Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Mary Magdalene 101

In scripture, she is called Maria the Magdalene or Mariam the Magdalene, but translations do not include the article "the" for reasons unknown.

Mary was the most popular woman’s name in the time of Jesus. There are seven women named Mary in the New Testament, and these have been confused and sometimes intentionally merged without justification.

1. Mary Magdalene*
2. Mary the mother of Jesus
3. Mary of Bethany who poured nard on Jesus’ feet in John 12
4. Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses in Mark 15
5. Mary the wife of Clopas in John 19
6. Mary the mother of John Mark in Acts 12
7. Mary of Rome in Romans 16

*Mary Magdalene’s name occurs 11 times in scripture: Matt. 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mk. 15:40, 47; 16:1; Lk. 8:2; 24:10; Jn. 19:25; 20:1, 18.

Magdalene is not Mary’s last name. Calling her Magdalene distinguished her from other Marys. There are two theories about her name.

1. The first theory is that Magdalene means she is from the village of Magdala. The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible translates Matthew 15:39, “And he sent away the multitude, and took ship, and came into the coasts of Magdala.” Today the ruins of a Hebrew village on the western shore are identified as Mary’s hometown or birthplace, Magdala. The Talmud refers to a Magdala Nunayya near Tiberias, and the ruins identified as Magdala today are three miles north of Tiberias. 

So, Mary is from Magdala, case closed? Hardly.

The town in Matthew 15:39 is not Magdala but Magadan in the most ancient copies of Matthew. The best theory is that early Byzantine pilgrims (4th and 5th centuries) passed Magadan and guessed the name to be a corruption of Magdala. So copyists began “correcting” Matthew 15:39 to read Magdala instead of Magadan. The Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (5th century) appears to have been the first to make this change. All major translations of the Bible into English in the 16th and 17th centuries read Magdala instead of Magadan, including the KJV. All modern, scholarly translations into English read Magadan.

Are the identified ruins in Galilee Magadan, Magdala, or neither? If Mary was from a village called Magdala, where is it?

2. Theory two is that Jesus could have nicknamed her Mary the Magdalene, just as he called Simon the Rock (Peter) and the Zebedee brothers the Sons of Thunder (Mark 3: 16-17). The name Magdala is a play on the Aramaic magdal, meaning "tower." (Maybe she was tall!)

Mary Magdalene is often confused with—and sometimes merged with—other women of scripture, most frequently with the following three. She is not . . .

1. the unnamed woman from Jerusalem caught in adultery (Jn. 8).
2. Mary of Bethany who poured nard on Jesus’s feet (Jn. 12).
3. the unnamed woman who washed Jesus’s feet with her tears (Lk. 7).

In one of the strangest and most unfortunate sermons in church history, Pope Gregory the Great (6th Century) blended all three of these with Mary Magdalene, making four clearly different women into one. He called her a prostitute, as well.

There are characterizations of Mary Magdalene that are not supported by scripture:

• She was a prostitute
• She was an adulteress
• She was married to Jesus
• She was the mother of Jesus’s children
• She was the lead apostle

No woman is identified as a prostitute in the New Testament. Jesus makes three generic mentions of prostitutes (Matt. 21: 31, 32; Lk. 15:30).

Mel Gibson, in his film The Passion of the Christ, blends Mary Magdalene with the unnamed woman caught in adultery in John 8—clearly a different woman since that woman was from Jerusalem.

Jesus having a wife and children is, of course, not in the Bible. Roman anti-Christian propaganda, Gnostic fragments, medieval fantasies, conspiracy theories, and modern fiction (like Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code) have generated media attention and money. There is no known 1st century source that states Jesus was married with children.

So, all traditions, speculations, and errors aside, what exactly do the scriptures reveal about Mary?

1. She was called Magdalene (Matt. 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mk. 15:40, 47; 16:1; Lk. 8:2; 24:10; Jn. 19:25; 20:1, 18).

2. She had seven demons exorcised from her (Lk. 8:1-3).

3. She traveled freely following Jesus from town to town (Matt. 27:55-56; Mk. 15:40-41; Lk. 8:1-3).

4. She had money with which to help fund Jesus’s ministry (Matt. 27:55-56; Lk. 8:1-3).

5. She witnessed Jesus’s crucifixion and death (Matt. 27:55-56; Mk. 15:40; Jn. 19:25).

6. She followed and saw the tomb in which Jesus’s body was laid (Matt. 27:59-61; Mk 15:47).

7. She went on Sunday morning to the tomb (Matt. 28:1; Mk. 16:1; Jn. 20:1).

8. She ran to fetch Peter and John and came back to the tomb (Jn. 20:2-10).

9. She had a conversation at the tomb with an angel (Jn. 20:11-13).

10. She had a conversation with the risen Jesus outside the tomb (Jn. 20:14-17).

11. She told the other disciples she had seen the risen Jesus (Lk. 24:10; Jn. 20:18).

Of all the disciples, male or female, she alone in scripture was an eyewitness to Jesus’s death on a cross, to Jesus’s body being laid in a tomb, and to Jesus raised from the dead.

