THE DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS LOVED
Was it Mary Magdalene?
By Saint Martin, the Formerly Dead Guy
A History Channel program--that I just finished watching--dealing with Mary Magdalene, the Gnostic gospels, and the place of Mary Magdalene in the early church, raised the question of whether or not Mary M is “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” The disciple alluded to, but supposedlynever named, in the Gospel of John. I apologize for not having followed more closely the convoluted “logic” and frail arguments in support of this idea. On the other hand, since I cannot articulate them clearly you won’t be subjected to them! See? In every cloud there’s a silver lining.
I would really like to be able to agree with this idea with a hearty “Amen!” I would do a little jig out of sheer joy if such were the case. Anyone who knows me knows I am about as Feminist as a man can get without betraying his gender. So, it gives me no pleasure in having to let the air out of this theory. I already know the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved. I’m frankly very surprised that this is a Big Mystery to anyone who has read the Gospel of John. Apparently it is a Big Mystery because every Christian I’ve asked tonight gave me the wrong answer. Including three Catholic priests! This is, to me, astonishing. Literally. I’ve known the identity of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” since I was fifteen and first started reading the Bible. It was so obvious to me then, as it is now, that I really gave it no thought until I heard people speculate about it. At Bible study meeting after Bible study meeting I would hear speculation on this matter, and always the same wrong answer. I’m surprised that intelligent--and awake--people haven’t seen it right there in the Gospel of John! One who reads that Gospel over and over again would surelysee it since it’s stated quite openly. Since, apparently, very few people do see it, I will take the mystery-- and the fun--out of this brouhaha for you and everyone else reading this essay.
First, though, I assure you that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” is not the apostle John. That’s what everyone says. “It’s the apostle John!” Nope. Not even close. Nor is it Mary Magdalene. (Drat! I’m just salacious enough to want the disciple whom Jesus loved to be a female! After all, I love females. I married one. They’re soft and cuddly and curvaceous.)
Alas, reality beckons.
By “reality” I do not mean historical reality. I simply mean the reality of the text of the Gospel of John. So here we go. This is your last chance to bail out before I take the air out of this balloon for you forever! There’s no going back after this! STOP READING NOW! Take the BLUE PILL! TAKE THE BLUE PILL! Okay, you’ve been warned. The red pill sucks.
The “disciple whom Jesus loved” is Lazarus. Yep. Lazarus. The fellow in the “Rich man and Lazarus” parable that later became the centerpiece of a resurrection story. Dead four days. Stank. Jesus yelled “Lazarus come forth!” and forth he came, done up like a mummy. Hip-hip hooray for Jesus. Etc.
I can hear your thoughts. “Well, that’s certainly a letdown! Let’s hope you have something to back up such an unsatisfying assertion!” Unfortunately, I do. I wish I didn’t, but I do. So let’s begin this Mysterious Journey of Discovery so that you too can see the plain truth. (I warned you to stop reading, but no!You had to take the red pill!) Once you see how glaringly obvious that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” is Lazarus, you’ll smack your forehead and go “DOH!” As well you should. You should also be aghast at the stupidity of literally millions of Christians, dead and alive. Even professional clergymen!
Let’s open our Bibles now to the Gospel of John, chapter 11:
1Now a certain man was sick named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. 2(It was that Mary who had anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3Therefore his sisters sent unto Jesus, saying, "Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick."
A big DOH! I am left scratching my head in wonder and amazement that the identity of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” would be a Big Mystery to anyone!
“Who do you think you are Martin? Great Minds have wrestled with this Profound Mystery for nearly two millennia! Do you mean to tell me it’s all simply a matter of paying attention to what you’re reading? That the only real mystery is how inattentive people can be?”
Thou hast said it.The only place where we’re told that Jesus wept--shed tears--is when he cried over the death of Lazarus, the disciple that he loved. When Jesus was led by Mary Magdalene to the tomb of Lazarus, we’re told that “Jesus wept.” (Verse 35) Then the people exclaim, “Behold how Jesus loved him!”
