Irish Biblical Association

*********************************************************************************************

Introduction

A little autobiography: Methodist family… Theology in predominantly Anglican Cambridge when history reigned supreme!

Imbibed sola scriptura implicitly/unconsciously, and despite generally liberal background, found biblical criticism very challenging – Bultmann and ?possibility of knowing anything about the historical Jesus; especially questions re the Birth-narratives.

[Worth noting in passing that belief in the so-called ‘virgin-birth’ (strictly the virginal conception) has become a mark of Bible-believing Protestantism in reaction to ‘liberal’ biblical criticism: confess that once deeply perturbed, as indeed were the Church Fathers, by stories that look like Greek myths (human mother impregnated by divine father > son of Zeus, not true incarnation) … + Emmanuel prophecy to be read in Isaiah’s time + parthenos in Greek vs. Hebrew.]

Methodist/Protestant context: Mary only at Christmas – not even the Feast of Annunciation because generally no saints’ days or festivals apart from the Nativity, Holy Week/Easter, Pentecost and Trinity Sunday (in Methodism, Epiphany eclipsed by annual Covenant). Methodists now a bit more aware of the liturgical year than back in the immediate post-war years! – but still no Annunciation!

Fundamentally exploring here the methodological question about scripture and its interpretation for now/the future, but using a case-study: Mary. Case-study could take over – there is so much ground here to cover. So I shall start by making it clear what this lecture is not about …

I. What this lecture is not about

· Not a history of Mariology, though some outline of essentials necessary because we must understand there is a history: Mariology developed, partly by a process of speculative story-telling; partly in response to the development of virginity as a major ethical ideal – ‘aetiological symbol’ for contemporary ideology; partly by assimilation of features from the popular and imperial religion of pre-Christian Roman Empire – enculturation or syncretism?

(i) Many features of developed Mariology derive from a late 2^nd century apocryphal work, rather than scripture: Protevangelium of James – some aspects further developed in later apocryphal works.

‘Speculative story-telling’: Nativity traditions found here familiar features depicted in art but not in scripture, e.g. Mary riding ass + cave. Also age of Mary at nativity = 16. Apologetic motif in narratives about virginity: Joseph an old widower who becomes the ward of ‘the virgin of the Lord’, proofs before priests that neither he nor she had intercourse + story of Salome to show still virgin after birth of Jesus.

Purity of Mary becomes important motif – sanctuary at home until 3, then in Temple till 12 (i.e. as pre-menstrual girl). She and other virgins spin the veil of the Temple , and annunciation happens while she is doing this – featured in icons of the Annunciation.

Little basis in history – some features impossible in a Jewish context, such as girl living a dedicated life in the Temple, and entering the Holy of Holies, where fed by an angel; ‘undefiled daughters of Hebrews’ somewhat parallel to vestal virgins; but cf. dedication of child in I Samuel.

That alerts us to the scriptural influence: Anna modelled on Hannah – typical Biblical miraculous birth to barren couple. Development of Matthew and Luke, whose stories re-told and elaborated, but by someone who was mixed up about Palestinian geography and Jewish customs.

(ii) Ideology of virginity, Mary as model >developments in 4^th century … Could be another whole lecture! Athanasius’ First Letter to Virgins: ‘his portrait of the ideal virgin, Mary the mother of Jesus, is of a girl who lives with her parents, is obedient to them, and goes with them to Church’ (Brakke) – just like the virgins in Alexandria in his time! ‘She did not desire to be seen by people; rather she prayed that God would be her judge. Nor did she have an eagerness to leave her house, nor was she at all acquainted with the streets; rather she remained in her house being calm… She spent the excess of her manual labour on the poor. And she did not acquire an eagerness to look out of the window, rather to look at the scriptures. And she would pray to God privately, taking care about these two things: that she not let evil thoughts dwell in her heart, and also that she not acquire curiosity or learn hardness of heart …’ Moderate voice, no slander, no weariness or envy, made daily progress, good works, ate and drank just what she needed, with no greed or desire, fasting as good as feasting, etc. (Brakke, pp. 277ff) Mary remains a virgin so as to be a pattern for everyone. ‘…recognise yourselves in her as in a mirror.

Already in the development of apocryphal stories just explored, motif of virginal purity. Similar date (end 2^nd century) Paul and Thekla – story depends on an ideology of celibacy: Paul’s preaching ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; blessed are those who have kept the flesh chaste, for they shall become a Temple of God; blessed are the continent, for God shall speak with them; blessed are those who have kept aloof from this world, for they shall be pleasing to God; blessed are those who have wives as not having them, for they shall experience God; blessed are those who have fear of God, for they shall become angels of God.’ Thekla breaks off engagement and challenges whole basis of society by refusing marriage, follows Paul, performs various miracles, etc.

Peter Brown, The Body and Society. Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity: permanent renunciation only for very few early in Christian practice – dominant practice was renunciation after producing heirs or temporarily for ritual or other reasons. Yet Galen (end 2^nd century) re Christians ‘Their contempt for death is patent to us every day, and likewise their restraint from intercourse’. Huge development in 4^th century, beginnings of monastic movement; Brown studies various different motives and attitudes > cf. Elizabeth Clark, Reading Renunciation. Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity.

4^th century popularity of Thekla + emergence of cult of Virgin Mary alongside one another: Protevangelium provided model of domestic and ecclesiastical ‘enclosure’ for women. For Athanasius and Ambrose perpetual virginity of truly human Mary important for model of permanent virginity: = bridge between fallen state and transformation.

(a) 431 = big date in development of Mariology: Council declared Mary Theotokos, variously translated as ‘Bearer/Birth-giver/Mother of God’, and deposed and excommunicated Nestorius. Controversy about the nature of Christ, but debate focussed by question whether Mary could be described as ‘Theotokos’. After that decision, veneration of Mary increased, + Apocryphal writings gained in popularity; not long after 431, great mosaics in S. Maria Maggiore in Rome … Focus drawn to Mary. Traces of Marian cult earlier confined to marginalized groups, but situation different after Ephesus !

Hilda Graef: ‘The crowds which had been roaming the streets of Ephesus went wild with enthusiasm when they were told the verdict. They accompanied Cyril and his bishops to their lodgings with torchlights and shouts of “Praised be the Theotokos! Long live Cyril!” It sounds like a Christian echo of the “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” which, almost 400 years ago, had been shouted in the streets of the same city when the preaching of Paul had threatened the livelihood of the worshippers of the pagan goddess. (Acts 19.28ff.) And perhaps there is a connection between the two: for the veneration of a mother-figure is a deep-rooted human instinct, and so it is not improbable that, in the hearts of many simple people, the Theotokos should have taken the place of Diana.’

(b)

Egypt

– origin of Marian icons. Background in cult of Isis (NB. continuity traced in Kamil – almost subconscious): Theotokos first in

Egypt

where Isis = Mother of God/Horos + Great Virgin. First icons of Mary have the look of Isis (Mathews and Muller in Vassilaki (ed.)). Coptic images of the Virgin breast-feeding the child have a background in a long Egyptian traditian of depicting goddesses in this way, associated particularly with the birth of the Pharoah/royalty (Bolman in Vassilaki)

(c) Constantinople: Limberis, Divine Heiress, ‘Constantine succeeded in making Christianity a Greco-Roman civic religion’; in Constantinople ‘all the aspects of religious culture that the Christians had successfully eschewed for three centuries were suddenly merged with Christian belief’ > a century later, imperial panegyric > Mary’s assumption of duties of patron deities: protector of city, provider, guarantor of fertility, virgin and mother fits the Greek assumptions of what was needed for fertility, great conflation of symbols - Athena, Demeter, Rhea (mother of the gods), Cybele, Tyche > Akathistos hymn, anticipated by Proclus (who had triggered the controversy by preaching about the Theotokos, and provoking Nestorius’ reaction). Possible in Constantinople because new foundation dominated by imperial need for civic religion reinforcing loyalty. John Chrysostom warned against turning Mary into a goddess – one element in dispute with emperor’s wife.

Interesting discussion possible re syncretism with dying paganism, baptising old religion into Christ or enculturation + theological question re providence! But enough to demonstrate that instinctive Protestant reaction against idolatry reflects the reality of historical development: Marian piety looked like the worship of a goddess, or of a human assumed/exalted to the divine (ancient euhemerism), and could have originated there, depending on assessment of cultural influences.

But lecture not about origins, nor development in the 4^th century, nor the Reformation reaction against veneration of the saints including Mary, nor the promulgation of the Marian dogmas in modern times, which non-Roman Catholics (Orthodox as well as Protestant) find difficult to accept though for different reasons … Not a history of Mariology.

· Not about the impact of feminism on Mariology: challenge to the veneration of Mary – the impossible ideal: virgin and mother at the same time; model oppressive to women in patriarchal societies – Marina Warner as alternative and more readable history than Hilda Graef, but also profound critique; Schussler Fiorenza. Nor conversely about recent resurgence of interest in Mary among women, Catholic and Protestant, because she is at least the one feminine symbol in a predominantly patriarchal tradition … Beattie, Boss, Gaventa, Azarello

· Not about rival exegeses of scriptural texts – i.e. the little historical evidence that is there, and the tendency to read it either to favour tradition (Roman Catholic) or dispute the tradition (Protestant). My reaction to John McHugh and the milking of the text + first meeting with notion that the woman in Revelation = Mary > astonishment! But Protestant and historico-critical critique of Catholic exegesis is long-standing and not to be repeated here! Personally, as a linguist and historian shaped by Protestantism, remain unsympathetic to the attempts to turn Jesus’ brothers into cousins or step-sons + toning down harshness of Jesus to mother in Mark + Cana/John – should read Greek in its natural sense, and mothers do find it difficult to let go their sons … But not my purpose to engage in these exegetical disputes …

II. What this lecture is about

· How doctrine is deduced from texts of scripture which do not actually spell it out – historico-critics would say that we find the doctrine of the Trinity in scripture by hindsight: so what about Mary?

· How we read ourselves into the text, or allow the text to address us directly (lectio divina) – relevance vs. history: beyond factual reference to meanings > reclamation of Patristic typological readings

The idea is that Mary provides an example for an exploration of how scripture points beyond itself, so that it is not what is definitely in scripture that matters, but what scripture might potentially effect for us – for scripture is fundamentally about transformation. We will take the second of those themes first.

Ref. Limerick and ways of reading the Bible: hermeneutical model, derived from ancient rhetorical practice:

The object of rhetoric in the ancient world was to achieve persuasion or conviction (that is, pistis, usually translated ‘faith’ in a New Testament context!) Three things were required for this:

· The ethos of the author/speaker. The author’s character and life-style had to be such as to inspire trust in his integrity and authority – in other words, should carry conviction.

· The logos. The argument, narrative, discourse of the speech/text had to be logical, reasonable, convincing.

· The pathos of the audience. If the readers/hearers were not swayed by the author and the argument - if there was no response, then the whole thing was ineffective and unconvincing.

Conviction depended on the dynamic interplay of author/orator, text/speech and reader/audience. These three elements were interacting, cf. emphasis on authorial intention, the text itself, reader reception – they need to work together, as in fig. 1.

But in the case of scripture, we can see a series of different dynamic triangles. The author may be identified, say, as Paul, writing a letter to his converts in Corinth (fig.2);

But if that is the case, ‘we’ are not the intended readers, and there is no way in which exactly that original situation can be recreated. Alternatively we may identify the author as the Holy Spirit, ourselves as believers in the context of liturgy - part of the church universal over time and space, and the material as an extract from the timeless, canonical ‘Word of God’ (fig. 3).