Friday, February 23, 2018

Just walk away

On rare occasion only, thank God, it gets to me when someone doesn't believe me, and then they go off on me like I'm obviously mistaken and deserve no hearing. I don't mind being mistaken, but I do mind when stuff like this happens:

I told someone I care about (still do) some years ago that I'd seen a bald eagle. (Would YOU have believed me?) When this person didn't believe me and explained to me so many reasons why I could not have possibly seen a bald eagle, well ("Keep calm, Bert."), I tried to change this person's mind. But this was not a give and take exchange of information. This was me talking and my friend sneering and smirking and head shaking. This was someone who, for reasons unknown, decided that whatever I said was irrelevant. I was swimming in shock and hurt and bordering on outrage. You're probably wondering why I didn't just pop out a pic and prove it. I've only been shooting for some 5 years. But even if I'd had a photo, I don't think it would have mattered. The shot would have been inadmissible because I then wouldn't be able to prove that I took it! (Ever argued with a conspiracy theorist?) 

 I realize I could have misidentified the giant dark brown bird with a bright white head and tail that flew right in front of me. But do the math. It's simple. Statistically, would you bet on a mechanic or non-mechanic in a debate over mechanics? (This may be the stupidest thing I've ever written!)

So what did I do? I made an oath with myself to love that person for the rest of my life AND to never mention or discuss birds with that person for the rest of my life!

I'm still keeping that oath, too. What's up with that? I'm not 100% sure. I can take a lot, but I have this sort of limit. Thank God it rarely happens. It hits a nerve when people with little or no knowledge have the audacity and arrogance to controvert with disdain anyone with actual experience and expertise. Nine times out of ten I get over it and forget. But there are those very special people who I love within my oath-established limits. My "Lenten confession" for the week, I guess. 2/23/18 ---Bert

P.S. An open letter to astronaut Buzz Aldrin (Yes, it's an important part of this ridiculous blog entry.):

Dear Buzz,

You graduated 3rd in your class earning a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from West Point, then a Doctor of Science degree from MIT. Your doctoral thesis, Line-of-Sight Guidance Techniques for Manned Orbital Rendezvous, paved the way for NASA. You flew 66 combat missions over Korea becoming a highly decorated US Air Force fighter pilot, and you taught at the Air Force Academy. You have 3 rocket science patents and 8 published books. You were one of our first astronauts, you piloted Gemini 12, you pioneered space walking, spending 8 hours outside of your capsules, you were an Apollo Command Pilot, you were the Lunar Module Pilot on Apollo 11, you were the 2nd of only 12 humans to have ever walked on another celestial world, you logged 12 days in outer space, AND as a Boy Scout you earned the rank of Tenderfoot.

Buzz, you're one of my heroes, and I am glad you are on this planet.



P.S. Here's some advice from a guy who can't always practice what he preaches either. If a moon-landing truther harasses you, just walk away. Or maybe not:

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Were there synagogues during the time of Jesus?

Were there synagogues during the time of Jesus? (Pictured: so-called first century synagogue at Gamla)
It seems a silly question. The New Testament (NT) refers to synagogues 56 times. The ruins of first century synagogues have been excavated and identified by archaeologists.
Nevertheless, some scholars today answer the silly question with a resounding No. Their arguments are two.
1) An argument from archaeology: Over one hundred synagogues have reportedly been excavated in Palestine, for example, but almost all of them are from later periods. Archaeologists have identified a maximum of nine synagogue structures dating roughly to the time of Jesus.[i] But some scholars argue that there is nothing about the orientation, design, or ornamentation of these nine first century halls that merits identification specifically as synagogues.

2) An argument from biblical exegesis: Some scholars also refute that synagogue halls are referenced in Bible. Noting rightly that the word synagogue (sunagwgh,) means “assembly,” they argue that the NT term referred to a local gathering of the faithful, not a building. They contend that in every case the word synagogue is referring to an assembly of congregants only, and never to a physical assembly hall.