Lazarus was indeed “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”
If you find no fun at all in this glaringly obvious fact, in comparison to all the groovy speculation that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (who is only called that in this Gospel) is Mary Magdalene, then re-read the above verse. It was Mary Magdalene that led Jesus to the tomb of the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” How could Mary lead Jesus to a tomb that she herself was dead and interred in? To me, this is tremendous fun! Watching otherwise intelligent and observant people puzzle and theorize and speculate on a simple matter that is plainly stated in the Biblical text!
“Well, why the Big Mystery then if it’s so obvious Mister Smarty Pants?” You tell me! If people had paid attention to what they’re reading there would be no mystery about the identity of this disciple because the Gospel of John comes right out and names him! Lazarus! The brother of Mary Magdalene and Martha. Not everyone is oblivious to the glaring fact that this “disciple whom Jesus loved” is Lazarus. Many Bible scholars--and scads of just plain ordinary Bible readers--have pointed it out many times. Yet it’s so obvious that vast multitudes of people just can’t see it! (Or refuse to see it) It’s WEIRD! These same people would still believe in Bigfoot even if God Almighty told them, “Ain’t no Bigfoot.” Why? Because believingin Bigfoot is more fun than not believing in Bigfoot. Believing that the identity of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is a Big Mystery is more fun than facing the plain bald fact that it’s just Lazarus.
Professor William Brownlee, a Biblical scholar and an authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls put it simply: “From internal evidence in the Fourth Gospel, the conclusion is that the beloved disciple is Lazarus of Bethany.” (Whence The Gospel According To John, page 192) It helps in understanding the genesis of this “mystery” when one learns that the so-called “Gospel of John” is in fact anonymous, as are the other three gospels. It is church tradition, and church tradition alone, that ascribes this Gospel to the apostle John. Obviously, he is not the author. If we ascribe authorship to Lazarus, then the way Lazarus writes about himself--in the third person--makes grammatical and logical sense. Or, that whomever wrote this Gospel at least did so pretending to be Lazarus. This was a common practice at the time, writing in the name of another person. The ancients, unlike us, thought nothing of it.
Enjoy!
Saint Martin the Formerly Dead Guy
POSTSCRIPT:
After writing this essay I received an email that contained an article speculating on the identity of the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” Some of the reasonings in this article are so multi-layered and convoluted I could actually write a book refuting them. Since I don’t have that kind of time (I‘m trying to write a doctoral dissertation), I will have to settle for a quickie.
Here’s some examples:
“Here is a fact that few people seem to know: The Bible never explicitly says that Mary Magdalene was ever a prostitute at any point in her life. Luke does not name her in his narrative about the "penitent whore" who washes the feet of Jesus with her hair (7:36-50)”
Granted, Luke doesn’t name the woman, but “John” does in 11:2 of the verses we already looked at:
“1Now a certain man was sick named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. 2(It was that Mary who had anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3Therefore his sisters sent unto Jesus, saying, "Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.”
Now, unless you wish to postulate two incidents when Jesus had his feet anointed and washed with the hair of two different women, then we have the same woman: Mary Magdalene. I’m no Bible-believer but this sort of inattention to detail must drive them crazy! (Caveat: Nowhere does the NT come right out and say that Mary M was a whore. It merely says that she was a “sinner.” This is a Semitic euphemism for a woman who engaged in sins of a sexual nature. Either an adulteress, fornicatrix, or whore. )
Recognizing Mary Magdalene as the penitent whore makes her a perfect embodiment of the Myth of Sophia--the Ennoia--in her descent into darkness and whoredoms. So, since we’re dealing with Mythology, I don’t really understand the eagerness to feign ignorance of the biblical text in this matter. I do understand the concern of Feminists who believe Mary Magdalene was a literal historical personage, and therefore would like to remove the stigma of reformed whoredom that the Bible places upon Mary M by innuendo and implication. If they could see that the Magdalene is in fact a Myth, the Myth of Sophia, they would lose that desire and would instead rejoice in such an apt retelling of the Sophia Myth.