This is a different ‘reading genre’ with a very different dynamic, and it never exists in a ‘pure’ sense; for we carry over the previous dynamic triangle, knowing that the text was shaped by human history and by particular circumstances, and that we are too – we do not read Holy Scripture now in the same way as believers in the Middle Ages. Scripture is the divine Word in human words – it is incarnational, and the point of scripture is transformation: it is meant to carry conviction and change people’s lives. In every generation and in different cultures particularities somehow carry the eternal Word of God. Somehow we need to keep both dynamic triangles in play, and the concern of the ‘modern’ scholar, to be ‘objective’, and the concern of the believer, ‘subjectively’ to hear the Word of God, are both valid and true to the nature of scripture.

So our model necessitates the recognised involvement of the reader when it comes to the interpretation of scripture. The reader cannot simply make the text mean anything he likes – he/she must respect the ‘otherness’ of the text. On the other hand, we can discern a legitimate place for the believer approaching the texts for insight and spiritual transformation; for it is new insight that the believer seeks from the texts – a mirror reflecting back his/her own prejudices is a danger, but not necessarily the outcome: rather the text stands over against the reader, challenging and calling into a new future. Always the reader interacts with author and text, and ideally is changed by the process - for the point of scripture is transformation.

When Arthur was a teenager, the Roman Catholic convent just down the road from where we live invited all the neighbours to a post-Christmas carol service. I took Arthur in his outsize buggy. He loves music and singing. We were shown into the convent chapel, and I was quite sensitive to his presence, especially since many people there didn’t know him, and it’s impossible to keep him quiet. As we sang carols I became deeply conscious of the huge statue of Mary towering over me in the chapel. By the time I’d pushed the buggy back up the block this prayer-poem had formed in my mind:

There was a ‘given-ness’ about that poem. It played a crucial role in enabling me to accept my own broken-ness as a mother. The Pieta became a healing presence, as exemplar, as image and ‘type’ of the suffering of women down the centuries – for women have so often suffered through their sons and their husbands, lost in violence or war, lost at sea or down mines, lost or maimed… On holiday in Brittany I was captured by the great carved Calvaries depicting Mary with the women at the deposition of Christ’s body. I was intrigued by Simeon’s words to Mary in the Temple : “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in

Israel

, and for a sign that is spoken against (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also)...” Mary’s pierced heart was implicated in the Passion, and that began to shape my understanding.

This unexpected journeying with Mary continued – indeed, it became a literal journey in 1991 when Jean Vanier invited me to join the Faith and Light anniversary pilgrimage to Lourdes . As I’m sure you know, the Lourdes story is of Bernadette, a simple local girl – indeed, maybe she was a person with slight learning disabilities – of how she met with our Lady more than once, was shown a new spring of water, and heard the Lady say that she was the Immaculate Conception, and that here was a place for sinners to find penitence, to wash and drink. I soon discovered that Lourdes is really about purification, about the removal of stigma, about holy waters bringing atonement and absolution. And through those days I experienced inner healing, purification and reconciliation as I re-trod my own path in Mary’s company.

Above and behind the grotto with the holy spring and the basilicas built over it, there’s a hill. A steep path, unsuitable for wheelchairs, climbs up and over it, and along it have been placed the Stations of the Cross, great life-size tableaux set on the hillside. Following the Stations is not part of Methodist tradition. But on Good Friday afternoon I had an opportunity to climb the hill alone, following the Stations in my own extempore way.

Panting from the climb, I suddenly found myself meeting Mary, and in identity with her, met my innocent suffering son and felt again the pain of the sword piercing the mother’s heart. Further on, with the women of Jerusalem I brought my child to the suffering, struggling Christ as he stumbled carrying the cross, and begged a blessing. By then my vision was blurred with tears, and when I reached the top of the hill, I couldn’t gaze at the Calvary , for the afternoon sun behind it was dazzling and blinding. Lining up the cross against the blaze I could discern dark silhouettes. It was as though I was literally experiencing the paradox whereby the Gospel of St. John calls the hour of glory that moment of Christ’s exposure to the darkness of the world’s sin and suffering.

But then I followed the path around behind, and was amazed how, looking the other way, having passed behind the cross, Calvary became illuminated, bright and clear – and the tears were dried and the sound of cowbells floated up from the meadow below… Two days later on Easter morning I was preaching at an Anglican eucharist in one of the Basilicas, preaching at the feet of a statue of Mary, preaching about transformation, exploring those words from II Corinthians:

We all, with unveiled face, at once beholding and reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from glory to glory… For it is the God who said “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

So, with Mary and Arthur, I’ve walked into deeper understanding of how the cross lies at the heart of Christian theology. God, the Son, took upon himself all the suffering and sins and gone-wrong-ness of this otherwise beautiful creation. He entered the very depths of the darkness of our world, not so as to wave them away with a magic wand, but so as to transform them from inside. In a strange kind of way, it is when we live at the extremes, at the limits of human endurance, that Christian theology makes sense.

Now why do I share this? Fundamentally because my research into the biblical exegesis of the Fathers has shown how important was this kind of ‘typology’. In the work of specialists, typology is usually associated with prophecy, with the fulfilment of patterns of events: as Moses rescued from Pharoah, so Christ from the devil; the crossing of the Red Sea anticipates Baptism; Passover anticipates eucharist, etc. But for the early Fathers scripture also provided ‘types’ of the Christian life, exemplars to follow, patterns which gave meaning to people’s experience. My unexpected personal experience with Mary falls into that kind of category. This is one way in which scripture points beyond itself. There is future meaning not just past meaning, as we discover ourselves in its stories and characters.

II. Mary as model of discipleship – deeply traditional, and again involves reading ourselves into scripture; different contexts bring out different elements.

Noted above how Mary depicted as model for consecrated virgins in 4^th century. Luther recognised that Mary = model of one receptive of God’s grace through no merit of her own. Jean Vanier speaks of Mary as the model of all those who live ordinary lives, simple and hidden, fulfilling everyday tasks, in communion with Jesus; as always close to the most weak, the littlest, persons who are sick or have disabilities, as she was close to Christ on the cross. NB different contexts bring out different insights.

‘Walking Madonna’ – Salisbury Cathedral Close: Mary strides forth to bring Christ into the world > powerful type of the believer for our time (vs. passivity invoked in the past):

Let me borrow a few sentences from Verna Harrison’s work on Gregory of Nyssa.:

Notice that an essential feature of Mary’s virginity and also that of the Christian soul is receptivity to God. Her purity and integrity open a place within her where God can enter, where Christ can be formed, and from which he can come forth. In the language of the Song of Songs, God is the bridegroom as well as the offspring… [Mary’s] receptivity is intrinsic to her creaturehood; like all human persons, as Gregory understands them, she lives by participation in God and is not the source of her own life… For Gregory the virginal soul, like Mary receives the entrance of God and brings forth Christ, though spiritually, not physically.

Just as Mary gives birth to Christ in the world, so Christians are called to do likewise.

Thus even Theotokos turns out to have typological potential in relation to the call of the disciple. Picked up in Erasmus:

O Virgin Mother, may your Son grant us that in imitation of your most holy life we may conceive the Lord Jesus in our innermost soul and once conceived may we never lose him. (quoted by Boff p. 172)

What if we focus on the picture of her espousal of an upside-down world in the Magnificat? Then we see the liberational challenge she holds out to those who would follow her. Tina Beattie is a Catholic convert for whom Mary has become an inspiration. From “the background of an evangelical Protestant upbringing, from experience of living in a Third World country, from her own experience of motherhood”[1] she writes of Rediscovering Mary – and in her writing Mary becomes a figure of great courage, providing a liberating vision of a new world, challenging a world of violence and exploitation, teaching her son to be a dangerous subversive. Once I saw a poster in Birmingham : “Asylum seekers, Jesus, Mary and Joseph?”

For Tina Beattie, Mary is identified in that way with the poor, the victim and the refugee in the dark process of giving birth in a stable and fleeing to

Egypt

“When God chose Mary, he did not choose her because she was submissive and meek and obedient. He chose her because she was a woman of extraordinary determination and perseverance, a woman of loving resistance and struggle. Her son would learn by her example.”

‘Walking Madonna’ is a symbol of how Mary is a ‘type of the believer’ – called to bring Christ into the world and turn it upside down! (cf. Boff)

Doctrinal deduction from scripture

If Trinity, why not Theotokos? Mariology always related to Christology > logic of incarnation ….

Cyril’s homily on Theotokos Quasten calls 'the most famous Marian sermon of antiquity'. It consists largely of an incantation of honorific epithets - here is some of it:

through whom the Cross is called precious and is worshipped throughout the world

through whom all creation, held back from idolmania, comes to knowledge of truth

through whom the only-begotten Son of God gave light to those in darkness and the shadow of death

– initial reaction as Protestant: taken place of Christ as Mediator because Christ Pantocrator/ Judge/ homoousios no longer felt to be alongside as human being. Nevertheless, true that she enables salvation through Christ: Christ/Adam, Mary/Eve = very ancient development from Paul. Limberis – contrasts Cyril and Proclus: Cyril’s ultimately based in scripture and association of Theotokos with Christology, whereas Proclus treats the Virgin Theotokos independently and assimilates to images drawn from popular religion! Rhetoric of neither suits our style, and homilies often reflect pagan hymns to the gods (cf. Cunningham and Allen), but fundamentally such deductions consonant with scripture, as long as Mariology and Christology held together. Mary essential to salvation – new Eve tradition. Logic of incarnation – Christology impoverished by Protestant neglect of Mary (David Yeago in Braaten and Jenson).

· Called (like Jeremiah et al): ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you …’ > preparation /purity ensured in advance. Predestined in accordance with scripture, and appropriately ready for destined role, but not determined or fated in advance: she had to accept and agree to receive …

· Synergism: accepts and receives (vs. submits!) – so enabling presence and action of God through her, as prophets /other human beings responding to God’s call > model for disciples

· Special relation with Holy Spirit > body = Temple of Holy Spirit – as other believers according to Paul – already used to curb sexual licence in I Corinthians, but strong tradition, in scripture and despite ascetic movement, affirming the creation, and so the body, as created by God – purity of Mary anticipates new creation. Virginity as developed within Christianity not anti-materialist but eschatological …

· Anticipates eschatological transformation, but still human: cf. icon of the Dormition = more acceptable (for me) representation of Mary’s end than depictions of her Assumption as Queen of heaven; early stories of assumption date from 4^th century and imply her death! Anticipation of human transformation, body and soul, for new creation. But must admit - even physical translation to heaven without death is anticipated in scriptural narratives of Enoch and Elijah.

These points indicate how developing traditions re Mary – in Apocrypha and in traditional iconography – can be treated as deductions from scripture of a doctrinal kind. Stories of dedication to Temple // to Samuel – though NB historically impossible for a woman, nevertheless important symbolic meaning; icon of entering Holy of Holies = symbol of her replacing Temple as Presence of God overshadows her.