Putting it together, if no first century hall can be proved to have been a synagogue, and if the NT word synagogue(s) refers in every case to an assembly of believers rather than to a building, then there is zero evidence for the existence of synagogue halls in the first century. Is this possible?
My experience with exegesis is broader and deeper than my expertise in archaeology and architecture, so I will skip for now an analysis of the latter. 

With the Greek Testament at my fingertips, I looked carefully at the 56 times that the word synagogue(s) occurs in scripture. What I was looking for were verses that are written about a synagogue (whether it is said to have been located in Capernaum or Corinth) in such a way that it clearly indicates a physical structure, specifically a Hebrew assembly hall. The results?

  • a)      I found that most of these 56 occurrence are not definitive. That is, the way the word synagogue(s) is used in the NT could be referring to the assembly of the people, the building in which they assembled, or both.
  • b)      I found only one instance of a synagogue as a building that I feel is indisputable.
  • c)      I found another seven instances that strongly indicate that there were first century assembly halls called synagogues.

Here are the eight verses in which the word synagogue indicates a physical assembly hall, beginning with the strongest.

1.      Acts 18:7   Then he left the synagogue and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God; his house was next door to the synagogue.
h` oivki,a h=n sunomorou/sa th/| sunagwgh/| - his house was next door to the synagogue

Note that Luke did not write that the synagogue met next door. He wrote that the synagogue was next door. If the synagogue here in Acts 18:7 refers to an assembly, crowd, congregation, or gathering only, and not to a building, then even if the assembly regularly gathered in a vacant lot next door to Titius Justus’ house, when they disbanded and went home, the synagogue became then no longer next door to Justus’ house.

It makes more sense that Luke is describing two adjacent locations visited by Paul. The sentence makes clear sense only when the parallels are sensical, equivalent, and balanced. He writes that Paul is at one place and, leaving that place, he goes to another place. That is a balanced parallel. Adding additional information, Luke says that these two places are next door to each other. So both are physical places, and the places are adjacent to each other physically.

Also it should be noted that Luke is keen to document Paul’s itinerary in the Book of Acts, and this scene is no different. Paul was here, then Paul went there, and the locations were right next door to each other. Paul left “the assembly house” and went to “the residential house” next door—a simple, clear itinerary.

Only if there existed a physical synagogue building would Luke have written that the Titius Justus’ house was next door to it. Is that not the simplest and clearest meaning?

2.      Luke 7:5    for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us."
th.n sunagwgh.n auvto.j wv|kodo,mhsen h`mi/nĂ… - the synagogue he did build to us

Some elders reported to Jesus that the centurion built (past tense) for us (for our assembly) our synagogue (assembly hall).

If by synagogue they meant an assembly of people and not an assembly hall, we can try to express this meaning. The difficulty is in keeping it in the past tense, as the elders speaking to Jesus did:

·         “The centurion used to uplift our assembly for us.”
·         “For us, the centurion used to provide up-building.”
·         “In the past, the assembly was uplifted by the centurion.”
Note in the original verse the verbs “loves” and “built.” Why did the report of the elders change tenses? They claimed that the centurion loves the Hebrew people (present tense), but then they claimed that the centurion built the Capernaum synagogue (past tense)? If “synagogue” indicates no building/structure, this is what the man’s argument sounds like: 

Yes, he loves us, Jesus, and the centurion used to be supportive, too, but that’s all past. There was a time when he did uplift/inspire our assembly for us, but he stopped blessing the assembly some time ago. No more does he uplift us like he used to.”
This is not a very flattering report to share if one’s intent is to convince Jesus that the centurion is worthy of his time and attention. Jesus might have wondered: What up-building things did the centurion used to do for the assembly, when did he stop doing it, and why?

If the elders were trying to convince Jesus that the centurion is worthy of his attention, why would they say, “Yeah, he still loves us, though he is no longer locally supportive”? Is that really the plain meaning of this text? Does it not sound more convincing for them to say, “The centurion loves us, and as evidence, he even built our assembly hall for us.”

The simplest and clearest meaning of the elders’ report to Jesus is that 1) The centurion loves (present tense) the Hebrew people, 2) and as evidence he built (past tense) for our local assembly a synagogue.

Something similar was done by a centurion for the excavated “church” next to Megiddo. It is dated to the third or fourth century, making it perhaps the oldest church ever found. An inscription there credits a centurion with commissioning its mosaic:

“Gaianus, also called Porphyrius, centurion, our brother, has made the pavement at his own expense as an act of liberality. Brutius carried out the work.”

3.      Acts 24:12 They did not find me disputing with anyone in the temple or stirring up a crowd either in the synagogues or throughout the city.
In the temple, in the synagogues, throughout the city: For the prepositional parallels to work, i.e. make sense, they must be referring to a place, a place, and then a place---all of them places that people can enter, all of them places where crowds might assemble.