The article also says this:
“Most biblical scholars today assert that the Fourth Gospel was authored by an anonymous follower of Jesus referred to within the Gospel text as the Beloved Disciple. It is posited here that, in an earlier tradition of the Fourth Gospel's community, the now "anonymous" Beloved Disciple was known to be Mary Magdalene. It is further posited that Mary Magdalene is the true founder and hero of what has come to be known as the Johannine Community (i.e., Mary Magdalene was one of the original apostolic founders and leaders of the early Christian church). I realize that this hypothesis may seem very radical and perhaps unorthodox to you. However, I believe that it is well-founded and I respectfully offer the following in support of it.” (Notice the repeated use of the word “posit.” To posit is to offer a speculative theory as an attempt to explain facts. It is not itself a fact.)
The Beloved Disciple is ANONYMOUS? Huh? The writer I’m quoting must have a different Bible than mine. Mine says Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple, plain as day in John 11:1-3. I also do not think “most biblical scholars” assert (and it would be one heck of an assertion) that the fourth Gospel was authored by an anonymous follower of Jesus. If they do, not just their “scholarship” is sadly lacking but also their basic reading skills. Time for some remedial reading classes for any such slackers. Lazarus, or someone pretending to be Lazarus the Beloved Disciple, obviously wrote John and that’s why the references to Lazarus/Beloved Disciple are in the third person. It’s so glaringly simple, it causes people to stumble. They’re expecting mystery and obfuscation worthy of an adversary of Sherlock Holmes, when in actuality all there really is, is plain uninteresting statements.
The author of this article makes no reference at all to John 11:1-3, preferring instead to ignore it and then spin wild theories. Why? Because it’s a lot more fun and interesting than simply accepting the plain bald fact that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple! Here is a telling paragraph:
“You may note at this point that in the above cited passages from the Gospel of John, the Beloved Disciple is clearly male. Also, in 19:25-27 and 20:1-11 the Beloved Disciple and Mary Magdalene appear in the same scenes simultaneously. How can I allege that Mary Magdalene is the Beloved Disciple in light of this? The answer will be addressed in detail below. But for now: The reason that the Beloved Disciple was turned into a man in the text was because this disciple was clearly the founder and hero of the community that produced this Gospel. At some point after the death of Jesus, the emerging male leadership of that community simply became embarrassed about having a female founder.” (Emphasis mine)
There is ZERO evidence of ANY kind for ANY of this! None. Nada. The big goose-egg. This is simply fanciful speculation to try to invent support for a groovy idea this person already has established in his head. However, since we’re dealing with Mythology and not history I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. No matter what I write, these folks will continue to ignore the text, and place their fanciful speculations in their place. Their readers will get a groove going with their groovy theories--because believing in Bigfoot is more fun than not believing in Bigfoot--and eat up this baloney as though it’s caviar.
Again, I wish these supposedly Gnostic people could see how fitting it is to the Myth of Sophia that Mary Magdalene--who represents Sophia--be a whore who is delivered from her whoredoms by having the demons cast out of her and saved by the Christ.
The writer of the article goes on to say:
“One fact is very clear: For some reason, the writer of the Gospel of John wanted to keep the identity of the Beloved Disciple a secret. This disciple was obviously an extremely important figure in the history of their community. Why, then, is the name of this disciple concealed? Was the goal to protect this disciple from persecution? Hardly -- after all, the disciple was clearly deceased when the final draft of John's Gospel was produced (21:20-24). Is it possible that the writer of the final draft had forgotten the name of their beloved founder? Not very likely. This is, indeed, an interesting mystery.” (Blackened text my own emphasis)
Again with the “mystery” and “secret” nonsense! The only “mystery” is why this author chooses to ignore John 11:1-3. I laughed out loud when I read : “One fact is very clear: For some reason, the writer of the Gospel of John wanted to keep the identity of the Beloved Disciple asecret.” The fact here is that John 11:1-3 clearly, simply, and plainly identifies the Beloved Disciple as Lazarus! There is no Big Secret or Mystery here and that’s the problem! These people want mystery, even where there is none! So they invent a Big Secret, they invent a Big Mystery!