Behr-Sigel: ‘Mary brings to God the willing agreement of all humanity’ (MWC p. 77). In her Dormition, ‘believers are called upon to contemplate the glorification of all creatures at the end of time when all things will be accomplished’; Mary here anticipates the end for which all mankind was created, and ‘we participate through faith in this end while still groaning in the labor pains of the new creation’s birth’ (MWC p. 198). So Mary is ‘the image and personification of the spirit-bearing Church, the womb of the new humanity.’ ‘She is the archetype and the guide of those men and women who aspire to give birth to Christ in their hearts’ (MWC p. 207). Behr-Sigel concludes that ‘in the Orthodox vision Mary is not seen mainly as the model for women or as the archetype of womanhood in the banal or sociological meaning of the term’. Rather the ‘signification of Mary is both unique and universal, both cosmic and eschatological’. ‘It is of no small consequence, however, that this new creation, having Mary as its human root, has a woman’s face’ (MWC p. 210). Mary is a figure of the Church, of the Body of Christ, of which men and women both are members (DST p. 112).

Behr-Sigel celebrates the contribution of women to the life of the Church over the centuries, and the priesthood of the whole people of God (MWC p. 8): together men and women ‘have the vocation of being the kings and priests of the creation, of being the celebrants of the cosmic liturgy’ (MWC p.42). She insists that Orthodox women are conscious of participating in the royal priesthood of the laity, knowing that they are called to holiness, to deification not only in the life of the world to come but also here and now (MWC p. 135). For Orthodoxy Christ alone is the High Priest and all priesthood derives from him; as members of the Body of Christ all participate in the priestly offering of worship (MWC p. 140). She quotes ‘an Orthodox spiritual master’ on the subject of the offertory prayer:

At this moment, we pray for the whole creation; consecrating all men and women as well as the whole world to God. We carry out the office of priest so that our priesthood might be the ministerial priesthood delegated by the Church or the “royal priesthood” that scriptures attribute to all believers. (MWC p. 168)

So it is that Behr-Sigel moves to the view that the priesthood of the Church could properly be represented by a man or a woman. But I suspect she might have gone further. For in the Orthodox Feasts and their ikons there is much that appears to place Mary in a priestly role. Many show her in the orans (praying) position: at the Ascension she is there orans at the centre of the group of the Apostles; in the Deesis she leads the saints of the New Covenant in intercession, as John Baptist leads those of the Old Covenant. Leading the Church in intercession is surely a priestly role. Could it not further be said that this priestly role is expressed symbolically in the feast and icon of her presentation in the Temple, Mary becoming typologically the archetypal high priest who enters the Holy of Holies? The Orthodox hymnography of these Feasts celebrates Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, the place of God’s presence, the Temple of the Holy Spirit and the Tabernacle of the Word of God. So she mediates God to the world in Christ, as the living Temple. She is all-holy, her purity from contamination making possible the incarnation, and so our purification. Again we may speak of a priestly role. The early apocryphal accounts of her death-bed scene mention the fact that she blessed the apostles: that too is priestly act. In the preface to the original French edition of Behr-Sigel’s book, Anthony Bloom wrote:

Twice Mary had a properly priestly ministry: once when she carried her son who was destined to be sacrificed to the Lord, and once when, at the foot of the cross, she completed the offering by uniting her will, in heroic abandoning of self, to the will of the heavenly Father and to that of the Son of God who by her had become the Son of Man and the sacrificial Lamb.

If it can be acknowledged that Mary has a priestly ministry, then through that typology priesthood can surely not be withheld from women, particularly when it is set in the broader context of Mary’s role as ‘type’ of the Church.

If this argument has the potential to be convincing with respect to the Orthodox tradition, so too with respect to Roman Catholicism, as is argued by John Wijngaards in The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church. He traces the notion of Mary’s priesthood within tradition, citing medieval precedents. He indicates that only recent Roman theology excludes this: it is a recent development to contrast the apostolic-petrine tradition with the marian tradition > the position of Pope John Paul II:

The fact that the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the Universe.[2]

There would appear to be some justification for regarding this as contrary to earlier tradition which honoured Mary as the priest par excellence.

As a Methodist minister, a person ordained to represent the priesthood of all believers at the eucharist, I have found the model of Mary, the ‘type’ and ‘representative’ of the whole Church, deeply meaningful.

If we deduce all kinds of meaningful doctrines about Mary from the doctrine of the incarnation and from a broader set of biblical assumptions, why not this too?

Conclusion

· Example of developments beyond scripture, but which can nevertheless be said to be consonant with what scripture points to – may not establish certain claimed historical/literal facts, but can support common symbolic truth for believers – challenge to Protestants.

· Could provide example of how delicate balance between what is possible and what not can be reached, through honest ecumenical dialogue about the implications of scripture: Protestants as well as Orthodox may welcome the carefully guarded statement of Vatican II, which goes a long way to meeting their anxieties about idolatry and displacing Christ.

· Could point to future possibilities if doors not closed in advance by inherited prejudices – challenges offered not just to Protestants but to Orthodox and Roman Catholics about the place of women in the Church.

[1] Published in my book, Face to Face. A Narrative Essay in the Theology of Suffering, 2^nd edit. T & T Clark, 1990.

[2] From his Apostolic Letter on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone, quoted by Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet (London: SCM Press 1994), p. 163.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reconciliation with God and a Wide-Open Heart for Paul: The Meaning of the Christian Theology and Practice of Reconciliation According to 2 Corinthians 5:11-7:4

Reconciliation with God and a Wide-Open Heart for Paul: The Meaning of the Christian Theology and Practice of Reconciliation According to 2 Corinthians 5:11-7:4

Reconciliation to God has long enjoyed a central place in Christian theologies. Biblical and systematic theologians saw in reconciliation the key concept that holds together the many facts of the Christian message. However, what the different authors mean when they use the word reconciliation as the centre of their theology varies greatly. In this paper we shall first give an overview of the occurrences of this terminology in the Bible. Then we shall focus on the oldest extant Christian text which makes use of the concept of reconciliation to God in 2 Cor 5:18-21. In a third part we shall discuss the grammar of Paul’s understanding of reconciliation to God and focus on the question whether God is in need of reconciliation. This focus continues to be central to the fourth part in which we study the relationship between reconciliation and ‘not counting trespasses’.

When New Testament exegetes speak about reconciliation, they generally restrict their statements to the places where cognates of the Greek words diallassō/katallassō and diallagē/katallagē are used[1]. We shall begin our contribution by giving an overview of the places where this terminology is used in the Bible taking into consideration the variations in use and meaning.

The verb diallassō is used in the Septuagint to refer to reconciliation between human persons[2]. Judg 19:3 LXX A uses diallassō with reference to a Levite and his concubine while B has epistrephō instead. In 1 Kings 29:4 LXX diallassō is used with regard to a potential reconciliation between David and King Saul. 1 Esdr 4:31 points to the intended reconciliation between the Persian King Darius and one of his concubines by the name of Apame. The cognate noun is used twice in the Septuagint, namely in Sir 22:22 and in 27:21 when speaking about reconciliation between friends.

In the Septuagint, the occurrences of katallassō and katallagē are almost exclusively limited to 2 Maccabees[3]:

1:5 May he hear your prayers and be reconciled to you, and may he not forsake you in time of evil.

5:20 Therefore the place itself shared in the misfortunes that befell the nation and afterward participated in its benefits; and what was forsaken in the wrath of the Almighty was restored again in all its glory when the great Lord became reconciled (katallagē).

7:33 And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, he will again be reconciled with his own servants

8:29 When they had done this, they made common supplication and besought the merciful Lord to be wholly reconciled with his servants.

The verb katallassō is found in 2 Macc 1:5, 7:33 and 8:29 . The noun katallagē occurs in 2 Macc 5:20. In all these places katallassō and katallagē are used to describe divine – human reconciliation. The relationship between God and those to whom God is reconciled is presented as a Lord – slave relationship. God is referred to as “the great Lord” ( 5:20 ), “the living Lord” ( 7:33 ) and “the merciful Lord” ( 8:29 ). The people are “his slaves” ( 7:33 ; 8:29 ; see also 1:5: “to you”). The verb katallassō is used once in the active (1:5) and twice in the passive ( 7:33 and 8:29 ; cf. 5:20 [4]). The agent of reconciliation is not explicitly mentioned. This is the source of the opposing interpretations of the theology of reconciliation present in 2 Maccabees. The majority of New Testament exegetes assumes that the people who are the beneficiaries of reconciliation are also the implicit agents of reconciliation. They supply the missing agent as ‘by the appeasing activity of humans’. Support for this interpretation is found in the fact that in two reconciliation texts prayer is mentioned in the immediate context: “May he hear your prayers and be reconciled to you” (2 Macc 1:5) and “When they had done this, they made common supplication and besought the merciful Lord to be wholly reconciled with his servants” (2 Macc 8:29)[5]. Others, however, insist that there is nothing in the text that requires us to assume that God is reconciled by people’s initiative. None of the texts explicitly states that people reconcile God. Rather reconciliation statements in 2 Maccabees either explicitly state (1:5) or leave open the possibility ( 5:20 ; 7:33 and 8:29 ) that God is the agent of reconciliation. It is not the prayer of humans that brings about reconciliation, but exclusively God’s mercy (cf. “the merciful God” in 8:29 )[6]. The latter interpretation is more in line with the understanding of God in the Bible in general.

Studying reconciliation terminology in 2 Maccabees we gained a number of important insights. 1. This book is evidence to the rare religious use of katallassō/katallagē. 2. katallassō/katallagē is used within the hierarchical relationship of Lord and slave. It is thus not restricted to equal to equal relationships of friendship. 3. The need for reconciliation is linked to the wrath of God ( 5:20 and 7:33 ). 4. The state of irreconciliation is one of evil and calamities for the people (“time of evil” in 1,5; “misfortunes” in 5:20 ; “to rebuke and discipline us” in 7:33 ). Reconciliation thus first and foremost means the cessation of the God-inflicted calamities. 5. 2 Maccabees expresses neither the agent nor the means of reconciliation. In extra-Biblical Greek literature it is common for texts to focus on agents, means and even mediators of reconciliation. In this light their absence emphasizes God’s initiative and agency in reconciliation. God accomplishes reconciliation by God’s own initiative. 6. The exact semantic nuances of katallassō/katallagē in the literary contexts of 2 Maccabees require further study. It has been pointed out that katallassō/katallagē is never used in the Septuagint to translate the root kpr for which cognates of the hilask-stem are used.

In the Second Testament there is only one single instance of diallassō/diallagē terminology. In Mt 5:24 Jesus says: “So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister {Gk [your brother]} has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, {Gk [your brother]} and then come and offer your gift”. This is an instance of the interpersonal use of the terminology. This text speaks about a precondition for offering one’s gift to God. The offended party (“if you remember that your brother or sister {Gk [your brother]} has something against you”) is required to take the initiative to bring about reconciliation. The verb is in the passive, but no agent is expressed. This leaves open how reconciliation is to come about precisely (except for the fact that the initiative is to come from the offended party). Only the result is seen as important for the permission to bring one’s gifts to the altar.

Similarly the only instance in the Second Testament where katallassō/katallagē is used in the interpersonal meaning. A wife who separates from her husband is told that she should remain unmarried “or else be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor 7:11 ). Again we hear nothing about the specifics of the process of reconciliation. As the passive voice indicates, here again only the result of achieved reconciliation counts for Paul.

The majority of the Second Testament occurrences of katallassō/katallagē terminology belongs to the religious use:

2 Cor 5:18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, {Or [God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself]} not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. 11 But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Rom 11:15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead!

