come from Magdala? Or is he saying here that she was <i>called</i> Madalene (meaning of a place greatly praised) because she had ministered to Jesus.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.com