“Why, then, is the name of this disciple concealed?” this writer asks! LMAO! Fella, it ISN’T concealed! It’s stated simply, plainly, without fanfare or fantastic confabulation, in John 11:1-3. DOH!
The writer starts making more sense here:
“Today, the majority of biblical scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, assert that St. John of Zebedee did not write the Gospel that bears his name. They ascribe authorship to the ‘anonymous’ Beloved Disciple. So, if the evidence pointing to John as author of this Gospel is so flimsy -- how, then, did this book become known universally as the Gospel of John?”
This is absolutely true. Genuine scholars (By which I mean non-fundy scholars) are aware that the apostle John did not write the gospel ascribed to him by church tradition. Most do in fact maintain that this so-called Gospel of John was in fact written by the Beloved Disciple. Why? Because of the very reason I mentioned earlier: Whenever the “beloved disciple” is mentioned he is spoken of in the third person. This clearly indicates, by rules of grammar, that the writer is referring to himself. Ergo, the “Gospel of John” was really written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Therefore this Gospel was written by Lazarus, the disciple whom Jesus loved. John 11:1-3. Tis quite simple really, but lacking in Mystery and Allure, hence is blissfully ignored in favor of way kewl theories. Far out man.
The writer of this article then goes on to point out that the Gospel of John had a very long and hard row to hoe in being accepted as “canonical” by the Catholic church because of it’s Gnostic leanings. This, he asserts, is because it was really written by Mary Magdalene, who he further asserts is “the Beloved Disciple” hence this Gospel had to be altered to make it acceptable to the Catholic church. One of the ways it was supposedly altered is by hiding the identity of the author, a ‘mere woman’ named Mary Magdalene. (Well, if they wanted to hide the identity of the Beloved Disciple they did a very poor job of it! Again, I point the reader to John 11:1-3)
It is indeed true this Gospel had a hard and long row to hoe in becoming accepted by the Catholic church and hence included in the NT canon. Yet there is no textual or patristic reason to support the belief that the identity of the author was changed. That’s simply wild speculation to support a “groovy” idea. The authors identity certainly was NOT concealed! In fact, it’s right there in the text in a plain and ordinary non spectacular way. Again, I repeat, it’s way more fun to believe in Bigfoot than to not believe in Bigfoot. It’s way more fun to ignore the facts and spin groovy theories. Patristics (the study of the writings of the so-called “church fathers”) reveal a very early ignorance and confusion over the identity of the author of this Gospel. They reveal that ignorance of this Gospel is very ancient. Even writers as early as Irenaeus attribute this Gospel to John the son of Zebedee, whom he confused with a presbyter--elder--by that name in Asia Minor. Lack of attention to detail is not a modern malady after all. Thank the gods.
Here’s an interesting paragraph from this article:
“Brown's research reveals that there was a schism early in the history of the Johannine Community. He posits that the community divided in two due to an internal christological disagreement. The majority of the community, whom Brown refers to as the Secessionists, defended the community's high christology and moved toward Docetism, Montanism, and Gnosticism. The rest of the community, whom Brown refers to as the Apostolic Christians, were amalgamated into the emerging institutional church. The Apostolic Christians became accepted as "orthodox" believers because they were willing to modify their christological beliefs in order to conform to the teachings of the emerging church hierarchy. The Secessionists, the majority of the Johannine Community, were quickly labeled as "heretics" by the institutional church because they did not make any such modifications. This schism took place before the final canonical redaction of the Fourth Gospel. The final redaction that we have today is the work of an editor belonging to the group which aligned itself with the institutional church. Both groups, however, took their pre-canonical version of the Fourth Gospel with them after the schism and claimed it as their own.” [“Christological” and “Christology” should have been capitalized but I left it as the author wrote it.. Emphasis mine.]