The verb occurs five times (Rom 5:10 [bis]; 2 Cor 5:18.19.20) and the noun four times (Rom 5:11 ; 11:15 ; 2 Cor 5:18.19). The verb is twice in the active (2 Cor 5:18.19) and thrice in the passive (2 Cor 5:20 ; Rom 5:10 [bis]). God is the subject, Christ the one through or in whom reconciliation is achieved (2 Cor 5:18-19; cf Rom 5:10: “through the death of his son”) and beneficiaries of reconciliation are “we” (2 Cor 5:18 ) or the kosmos (2 Cor 5:19 ; Rom 11:15 ). The one to whom “we” or “the world” are reconciled is God. While it is clear that reconciliation is God’s initiative and God’s doing, the role of those who are expressed as direct objects of reconciliation is not clear. We could expect an answer to this question in 2 Cor 5:20 where Paul beseeches his addressees using an imperative: katallagēte tō(i) theō(i) and in Rom 5:11 where he uses the verb lambanō with reconciliation. Both times the original language is somewhat ambiguous as to the precise activity that is referred to. Does katallagēte tō(i) theō(i) mean “be reconciled to God”, “let yourselves be reconcilied to God” or “reconcile yourselves to God”? Does Paul expect of his addressees that they will passively allow God to reconcile them or does he implore them to actively reconcile themselves with God? Similarly in Rom 5:11 the question is whether elabomen means “we [passively] received” or “we [actively] accepted”.

The noun katallagē is used in Rom 5:11 and 11:15 not to refer to the reconciliation event in the past cross event, but to the moment when this past event reaches the person in the present. In Rom 5:11 Paul indicates this by using the titles “our Lord Jesus Christ” when he speaks about the one through whom we received/accepted reconciliation. In 11:15 Paul claims that the fact that his own people rejected the message about Jesus is the katallagē kosmou, the reconciliation of the world. This can hardly mean anything but that the past reconciliation event reaches the Gentiles. In 2 Cor 5:18-19 it is more difficult to determine precisely what Paul means by katallagē when he speaks of “ministry of reconciliation” and “word of reconciliation”. Here everything depends on the kinds of genitives that are used. We suggest that Paul speaks about a ministry and a word the content of which is katallagē, namely the past reconciliation event[7].

Finally we also have to note the double compound apokatallassō in Eph 2:16 and Col 1:20-22:

Eph 2:15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body {Or [reconcile both of us in one body for God]} through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. {Or [in him], or [in himself]} .

Col 1:20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. 21 And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled {Other ancient authorities read [you have now been reconciled]} in his fleshly body {Gk [in the body of his flesh]} through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him.

In Eph 2:16 and Col 1:21 -22 Christ is the subject of reconciliation (in Col 1:20 it is God). Similar to Rom 5:10 reconciliation is brought about through the death or the cross. The more open formulation of 2 Cor 5:18-19 with its reference to Christ[8] is now left behind for the more clearly defined reference to the cross or the death (Eph 2:16 ; Col 1:22 ; but note “through him” in Col 1:20 ). The verb is always in the active. The beneficiaries of reconciliation are the Jews and the Greeks (“both groups in Eph 2:16 ). all things ( Col 1:20 ) and those who were once estranged. The reconciliation statements in Eph 2:16 and Col 1:20-22 contain the nuance of reconciling conflicting parties to one another and in/through this to God (vgl. “in one body” in Eph 2:16 ; “in his fleshly body” in Col 1:22 ). In Col 1:21-22 the one to whom people are reconciled is not expressed. This could mean that the idea is that they are reconciled to one another.

Our analysis of the reconciliation terminology in the Second Testament has led to a number of important insights: 1. Except for Mt 5:24 all the uses of reconciliation terminology are found in the Pauline corpus. 2. The religious use is only found in the Pauline corpus. 3. Paul knows the interpersonal and the religious use of katallassō. 4. 2 Cor 5:18-20 is the earliest Christian use of katallassō/katallagē with a religious meaning. 5. The language of Lord and slave is absent in the Pauline use of katallassō/katallagē. In Rom 5:10 Paul uses the word “enemy” which implicitly refers to “friend”. 6. In Rom 5:9 Paul refers to “wrath” in the immediate context of the reconciliation statements, but there “wrath” is connected with future salvation, not with past reconciliation through the death of the Son of God. 7. The state of irreconciliation is referred to in the words for trespasses and sin in 2 Cor 5:19b.21a (and “living for oneself” in 5:15 ). In Romans 5 Paul refers to it by means of the word “enemy”. The focus, however, is on God’s or Christ’s love (Rom 5:5 and 2 Cor 5:14 ), not on rebuke or punishment. 8. The Pauline reconciliation texts also differ from the other biblical reconciliation texts in so far as they explicitly mention the one through whom and in whom God reconciles. In the earliest text Paul uses “through Christ” and “in Christ” without specifying whether he means the entire Christ event or one aspect, e.g. his death on the cross and/or his resurrection. In Rom 5:10 Paul clearly refers to the death on the cross (“through the death of his Son”, similar in Eph 2:16 and Col 1:22 ). The use of “in Christ” in 2 Cor 5:19 moves in the direction of making Christ the agent of reconciliation. From here it is only a small step to make Christ the subject of reconciliation statements as is the case in the Deutero-Paulines (Eph 2:16 and Col 1:22 ). 9. It is also unique in the Pauline corpus that besides the mediation or agency of Christ, there is also the ministry/word of reconciliation entrusted to Paul (and the apostles) (5:18c.19c)[9]. The latter is only mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5. According to 2 Cor 5:18-20 the gift or establishment of the ministry/word of reconciliation has its origin in the reconciliation event itself. This ministry consists in proclaiming the reconciliation event and inviting people to receive or accept it. It is open to discussion whether “proclaiming the reconciliation event” happens by word alone or also in Paul’s entire apostolic existence. 10. The exact semantic nuance of katallassō/katallagē in the literary contexts of the Proto- and Deutero-Pauline texts requires further study. Is its semantic domain to be strictly separated from the hilask-stem which expresses expiation of sins?

2. The katallassō/katallagē Statements in the Context of the Theo-Centric Section 5:18-21

After this overview of reconciliation statements in the Bible we now focus our attention on 2 Cor 5:14-21, the locus classicus of the Pauline theology of reconciliation. The subsection 2 Cor 5:14-17 can be called Christo-centric. Christ is referred to, albeit in different ways in almost every clause. In 5:18a the phrase “but all this is from God” (ta de panta ek tou theou) not only introduces the theo-centric subsection 5:18 -21, but also adds a theo-centric dimension to 5:14 -17. 5:18a thus provides a key to reading 5:14 -17 telling us that God the Reconciler is the one who is the origin (cf. ek) of Christ’s inclusive vicarious death for all and of being a new creation and the new way of knowing Christ that goes along with it. The Christo-centric statements of 5:14 -17 are present in 5:18 -19 in the phrases “through Christ” and “in Christ” and in 5:20 in the phrase “for Christ (hyper Christou) [bis]”. 5,21 refers to Christ without mentioning this title, but rather calling him “the one who did not know sin”.

In the theo-centric subsection 5:18 -21 almost every clause refers to God (theos), mostly as subject. In 5:18-19 God is presented as the subject and the indirect object of reconciliation (cf. 5:20 ). God does not count trespasses against the world. God also entrusts to Paul (and the apostles) the ministry of reconciliation or, in other words, establishes the word of reconciliation. God is also presented as the one who beseeches the Corinthians through Paul (and the apostles). In 5:21 , God is introduced as the one who made Christ who knew no sin to be sin. Here Paul also uses the phrase “justice/righteousness of God”. In fact the theocentric focus continues in 6:1-2. Here we hear about the “grace of God”. God is also presented as the one with whom Paul (and the apostles) works together. Moreover Paul gives a direct quote of what God says (6:2 quoting Isa 49:8 LXX), namely: “At the acceptable time I heard you, and on the day of salvation I helped you”.

5:21a He (= God) made the one who did not know sin [to be] sin for us (= all humanity),

2 Corinthians 5:18-21 presents a characterization of God. God is primarily presented in relationship to the world and to “us” in the perspective of the situation caused by human transgression and sin. It is assumed that human transgression and sin led to enmity and estrangement between God and the world/humans. God’s reaction to this situation is described as not counting trespasses against humans, as reconciling them to himself and as making it possible that they can become “justice/righteousness of God”. God’s attitude in all this can be summarized with the help of a phrase from 5:21a hyper hēmōn, for our sake, for our benefit. Here God is described as being in relationship with Christ. Reconciliation is achieved “through Christ” and “in Christ”. Opening the possibility of becoming “justice/righteousness of God” is realized by making Christ to be sin for us. The only action of God that is not brought about in or through Christ is “not counting their trespasses to them” (5:19b)[10].

In addition to Christ, God also relates to Paul and the apostles in dealing with the situation brought about by human sin. The way Paul and the apostles are involved in this activity is described as giving the ministry of reconciliation ( 5:18 ), entrusting the word of reconciliation ( 5:19 ), exhorting through Paul and the apostles ( 5:20 ), working together (6:1). This raises the question how the roles of Christ and Paul (and the apostles) relate to one another. In 5:20ac Paul emphatically stresses that he and the apostles in general beseech “in Christ’s place”. But this vicarious action is obviously limited to the imperative “Reconcile yourselves to God” ( 5:20 d). Christ is the one in and through whom God brought about reconciliation; Paul and the apostles are the ones through whom God brings this reconciliation to people. In so doing they take the place of Christ and God truly speaks through them.

In the narrative world of 5:14 -21 God is presented as the one who is completely for the sake of humans. Even in the situation of human rebellion and sin against God, God does not hold it against them, reconciles them to himself and gives them the possibility of sharing in God’s own “justice/righteousness”. At the same time it is striking that God does not achieve this alone, but in very close union with Christ. Christ acts as the means through which and the representative in whom God achieves all this. The phrases “through Christ” and “in Christ” reflect exactly what the passage 5:14-21 reflects as a whole. In 5:14 -17 Christ appears as the one who brought about the new creation. 5:18a tells us, however, that the origin of all this is in God. This is why in 5:18-21 the statements have God as their subject and Christ appears as the mediator and representative.

In the narrative world of 5:14 -21 God is the origin (cf. ek) of all the salvific action to deal with human sin. God takes the initiative. Christ and humans are acting in God’s service, as God’s representatives, but their roles may not be confused with one another. The question, however, remains whether God’s not counting trespasses against humans and reconciling them is unconditional or whether it is bound to certain conditions. This also raises the question what the death and resurrection of Christ have to do with all of this. These are questions which will concern us in the following section.

Analyzing the syntax of reconciliation statements in Greek we need to distinguish between instances where two and instances where three parties are involved. In the first case texts speak about reconciliation directly between two estranged parties. In the latter case, reconciliation happens by the mediation of a third party according to the model “C reconciles A and B with one another”. In 2 Cor 5:18-19 Paul uses the syntax of two party reconciliation, but incorporates some aspects of the third party mediation.