Furthermore, Paul spoke of “stirring up a crowd in a synagogue.” If synagogue means only an assembly of people and not a building, then Paul is speaking of “stirring up an assembly within an assembly, a crowd within a crowd.” That is nonsensical.

If, however, a crowd can be stirred up in a city or in a temple, then Paul must also mean that a crowd can be stirred up in a synagogue. He is clearly talking about three places: 1) in the temple, 2) in the assembly halls, 3) in the city. All three are examples of places where Paul might have allegedly disputed with or stirred up those assembled there.

4.      Acts 17:17 So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and also in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there.
evn th/| sunagwgh/| - in the synagogue 
kai. - and

evn th/| avgora/| - in the agora (marketplace)
If marketing takes place in a marketplace, then, for the parallel to work, assembling must take place in an assembly hall.
If synagogues are not buildings, why did not Luke simply write that “Paul argued with the synagogue (the assembly)”? Instead, Luke wrote that Paul argued in the synagogue (the assembly hall) with Judeans and devout persons (persons comprising the assembly).
If synagogues are not buildings, then Luke wrote, “Paul argued in the assembly with the assembly,” a meaning that no one would vote for. But it makes perfect sense to write, “Paul argued with the assembly (Judeans and devout persons) in (inside of) the synagogue (assembly hall).”

If a synagogue cannot be an assembly hall, then perhaps an agora (marketplace) cannot be a physical marketplace, but merely a term referring to the assemblage of buyers and sellers wherever they may be found. But this is self-evidently not so, as agorae (marketplaces) exist.

5.      John 18:20 Jesus answered, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Judeans come together.”
It would be both redundant and strange to say, “I have always taught in assemblies where people assemble.” Both the synagogues and the temple are paralleled here as places one enters and as places where people assemble. For Jesus’ statement to be true, both must be places where worshipping Judeans assemble. If people assemble in the temple, then people must also assemble in the synagogues

6.      Luke 21:12 "But before all this occurs, they will arrest you and persecute you; they will hand you over to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors because of my name.
·         Arrest and persecute: Both are activities done by authorities to “lawbreakers.”
·         Kings and governors: Both are persons with power over “lawbreakers.”
·         Prisons and synagogues: Both are places where “lawbreakers” are dealt with.
These parallels do not work unless both prisons and synagogues are physical buildings.

7.      Luke 11:43 Woe to you Pharisees! For you love to have the seat of honor in the synagogues and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces.
Luke 20:46 "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets.
If marketing takes place in a marketplace, and if banqueting takes place in a banquet hall, then for all three of Jesus’ case-study examples to work, to be equivalent comparisons, and to be balanced examples, must not assembling take place in an assembly hall (synagogue), too?

Jesus contends that a market is a popular location where people gather to shop and be recognized. Likewise, a banquet takes place in a dining hall, a popular location where people gather looking for the more honored seats at the table. It follows then that a synagogue also must be a popular place where people assemble looking for a better seat than others for prayer. For Jesus’ one-two-three critique to work, all three must be physical locales where people gather to seek public prestige. People can only jockey for prestige in places of public assembly, and the three places named by Jesus were apparently among the most common and popular in his environs: the marketplace, the banquet hall, and the assembly hall (synagogue).

8.      Matthew 13:54 He came to his hometown and began to teach them in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power?
auvtou/ evdi,dasken auvtou.j- - he began to teach them (the assembly)

evn th/| sunagwgh/| - in their synagogue (their assembly hall)

Could Matthew have mean that “Jesus began to teach his hometown assembly in the assembly”? This is what we are stuck with if there are no actual Hebrew halls of assembly for scripture and prayer in the 1st century

The clearest and simplest meaning, however, is that on the Sabbath Jesus began to teach them (teach the assembly) in their synagogue (in their assembly hall)

·         “them” – refers to Jesus’ hometown assembly for Sabbath scripture and prayer.
·         “synagogue” – refers to the facility where those hometown assemblers met for Sabbath scripture and prayer.
My conclusion: Those who deny the existence of synagogue structures in the NT period based on exegesis are incorrect. Eight of the 56 instances of the word synagogue in the NT are almost certainly references to assembly halls that they called synagogues.

[i] Gamla, Herodium, and Masada are the most familiar, but others include Modiin (near Latrun), Wadi Qelt (near Jericho), and Naburiya (near Safed). Some argue that structures (or at least the foundations of them) in Capernaum, Migdal, and Qumran are synagogues dated to the first century.