Do you see it? “Brown’s researchreveals.” Research and revelation establish facts. So, we’re led to think that what follows is factual, a recitation of established facts, not speculation. Then the author gives the game away by saying “posits.” One posits a theory to account for facts, but the only actual fact here is that the Gospel of John says that the Beloved Disciple is Lazarus! Actually the entire paragraph is speculation, nothing more, and all of this speculation has it’s origin in simply not paying attention to the biblical text. Or in ignoring it in favor of a groovy theory that gets everyone’s groove going.
Again, there are some very old copies of the Gospel of John, but no evidence whatsoever of this supposed “redaction.” There is evidence of other sorts of textual alteration, but nothing of this order. Again, none of this theorizing and speculation would have arisen if people simply paid attention to detail. And I don’t simply mean not noticing that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple in John 11:1-3, but also such inexcusable oversights as to the fact that “John” does indeed identify Mary Magdalene as the woman who washed the feet of Jesus and dried it with her hair. This is also in John 11:1-3. This establishes Mary M as a reformed “sinner“ (sexual sinner by implication) just as the Myth of Sophia demands her to be!
This is all so very simple and plain that I’m flabbergasted at the willful ignorance displayed. I say willful ignorance because I refuse to believe these people are stupid. Their writings reveal their high order of intelligence. Ergo, I conclude they are willfully ignorant and conveniently turn a blind eye to the facts because it’s politically correct to say that MM was not a whore, and it’s groovy fun to make a “mystery” and “secret” out of the identity of the Beloved Disciple. After all, it’s way kewl to be in on a Big Secret.
The author of this article quotes the gospel of Phillip as proof that Mary is the Beloved Disciple:
“And the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended] by it [and expressed disapproval]. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness" (NHC II.3.63.32ff)
First, look at how much of the first and second sentence is missing from the Coptic manuscript of Phillip, and is therefore conjecture. This is how it actually reads:
“And the companion of the Mary Magdalene her more than the disciples kiss her on her”
For the sake of debate let’s say that the conjectural reconstruction of Phillip is correct. The writer of the article I’m refuting quotes another Nag Hammadi source, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene herself, that qualifies--puts conditions and limits upon--the above verse from Phillip:
“Peter said to Mary, "Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of the women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember -- which you know (but) we do not, nor have we heard them." Mary answered and said, "What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you." (NHC BG 8502.1.10.1-8)
Here we are told, in the very Gospel of Mary, that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene NOT more than all the male disciples, but more than all the women! So, Jesus loved Mary more than the rest of the women, but not necessarily all of the MEN.. The Gospel of Phillip was originally written in Koine Greek, then translated into Coptic. The word for “woman” in Koine Greek is “gune” and it is also the Koine Greek word for wife. So too with the plural of gune. It also means wives. So, what we’re looking at here is a statement that can be legitimately translated: “Peter said to Mary, ‘Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of the wives.” Jewish men had multiple wives folks, let’s not forget that historical fact if we’re going to treat this Myth as literal history.
Anyway, I’ve allowed myself to wander off into these odd speculative byways long enough. This entire brouhaha about Mary Magdalene is a house of cards, or a house built on sand. It’s built on a willful ignoring of John 11:1-3 both as revealing the name of the Beloved Disciple and as identifying Mary Magdalene as the sexual “sinner” who washed the feet of Jesus: Sophia. I admit this speculation is a lot of fun, much more fun than the plain ordinary fact that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple, but the speculation is spun from invisible fabric and the king isn’t wearing any clothes. I wish it had a better basis in reality, and a better basis in the Gnostic Mythos, but it doesn’t. In fact, taking away the status of Mary Magdalene as a reformed whore destroys her Mythic identity as the fallen Sophia.
It would take me days to refute every single misstep and mistake on the part of the writer of this article, and the sources he quotes, but I have to wrap this up. Suffice it to say that this whole mess would have never began if people simply paid attention to what they’re reading, connected the dots, and were content with what is rather than needing to believe in Bigfoot.
Yours in Mythos of Sophia,
Saint Martin the Formerly Dead Guy