The syntax of two party reconciliation fundamentally allows for five patterns in constructions with active or passive forms of katallassō:

5. A and B reconcile with one another, e.g. God and human persons reconcile with one another.

In the biblical texts, katallassō is frequently used in the passive voice without indication of the agent (B is reconciled to A). Consequently the focus is on the resulting state of reconciliation, but it remains unclear who the reconciling agent is. There are two instances of the religious use of katallassō in Greek literature, one in Sophocles’ Ajax and the other in Plato’s Symposion[11]. Both times the syntactic pattern is “human persons are reconciled to the god/gods”. The agent could be “human persons” (pattern 3b; in this case the passive corresponds to a reflexive[12]) or god/gods (pattern 2b). The occurrences of katallassō in 2 Maccabees follow the syntactic pattern “God is reconciled to human persons”. Here again the agent could be “human persons” (pattern 4b) or God (pattern 1b, in this case the passive corresponds to a reflexive). Consequently some scholars understand 2 Maccabees to imply that “human persons reconcile God to themselves” with their prayers and offerings (pattern 4)[13]. Others, however, do not give the prayers such an important function and stress that according to 2 Maccabees God reconciles himself to human persons (pattern 1b) solely by virtue of his mercy[14]. In 2 Macc 1:5 (“May he hear your prayers and reconcile to you,”), the only occurrence of kastallassō in the active voice, the direct object is not expressed. However, here the implied object can hardly be anything but “himself”. This suggests that where 2 Maccabees uses katallassō in the passive voice, the implied agent is also God and the meaning is reflexive (pattern 1).

In 2 Cor 5:18-19 Paul uses active forms of katallassō according to pattern 2a when he says: God reconciled/was reconciling us/the world to himself[15]. This is the only place where in the extant Greek literature pattern 2a is used unambiguously when speaking about divine-human reconciliation[16]. But is the theology of reconciliation expressed here also unparalleled? The answer to this question depends on one’s interpretation of the reconciliation statements in Plato’s Symposion or in 2 Maccabees as analyzed above. If one understands 2 Maccabees to be speaking about human persons reconciling God to themselves, then Paul’s grammar of reconciliation is indeed unique in the Bible[17]. But if one reads the syntax in 2 Maccabees to refer to God reconciling himself to human persons, both this view and Paul’s have in common that God, not humans, takes the initiative in bringing about reconciliation[18]. There remains, however, a difference in the syntax of reconciliation. Paul does not say, as does Maccabees, that God reconciles himself to the world, but that he reconciles the world to himself[19].

This unavoidably leads to the question whether God is in need of reconciliation. On the basis of the specific syntax of Paul’s reconciliation statements in 2 Cor 5:18-19 and Rom 5:10, the majority of scholars concludes that in Paul’s view, God is not in need of reconciliation. This is usually interpreted as evidence for an understanding of God that is purified from any anthropomorphic emotions. This position goes along with a position that has a particular disdain for any theology that ascribes wrath to God. However, not everyone will agree with such a view.

If it is correct that 2 Cor 5:18-19 does not speak about God’s need to be reconciled, this could mean one of two things, namely one that there is no such need for God. However, it might also mean that Paul is simply not focusing on that issue in 2 Cor 5:18-19. Other scholars do not share this presupposition and assume that even the particular syntactic form of the reconciliation statements in 2 Cor 5:18-19 presupposes that God is in need of reconciliation. According to Dupont, God reconciles human persons by transferring them out of the reach of his wrath into the sphere of his mercy[20]. Dupont bases his interpretation on “change” as the fundamental meaning of katallassō[21]. According to him, Paul’s specific grammar of reconciliation does not refer to a change of subjective emotional dispositions, but to a change of an objective (juridical) status or sphere of peace. The question is, however, what is the basis of Dupont’s assumption that God was in a sphere of wrath. The reconciliation statements as such are not focusing on what is needed on God’s side. They concentrate on the side of human beings.

There are a number of parallels from the interpersonal sphere which show that, when reconciliation is at stake, the conflict is not always reciprocal. Nor is it totally unusual that the person who is not estranged from the other is the one who tries to bring about reconciliation. In Judg 19:1-3 LXX A we are told that the concubine was angry at the Levite and left him. Nothing is said about any estrangement of the Levite from the concubine. He rather travels to see her to speak to her heart in order to reconcile her to himself. Similarly in Mt 5:23-24 Jesus speaks of a situation where the person who brings the offering to the altar has nothing against his brother, rather his brother has something against him. Jesus exhorts him: “first be reconciled to your brother”. The task given here to the person implies “reconcile your brother to yourself”, even though the imperative passive seems to be chosen to focus exclusively on the result (“see to it that reconciliation will be a reality”) and not on the process how one gets there. At any rate, the person who is not having anything against his brother is here told to bring about reconciliation. In 2 Corinthians Paul presents himself as someone who does not have anything against the Corinthians, but who takes the initiative to reconcile the Corinthians to himself, even though he does not apply reconciliation terminology to his relationship with the community. This is particularly clear in 2 Cor 6:11-13: “We have spoken frankly to you Corinthians; our heart is wide open to you. There is no restriction in our affections, but only in yours. In return – I speak as to children – open wide your hearts also”. Without using katallassō or diallassō, Paul here makes an attempt to reconcile the Corinthians to himself.

On the basis of these observations it is not so unusual, and in the light of his relations with the Corinthians it is even to be expected that Paul would use a similar structure when addressing the issue of the divine-human relationship. In a context where it is very important for Paul to present himself as having no need of being reconciled, it does not come as a surprise that in Paul’s theology of reconciliation God needs no reconciliation[22].

The participial clause “not counting their trespasses against them” in 2 Cor 5:19b is another place where interpreters have found proof of God’s need for reconciliation. They are convinced that before the reconciliation event, God counted the trespasses against human persons and that Jesus’ death on the cross is what enabled God to stop counting trespasses. They arrive at this conclusion on the basis of a number of exegetical choices. First they assume that not counting trespasses is an action that chronologically follows upon God’s reconciling action[23]. But the participial construction in 5:19b can also express an action that preceded the reconciling action or that is simultaneous. From a logical perspective it could express the instrument of the reconciling action (“by”), the way or manner in which the reconciling action was realized, but also the reason why the reconciling action was possible. In the history of interpretation “not counting their trespasses against them” was understood frequently as precondition for reconciliation. Some saw it as an expression of forgiveness without which no reconciliation is possible or which is a consequence of reconciliation[24]. Others understood it as an expression of the justification of the sinner which reconciliation presupposes. A third group interprets 5:19b as an expression of expiation which is seen as being a necessary precondition for reconciliation.

It is important to note that 5:19b does not contain the expression “no longer” but “not”. In the immediate context in 5:15 and 16 Paul uses explicitly the adverbs mêketi and ouketi (no longer). We do not see any reason why he could not have used the adverb mêketi (no longer) instead of mê (not), had he intended to convey this idea. In relation to the periphrastic imperfect ên … katallassōn (“was … reconciling”), the present participle logizomenos (counting) seems more likely to express an ongoing action that preceded the reconciling action[25]. This would imply that God never ever counted their trespasses against them. In 1 Cor 13:5 Paul had stated that love “does not count evil”. It is clear in the context that this is a statement that applies unconditionally and is not limited in time. If this is true of love, could it be any less true of the God of love (2 Cor 13:11)? Both in 1 Cor 13:5 and in Rom 4:3.5.8[26] Paul uses the verb logizomai in the sense of unconditional or grace-ful counting. The counting or not counting happens purely because of grace and mercy, not because of any merit or duty. It is therefore highly unlikely that in 2 Cor 5:19b the condition for not counting trespasses is Jesus’ death on the cross. The participial clause “not counting their trespasses against them” tells us why God was able to reconcile the world to himself. Because God was not resentful, God did not take the human trespasses as a reason to reject human persons. For this understanding of 5:19b it is, however, essential not to assimilate the meaning of “not counting their trespasses against them” too quickly to forgiveness or other well-known concepts.

We are convinced that with “not counting trespasses” Paul tries to hold a middle ground between forgiving and forgetting. “Not counting trespasses” requires an acknowledgement that something went wrong. It acknowledges that there is no need to do as if it never happened (problem with forgetting or blotting out). It remains aware of the wrong, but is not resentful, i.e., does not allow it to harm oneself and the relationship any longer (the continued awareness of the wrong is stronger here than in forgiveness). Whoever does not count trespasses gives up the right of retribution of any kind. Finally not counting trespasses is offered freely, not based on merit or on the expectation of getting anything in return (as in forgiveness). God’s action in not counting trespasses is a radical effective action, not a juridical fiction. Many readers found this statement too radical and tried to get around it by understanding it not in an effective but in an imputative way. It is important to note that “not counting their trespasses against them” is seen as a deliberate act of God. It is not the same as forgetting or forgiving them. It rather refers to a conscious decision not allow oneself to be determined by trespasses and not to allow them to have power over oneself and the relationship. Here we see clear evidence that, even though Paul does not talk about God needing reconciliation, in his view God is potentially affected by human sin even if Paul is convinced that God did not allow human sin to be a determining force. Even in the event of sin, God remains God and does not allow sin and its consequences to gain the upper hand.

In my analysis of 2 Cor 5:14 -21, the imperative katallavghte tw'/ qew'/ in 5:20 d is the climax. Paul’s main point is not the message of God’s initiative of reconciliation, but the invitation to the Corinthian community to reconcile themselves to God. Everything leads up to this point. Even the continuation in chapter 6 illustrates this. As we have already said, 6:1 seems to us like a restatement of 5:20 in different words:

In 6:1 the message of God reconciling us/the world to himself is taken up in the expression “the grace of God”. The imperative katallavghte is rephrased as mhV eij" kenoVn devxasqai. The urgency of this appeal ( 5:20 and 6:1) is underlined with a direct quote (levgei gavr) from God as found in Is 48:9. Because of the central role the apostles have in the ministry/word of reconciliation, Paul is concerned that the Corinthians might not heed the appeal of 5:20 because he might be perceived as an obstacle (6:3). Therefore he recommends himself as a servant of God in a catalogue of hardships (6:4-10).

In this perspective it is noteworthy that the appeals Paul addresses to the Corinthians (see in Korivnqioi in 6:11 ) in 6:11 -13 and 7:2-4 have been understood as an invitation to reconcile with Paul. We quote John T. Fitzgerald: “Indeed, since there can be no reconciliation with God apart from a reconciliation with Paul as God’s ambassador, this appeal constitutes the real point of the apostle’s earlier exhortation to be reconciled to God (5:20)”. In light of the fact that all Paul does in 6:1-10 is first (vv. 1-2) reiterate his appeal of 5:20 and then attempt to remove whatever could prevent the Corinthians hearing that appeal. As 6:1-10 functions like a parenthesis in the line of thought, 6:11 -13 actually follow 5:20 very closely. With platuvnqhte kaiV uJmei'" and cwrhvsate hJma'" Paul addresses imperatives to the Corinthians which concern their relationship to him. But we need to note an imprecision in Fitzgerald’s position. Unlike Fitzgerald Paul does not use reconcile (katallavssw) when he appeals to the Corinthians, even though this verb was very commonly used for interpersonal relationships in the Greek of his day. It is, of course, always difficult to know why an author does not do a certain more or less expected thing. But to us the reason seems obvious. Paul does not use katallavssw because something amounting to an initial reconciliation had already happened according to the news Titus brought from Corinth . Paul will inform the addressees about this in 7:5-16, but even there he does not use katallavssw terminology. All Paul needs to request from the Corinthians after the metavnoia about which Titus informed him is that they widen their hearts for him ( 6:13 ; cf. 7:2).

Along the same lines we, of course, need to ask also why Paul appeals to the Corinthians to reconcile themselves to God in 5:20 , if an initial interpersonal reconciliation had already happened. I would like to suggest that after the initial interpersonal reconciliation Paul not only perceives a need to deepen the relationship (6:11-13; 7:2), but he also is convinced that the interpersonal conflict had a religious dimension and required the Corinthians to reconcile themselves with God or, in other words, not to accept God’s grace of reconciliation in vain, i.e., without fruit. A strict separation between statements about the interpersonal and the divine spheres which some scholars maintain seems difficult to defend in Paul’s letters and in particular in 2 Corinthians. In 5:15 Paul talks about living for the one who for us died and was raised. In 5:16a, however, it becomes clear that this is closely connected with living for other human beings, and in 5:16b Paul closely ties together knowing people according to the flesh and knowing Christ according to the flesh[27].

There are also interesting structural parallels between the relationship with God and the relationship between Paul and the Corinthians. Like God, Paul took the initiative and did everything possible on his part to restore the relationship. Both in their relationship with God and with Paul, the Corinthians are challenged to reciprocate, to do their part in the relationship.

By way of conclusion it seems important that Paul does not use katallavssw to describe the reconciliation with the Corinthians. Nevertheless the appeals in 5:20 and 6:11 -13 + 7:2-4 are closely connected to each other. The occasion why Paul appeals to the Corinthians to reconcile themselves with God is the conflict and initial reconciliation between the Corinthians and Paul. This is why it seems most likely to me that it was Paul himself who (probably as the first Christian) used the interpersonal katallavssw terminology to speak theologically about the cross event at a moment when he had experienced an initial interpersonal reconciliation. Here we fully agree with Seyoon Kim when he says: Paul “developed it [reconciliation] out of his theological reflection on his personal experience”[28]. The only point where I differ from Kim is that he thinks that the personal experience is the Damascus event whereas I think that it is his theological reflection on the immediately preceding experience of initial reconciliation with the Corinthians that led Paul to use katallavssw to give theological meaning to the cross event.

When Paul speaks about “reconciliation to God” in 2 Cor 5:18-20 his focus is on the human side. In what he explicitly says, the emphasis is on the human need for reconciliation. Nothing is said about a need of God to be reconciled. Because of this one-sided understanding, even Paul’s grammar of reconciliation is somewhat unusual. The participial clause “not counting to them their trespasses” in 5:19b is extremely important in this context. Far from justifying a view that would claim that God was reconciled by the death of Jesus on the cross and therefore ready to stop counting trespasses against the world, we tried to demonstrate in this paper that God never counted trespasses against the world and therefore was able to take the initiative in reconciliation.

[1] This was first proposed by Ernst Käsemann, Some Thoughts on the Theme 'The Doctrine of Reconciliation in the New Testament', in J.M. Robinson (ed.), The Future of Our Religious Past. FS R. Bultmann, London , 1971, pp. 49-64 which is the English translation of E. Käsemann, Erwägungen zum Stichwort "Versöhnungslehre im Neuen Testament", in E. Dinkler (ed.), Zeit und Geschichte. FS R. Bultmann, Tübingen: Mohr, 1964, pp. 47-59. Since then it has widely been accepted in the world of New Testament exegesis. Some pre-1964 studies and Bible translations might also use “to reconcile” and “reconciliation” to translate hilaskomai and hilasmos (similarly hilastērion is translated as “means of reconciliation”).

[2] Only three of the ten LXX uses of diallassō have the meaning “to reconcile”. Elsewhere it occurs in the meaning “to change”.

[3] There are only one two exceptions, namely Jer 31:39 where the verb is used in the meaning “to change”, and Isa 9:3 where the noun is translated by Brenton as “restitution”.

[4] 2 Macc 5:20 uses the noun katallagē in a passive meaning.

[5] See Cilliers Breytenbach, art. Versöhnung, in Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament 2005) 1777-1780, p. 1778: sees in 2 Macc 1:5; 7:33 and 8:29 the “Vorstellung, daß Gott, der menschlichen Bitte folgend, sich umstimmen bzw. seinen Zorn beschwichtigen läßt und sich mit den Menschen versöhnt (2Makk 1,5) oder versöhnt wird (… 2Makk 7,33; 8,29; …)”.

[6] Jacques Dupont, La réconciliation dans la théologie de saint Paul, in EstBib 11 (1952) 255-302, p. 264 : “Ni pour Josèphe ni pour le IIe Livre des Maccabées, Dieu n’est réconcilié par l’homme, mais, librement et de lui-même, il se réconcilie avec l’homme par pure miséricorde”.

[7] For a detailed discussion see Reimund Bieringer, Paul's Understanding of Diakonia in 2 Corinthians 5,18, in Reimund Bieringer & Jan Lambrecht (eds.), Studies in 2 Corinthians (BETL, 112), Leuven: University Press - Peeters, 1994, pp. 413-428, pp. 423-424.

[8] It is possible that what is meant here is also Jesus’ death on the cross, but even then it remains significant that the reference to Christ is broader and leaves more freedom to the reader to imagine or speculate what might be meant.

[9] This was stressed by Cilliers Breytenbach, art. Versöhnung, p. 1779. According to him Paul here casts himself in the role of the presbeutēs or diallaktēs, the peace negotiator known from extra-Biblical texts. More research is needed to see also the differences between this Hellenistic institution and Paul’s understanding.

[10] See below, p. ???.

[11] Sophocles, Ajax, 743-744, I: LSJ: “that he may be reconciled to them after his anger”; Ceslas Spicq, Notes de lexicographie néo-testamentaire (OBO, 22/1), Fribourg – Göttingen, 1978, vol. 1, p. 409, n. 3: “ Ajax , sur qui pèse la colère des dieux, s'efforce de se réconcilier avec eux par des rites expiatoires”.Plato, Symposion, 193 b): for having become friends and having (been) reconciled with the god, we shall find and receive the darling who are truly our darling.

[12] Cf. Spicq’s translation “se réconcilier” (see previous footnote).

[13] I.H. Marshall, The Meaning of Reconciliation, in R.A. Guelich (ed.), Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology. FS G.E. Ladd, Grand Rapids MI , 1978, pp. 117-132, p. 129: “the teaching of 2 Maccabees where men urged God to be reconciled to them and made an offering for their own sins to him and for the sins of the nation”.

[14] Jacques Dupont, La réconciliation dans la théologie de saint Paul, in EstBib 11 (1952) 255-302, pp. 263-264 : “L’idée n’est aucunement que Dieu ‘serait réconcilié’ par l’action des hommes, que les prières le rendraient réconcilié. Le contexte n’invite pas à entendre le verbe dans ce sens purement passif ; il faut le comprendre au sens réfléchi. Les prières invitent Dieu à modifier ses / dispositions, mais on sait qu’il ne les modifiera qu’en raison de sa miséricorde”. (…)“Ni pour Josèphe ni pour le IIe Livre des Maccabées, Dieu n’est réconcilié par l’homme, mais, librement et de lui-même, il se réconcilie avec l’homme par pure miséricorde. ‘Se réconcilier’ signifie, quand il s’agit de Dieu, mettre fin à sa colère, renoncer à ses griefs contre l’homme pécheur et lui rendre sa bienveillance” (p. 263-264).

[15] In Rom 5:10 Paul uses the passive voice of katallassō when he says: “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son”. Because of the prepositional phrase “through the death of his Son”, the implied agent is clearly God (pattern 1b).

[16] We only know of one instance of pattern 1a in the interpersonal use of an allassō-compound, namely Judg 19:3 LXX A (“to reconcile (diallaxai) her to himself”). The translation of Judg 19:3 by Brenton is based on LXX B: “2 And his concubine departed from him, and went away from him to the house of her father to Bethleem Juda, and she was there four months. 3 And her husband rose up, and went after her to speak kindly to her, to recover (epistrepsai) her to himself”.

[17] Marshall , Meaning, p. 129: “It is tempting to suppose that Paul’s teaching was formulated in conscious contrast to this Jewish attitude”.

[18] Dupont, Réconciliation, p. 264: “Il serait erroné d’opposer le vocabulaire de Paul à celui du IIe Livre des Maccabées”.

[19] Dupont “”acknowledges this difference, but ascribes less importance to it than other authors (see ibid., pp. 264-265).

[20] “Dieu réconcilie les hommes en les transférant en quelque sorte hors de la portée de sa colère en les plaçant dans sa paix” (ibid., p. 278). See also p. 279.

[21] Ibid., p. 256: “L’idée fondamentale de ces verbes paraît être celle de changement”.

[22] In 2 Corinthians Paul frequently uses allusions to biblical themes and he casts himself in a role close to that of God. We only refer to 2 Cor 11:1-3 where Paul compares his love to the Corinthians and his opposition to the opponents to God’s love for Israel and opposition to other gods (cf. the jealousy of God and Paul).

[23] Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC), Grand Rapids MI - Milton Keynes : Eerdmans - Paternoster, 2005, p. 444: “As a result of reconciliation … God no longer debits believers’ accounts with a listing of their trespasses”.

[24] Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 444: “perhaps the closest Paul or any NT writer comes to defining forgiveness”.

[25] For a detailed discussion of the syntactic structure of 2 Cor 5:19 see Reimund Bieringer, Kor 5,19a und die Versöhnung der Welt, in Reimund Bieringer & Jan Lambrecht, Studies on 2 Corinthians (BELT, 112, Leuven: Leuven University Press - Peeters, 1994, pp. 429-459.

[26] See Ps 31:2 LXX to which Paul refers in Rom 4:8: “Blessed the man against whom the Lord does not count sin at all”.

[27] Even though it is not exactly the same, we might also point to 11:2 (NJB): “The jealousy that I feel for you is … God's own jealousy” where Paul identifies (or compares) his own jealousy with that of God.

[28] Kim, 2 Cor. 5:11-21, p. 383.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wrestling Jacob - How Might Patristic Interpretation be Appropriated for Today?

Biblical studies are witnessing renewed interest in the history of interpretation, after the period of dominance of the historico-critical method. This paper will explore the ways in which this one episode in scripture has been interpreted in the past, especially the patristic period, and discuss how far it is possible to appropriate for today the approaches discovered. Inevitably the Christological interpretation of the Old Testament and the importance of typology will figure large in the discussion. But most important will be questions about how we could 'read ourselves' into the text as they did, and so be theologically illuminated and morally challenged.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mary of Magdala and Jesus of Nazareth: A Special Relationship in the Light of the Gospels

The relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene continues to stimulate our imagination. Mary was the most prominent of the women who followed Jesus. The Gospels tell us that she was present at the crucial moments between the crucifixion and the resurrection. She was a follower, a disciple of Jesus. Mary Magdalene was to the group of female followers what Peter was to the group of twelve men. But was she a converted prostitute? Was she the intimate companion of Jesus? Was she his wife and the mother of his child(ren)? The texts of the New Testament appear to assume a special personal relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. But was there more to it? The most important New Testament text in this respect is John 20:1-18, where Mary Magdalene all by herself meets the risen Christ in a scene that has a very personal feel to it. Central to this meeting, particularly in the Western tradition, is the prohibition issued by the risen Christ, which is rendered in the Latin translations as Noli me tangere. Since the 9^th century, this scene has been depicted in Western art under the title of Noli me tangere, becoming a classic icon of the West. This essay, written for the exhibition catalogue, explores the New Testament background of the Noli me tangere motif in art, also paying attention to what we can learn about the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

When the Noli me tangere motif in art was developed, the Western Church read the Bible in Latin. Noli me tangere is the Latin translation of the Greek mhV mou a{ptou in John 20:17 . But the Latin translation, which means ‘Do not touch me’, is not the only possible translation. The description of the encounter between Mary Magdalene and the risen Christ is formulated in such an open way in John 20:16-17 that it leaves a lot of room for different interpretations.

In an attempt to understand the precise meaning of Jesus’ words, the first question must relate to what it is that prompts Jesus to issue such a prohibition. The text itself does not indicate any plausible reason. According to 20:16 , Mary turns to Jesus and says: ‘Rabbouni’. Jesus immediately responds with the command mhV mou a{ptou. A small part of the textual tradition attempted to fill this gap by adding an explanatory parenthesis at the end of 20:16 : ‘and she ran towards Him so that she could touch Him’. The earliest example of this addition was by the first corrector of the Codex Sinaiticus (a¹), dated between the 4^th and the 6^th century.[1] Textual criticism demonstrates that it is unlikely that ‘and she ran towards Him so that she could touch Him’ was originally part of 20:16 . This addition is more likely an indication of the fact that, even at a very early stage, it was felt that a step in the story was missing between 20:16 and 20:17 . Seen from the point of view of narrative criticism, however, it is to be expected that not every step of the events in a story will be recorded. Skipping a step gives the readers the impression that the events take place more rapidly than the narrator can keep up with.

If we try to understand the text as it is recorded in the Gospel of John, we may also wonder whether it is an expression of movement in the context that has given rise to the prohibition issued by Jesus. In 20:16 the narrator tells us that Mary turned to Jesus and spoke to him. If the turning implies the idea of ‘a movement towards’, then the command could mean ‘do not come any closer’ (to embrace me, for example), ‘keep your distance’. Another indication that may support this reading is the fact that Jesus calls Mary by her name. This could be understood in the sense of John 10:3-4, which says that the good shepherd calls the sheep by name and that he goes before them and they follow him. The prohibition in 20:17 could then be seen as a warning to Mary that she should not connect hearing her name with following Jesus. Another possibility is that the statement of 20:17 , ‘I have not yet ascended to the Father’[2], expresses Jesus’ fear or suspicion that Mary Magdalene would like to stop him. In that case, it is not a prohibition on touch, it is a command that Mary Magdalene should not hold on to Jesus. It is therefore evident that the meaning of Jesus’ words varies according to the interpretation of the reason for the prohibition.

This brings us to the following question: what are the possible meanings of mhV mou a{ptou? In order to answer this question, we must study the meaning of the verb a{ptomai (haptomai) and the question what kind of touching it was that Jesus had in mind. We must also consider more closely the significance of the verb form (present imperative) in 20:17 and the question of exactly what it is that Jesus is forbidding. Finally, we must also attempt to discover what motivation Jesus has for forbidding whatever it is that he forbids in 20:17 .

The many interpretations, both textual and iconographic, to which John 20:17 has been subjected, have automatically, without conscious reflection or argumentation, assigned very different meanings to the verb a{ptomai. The main question relates to the intention behind Mary Magdalene’s attempt to touch Jesus and the reason for Jesus’ rejection of the attempt. Many readers of John 20:17 believe that Mary Magdalene wanted to verify the physical reality of the person that she saw before her, so that she could be sure that it was not her imagination or a ghost. But this interpretation projects the issue of the story of Thomas (20:24-28) onto the story of Mary Magdalene and does not take into account the immediately preceding ‘Rabbouni’ of 20:16, which demonstrates that Mary Magdalene had no doubts about the physical reality of the person she encountered.[3]

Other scholars base their interpretation on the address: ‘Rabbouni’. According to them, by using this form of address which was usual for the disciples before Jesus’ death, Mary Magdalene reveals that she sees no discontinuity between the person who is standing before her and the earthly Jesus. By addressing Jesus as ‘Rabbouni’ and by the desire for contact that is expressed by the verb a{ptomai, Mary Magdalene supposedly attempts to communicate with the risen Christ as she was accustomed to doing during his earthly life.

Within this interpretation a number of variations are possible regarding the specific meaning of the verb that is used. Firstly, it is claimed that Mary Magdalene wishes to embrace Jesus after she has recognised him in order to welcome him back following several days of absence and to express her affection. Secondly, there is one author who asserts that the verb here may even have the connotation of ‘to cleave unto’ and is an allusion to Genesis 2:24 where the idea of ‘to cleave unto’ refers to a marital relationship. A third interpretation posits that Mary Magdalene wishes to hold on to Jesus in an attempt not to lose him again. In this argument, reference is sometimes made to Song of Songs 3:4: ‘I held him (krate/w, krateô), and would not let him go until I brought him into my mother’s house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.’ Certain scholars in the past have made use of Luke 7:36-50, which focuses on touching, to put forward a fourth thesis regarding the interpretation of John 20:17: ‘She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, ‘If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching (a3ptetai) him – that she is a sinner.’ (Luke 7:38-39). The exegetical and liturgical identification of Mary Magdalene with the sinner of Luke 7:36-50, now almost universally accepted as incorrect, allowed connections to made between the prohibition of John 20:17 and the act of touching in Luke 7:36-38. In other words, the interpretation of Mary Magdalene as a converted prostitute[4] meant that sexual overtones were attributed to mhV mou a{ptou in John 20:17 (cf. the Latin translation Noli me tangere), in spite of the conversion of Mary Magdalene and her rejection of her past and despite of the fact that mhV mou a{ptou is now used the context of a resurrection appearance. These connotations were notably absent from the tradition of the Orthodox Church, where Mary Magdalene was never seen as a converted prostitute.

Finally, John 20:17 is interpreted with the help of Matthew 28:9-10, which describes Mary Magdalene and the other Mary meeting the risen Jesus. After Jesus has greeted them, they go to him, take hold of his feet and worship him. Taking hold of his feet is neither about verifying the physical reality of the risen Jesus, nor is it an attempt to continue the relationship with the earthly Jesus. It is more an expression of humility and adoration. But the differences between Matthew 28:9-10 and John 20:17 are enormous. The Greek verbs are not the same (kratevw instead of a{ptomai), the fourth gospel says nothing about feet or about adoration, and in Matthew 28:9-10 Jesus does not resist the women taking hold of his feet.

Following this overview of the interpretations of the prohibition in John 20:17, it seems appropriate to explore the linguistic background. The verb a{ptomai means ‘to touch’ in the general sense, i.e., the contact itself, without any explanation of the kind of contact. Where the use of a{ptomai does refer to a particular type of contact, this is made clear by the context. The fourth gospel uses a{ptomai only in 20:17 . Does a{ptomai here have the meaning of ‘to touch’ in the general sense or does something in the context suggest that a{ptomai is referring to a specific type of contact? The principal types of contact described by a{ptomai are having ritual contact (to sanctify or to desecrate), having contact with dead bodies, having healing contact, having sexual intercourse, approaching someone or something spatially, touching emotionally and injuring. We have not found any examples in the Bible where a{ptomai is used for touching something for the purpose of verification. Greek uses the verb yhlafavw (psêlaphaô) to express this. Neither have we discovered it being used in the sense of ‘to grasp/to hold on to’ or ‘to cleave/cling to’, which Greek usually renders by kratevw or proskollavomai respectively. We have found no examples in the sense of ‘to embrace’ either.

This question about the meaning of a{ptomai is closely related to the question of the object of a{ptomai. In John 20:17, the object is expressed by the personal pronoun of the first person singular (mou, or ‘me’), which refers to Jesus in this context. The contact that is refused therefore relates to the whole person, not just to the hands or the feet, for example. It is possible that Mary Magdalene wants to touch the feet of Christ and that he forbids it with the words: ‘Touch me not.’ The use of a personal pronoun referring to the whole body does therefore not give any indication of what part of the body Mary Magdalene wants to touch. ‘Touch me not’ does, in fact, seem to express a general prohibition on touching, regardless of what part of the body Mary Magdalene is trying to touch.

The meaning of mhV mou a{ptou is also connected to the mood and tense of the verb, namely the present imperative. Greek distinguishes between the present imperative and the aorist imperative. According to the grammar books, the present imperative has the meaning: stop the action that has already begun. The aorist imperative does not specify whether the action has begun or not. This difference is the reason why most modern exegetes translate the present imperative mhV mou a{ptou in John 20:17 as ‘Do not hold on to me’ (meaning ‘stop holding on to me’). Such an interpretation makes it possible to eliminate the perceived tension between the invitation to touch in the case of Thomas (John 20:27 ) and in one of the resurrection stories in the Gospel of Luke (24:39) on the one hand and the prohibition in John 20:17 .[5] For if ‘do not hold on to me’ is the correct translation, then John 20:17 does not actually forbid touching but only clinging. This interpretation is also attractive because it makes it possible to counter the accusation that the Gospel of John is hostile to the body,[6] because this interpretation says that Jesus allows touching and only rejects the fact that Mary clings to him.[7]

An analysis of the negative imperatives (prohibitions) in the Gospel of John also reveals that only one negative imperative in the present tense unambiguously indicates the prohibition of an action that has already begun. This is John 2:16, in which Jesus commands those in the temple to stop making his Father’s house a marketplace.[8] In the other places where the present imperative is used by John, we found no difference between the present imperative and the aorist imperative.[9] It therefore seems unlikely that the present imperative in John 20:17 expresses the durative aspect and must be translated by ‘Do not hold on to me’. It is perhaps more likely that the present a3ptou is intended to express the conative aspect. Then John 20:17 would be the rejection of an attempt to act and should be translated as: ‘Do not attempt to touch me’. The logic of the story itself does not support the idea that Jesus is forbidding an action that has already begun. After Mary has addressed Jesus as ‘Rabbouni’, Jesus immediately says: mh_ mou a3ptou. Therefore it seems more likely that the meaning is: ‘Do not attempt to touch me’ or ‘Do not approach me.’ This is also more in line with the meaning of the verb a3ptomai, which, as we saw above, does not include ‘hold on to’.

After we have investigated what intention Mary Magdalene might have had with the action described by a{ptomai, we must also consider what reason Jesus might have had for his prohibition of the (intended) action. The fundamental question is whether the reason is to be found in Mary Magdalene or in Jesus. If the reason lies with Jesus, then it could be a reason that has always been valid (including during his earthly life as well), a reason that is connected to the particular state of Jesus between resurrection and ascension, and a reason that is linked to the divine sphere in which Jesus resides after the resurrection. In the first case, the avoidance of a touch with sexual overtones and the prohibition addressed to Mary Magdalene convey the idea that their relationship cannot be consummated in a marriage. If the prohibition in John 20:17 is connected to the fact that he has not yet ascended to his Father ( 20:17 ), then some scholars assume that Jesus wants to avoid becoming unclean by being touched before the ascension. On the other hand, the motivation for the prohibition may also be connected with the fact that his resurrection appearance should not be confused with his ‘coming again’, which is announced in 14:3. If we assume that Jesus’ resurrection means that he has already entered completely into the divine sphere, then his mhV mou a{ptou is intended to emphasise that this resurrection is not the same as a mere return to earthly life. It is no longer possible to enter into contact with the risen Christ in the same way as with the earthly Jesus, but instead that contact is possible through the Holy Spirit and through the community of believers. But if Mary Magdalene knows that the risen Christ who is standing before her belongs to the divine sphere and if with the action described as a{ptesqai she intends only to make sure that she is not seeing a ghost, then it is impossible to find a reason in the risen Christ for the prohibition issued in 20:17.

Some authors see the reason for the prohibition expressed by mhV mou a{ptou not with Jesus, but with Mary Magdalene. If the prohibition is connected to the fact that Jesus has not yet ascended to his Father, then they believe that the issue of touching comes down to the fact that Judaism traditionally forbids the touching of corpses. The command is therefore intended to prevent Mary Magdalene becoming unclean. If the prohibition is to be seen in the light of the completely different state of the risen Christ brought about by the resurrection (and ascension to the Father), then the prohibition is motivated by the inadequacy of Mary’s ability to perceive, as she is unable to recognise the Lord as the one who is with the Father. Another possibility is that the prohibition of 20:17 can be attributed to the fact that Mary Magdalene has not yet received the Spirit.

This overview may suffice to illustrate the very wide variety of interpretations of John 20:17. These are partly to be explained by the ambiguity of a number of central aspects in the original text. They are at least partly also the result of a lack of careful linguistic analysis and study of the literary context. In the past readers have been too quick to import new meanings based on supposed parallels. To avoid this problem, the rest of this essay will concentrate primarily on the context of the New Testament, particularly that of the Gospel of John.

The prohibition issued by the risen Christ in John 20:17 (whatever it might precisely mean) is unique in the New Testament, but it is not the only unique element in the Johannine resurrection appearance narrative. In order to understand John 20:17 better, it is necessary first to situate the resurrection in John 20:11-18 in its New Testament context.

According to the oldest Gospel (Mark 16:1-8), when the sabbath was over, three women bought spices to anoint Jesus and they went to the tomb very early in the morning. Among the three women Mary Magdalene is mentioned first.[10] They found the stone rolled back and in the tomb they saw a young man who told them the news of the resurrection and gave them a message for ‘his disciples and Peter’ (16:7). Verses 9-20 of Mark 16 are now generally seen as a later addition to the Gospel, because they are missing from the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. This means that the original Gospel of Mark contained nothing about Jesus’ appearance after the resurrection. There is, therefore, no place in this Gospel for a Noli me tangere scene.[11]

In Matthew’s version of the story (28:1-10), a lot of elements are different. Instead of three women, Matthew speaks about two women who go to the tomb. Mary Magdalene is still named first. There is no reference to spices or to the anointing of the body. Their intention was rather to go and see the tomb. Outside (not in tomb) they met an angel who told them that Jesus was risen and he gave them a message for ‘his disciples’ (28:7). According to Matthew, the women did as they were asked. As they went to tell his disciples, Jesus met them. They ‘took hold of his feet, and worshiped him’ (28:9). To the great surprise of the reader who is familiar with John, Jesus allowed his feet to be taken hold of and offered no resistance. Jesus gave them the same message for his ‘brothers’ that the angel had already given to the women.

The narrative of the discovery of the empty tomb in the Gospel of Luke (24:1-12) is close to Mark in many respects, but it also differs substantially from it. Luke names the three women and also adds ‘other women that were with them’ (24:10). As in Mark, the women took spices to the tomb, and they also entered the tomb. There they met two men who told them that Jesus had risen. Luke is the only synoptic gospel in which the women are not immediately made into messengers for the male disciples and in which no resurrection appearance is announced. The women believed the two men and ‘told all this to the eleven and to all the rest’ (24:9), even though they had not been given this task. But the ‘apostles’ did not believe the women. Later, when Jesus appeared to the eleven and their companions (24:36-49), Jesus explicitly invited them: ‘Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have’ (24:39).

According to the Gospel of John (20:1-18), Mary Magdalene went alone to the tomb. No reason is given for her decision to visit the tomb. Instead of entering the tomb, she ran to Peter ‘and to the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved’ and they came to investigate. Only after they had returned home ( 20:10 ) did Mary Magdalene approach the tomb. She did not enter, but looked into the tomb, where she saw two angels. Unlike in the synoptic gospels, these angels did not have the function of announcing the news of the resurrection. Instead they asked Mary Magdalene: ‘Woman, why are you weeping?’ ( 20:13 ). Mary turned and saw Jesus, without knowing who he was. In contrast with the synoptic gospels, the empty tomb narrative in the Gospel of John makes no reference to the resurrection.[12] The role of the angels is considerably reduced in John, with the whole weight being placed on the encounter between Mary Magdalene and the risen Christ. In John 20:11-18, Jesus does not introduce himself by a greeting (Matthew 28:9) or by a peace wish (Luke 28:36), but by saying the name ‘Mary’ (John 20:16 ). Mary Magdalene immediately identifies him as ‘Rabbouni’. This means that it is not necessary for her to touch him to identify him. This appearance thus differs from Luke 24:39 where Jesus encourages his followers to do touch him to realize that he is not a ghost (cf. John 20:24 -29). This raises the question why Jesus issues the prohibition mhV mou a{ptou, which the Latin tradition translates as Noli me tangere. The reason that Jesus gives for the prohibition is also unique: ‘I have not yet ascended to the Father’ ( 20:17 ). As in Mark and Matthew, the Mary Magdalene of John also receives a message for the ‘brothers’, the male disciples.[13] But rather than the prediction that he will go to Galilee (see Mark and Matthew), Jesus announces in John 20:17 that he is ‘ascending to my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God’. Mary Magdalene delivers the message ( 20:18 ). Nonetheless Jesus later appears to the disciples ( 20:19 -23 and 20:24 -29).

The comparison of the stories of the resurrection in the four gospels demonstrates that the focus in John 20:1-18 is on the encounter between Mary Magdalene and the man she recognises as ‘Rabbouni’. The big difference is that, unlike the synoptic gospels, the Gospel of John does not have the news of the resurrection immediately announced by messengers (a young man, an angel, two men). Whilst the readers are informed about the resurrection in the parenthesis of 20:9, in the story itself it is not clear at that point what had happened to the body of Jesus. The tension is increased by the fact that Mary repeats three times that she does not know where they have taken her Lord: ‘They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him’ (20:13; cf. 20:2 and 15). Even in the scene where she recognises Jesus, it remains unclear whether Mary Magdalene understands that Jesus is risen from the dead. Only when she announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord ( 20:18 ; cf. 20:25 ) does the reader who is familiar with the language of the New Testament recognise a complete faith in the resurrection. The meeting between Mary Magdalene and the risen Christ in John 20:11-18 is comparable with Luke 24:1-12. Mary Magdalene, like the women in Luke, is not demoted to being a mere messenger who has to announce a resurrection appearance to the male disciples without being taken seriously herself as a recipient of the communication about the resurrection as happens in Mark and Matthew.

The comparison of John 20:1-18 with what the synoptic gospels have to say about the empty tomb and the risen Christ makes clear the unique character of the story as told by John. In no other place in the resurrection appearances does the risen Christ refuse contact or touch. This passage should, therefore, be understood in its Johannine context. The whole Gospel should be used to come to a deeper understanding of John 20:17. The Greek verb that John 20:17 uses means ‘to touch’ in a general sense without specifying the nature of the touch. In the fourth gospel, this verb is used only in 20:17 . Other verbs of touch are practically absent from this Gospel. The synoptic healing stories, where a{ptomai is often used, are mostly missing from the Gospel of John. When the Johannine Jesus heals, he seems more distant.

But we should not be misled by these lexical data. Without using verbs of touch, the fourth evangelist still attaches a great deal of importance to companionship and closeness. The fourth gospel often emphasises that Jesus is with God and that the Son is on the lap of the Father ( 1:18 ).[14] Jesus is with the disciples and the disciples are with Jesus. The Paraclete sent by the Father will also be with the disciples. John also speaks about the mutual indwelling of Father and Son, and about the unity of the Father and the Son and of the disciples with each other.

The passage describing the encounter between Jesus and Mary Magdalene also has many parallels in the Gospel of John. Many elements of the story are prepared and announced earlier in the gospel. In 20:11 and 15, Mary is standing weeping by the tomb. What happens here is predicted by Jesus in 16:20 : ‘Very truly, I tell you, you will weep and mourn, but the world will rejoice; you will have pain, but your pain will turn into joy.’ The calling of Mary’s name in 20:16 is reminiscent of the good shepherd of 10:3-4: ‘... He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.’ Here we should note an important difference, the fact that in 20:16-17 the good shepherd who calls the name of Mary specifically does not want her to follow him, as we can see from the prohibition of 20:17. Jesus had also foretold: ‘A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me.’ ( 16:16 ). Against this background, it is no surprise that Mary says in 20:18 ‘I have seen the Lord’.

We also note important parallels between John 20:14-18 and the call of the first disciples in 1:38 -39. In 1:38 , Jesus turns and sees the disciples. In 20:14 , Mary turns (twice) and sees Jesus standing there. In 1:38 , Jesus asks the followers of John: ‘What are you looking for?’; in 20:15 , Jesus asks Mary ‘Whom are you looking for?’.[15] The disciples address Jesus as ‘Rabbi’, but Maria uses ‘Rabbouni’, the more emphatic, perhaps more familiar form. Both ‘Rabbi’ and ‘Rabbouni’ are translated as ‘teacher’. In 1:41 , Andrew goes to find his brother Simon and says: ‘We have found the Messiah.’ Similarly Mary Magdalene says to the disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord’ ( 20:18 ).

The big difference between the two passages is that Jesus invites the two disciples in 1:39 : ‘‘Come and see [where I stay]’. They came and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day’, whilst he refuses this closeness to Mary in 20:17 . In the context of the whole gospel, however, this refusal is not issued on principle, but is related to this particular situation. It marks the move to a phase between the ascension of Jesus and his return, the phase in which the disciples know only each other’s closeness and companionship. This unity occurs in the Spirit that Jesus sends them. So mh_ mou a3ptou implicitly means: Do not seek companionship or closeness with me in the period until my return, but seek it in the believing community. This is why Mary Magdalene is sent to the a)delfoi/, the brothers and the sisters, i.e., to the community.[16]

In 14:2-3, Jesus proclaims: ‘… I go to prepare a place for you 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also.’ According to the logic of the fourth gospel and based on the statement in 14:2-3, Mary Magdalene, as soon as she sees Jesus, must expect that he has come again to take her to himself. After recognising him, it is therefore completely logical that she would take a step towards Jesus. By opposing this move and motivating the prohibition with the words, ‘I have not yet ascended to the Father’, Jesus is telling Mary that he cannot yet take her to himself, because he has not gone away to prepare a place for her. In the message that Mary must bring to the ‘brothers’ (‘to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’), the promise of togetherness that is given in 14:3 (‘so that where I am, there you may be also’) has not yet come to fruition, but is implicitly promised once again for the time after Jesus has ascended to the Father. When Jesus appears to the disciples that same evening, they do not have the same reaction as Mary Magdalene, because she had informed them of the fact that Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father (see 20:18 ). These observations clearly illustrate the fact that John 20:11-18 is closely interwoven with the rest of the Gospel of John and that this is the context within which this passage must be interpreted.

This means that the narratives of the appearances of the risen Christ to Mary Magdalene ( 20:11 -18) and to Thomas ( 20:24 -28) need to be respected for their differences. Each appearance narrative has a different function, the touching plays a different role. It is therefore too simplistic to say that Mary Magdalene is not permitted to touch the risen Christ, whereas Thomas is. Thomas refuses to believe at the moment when the disciples confess: ‘We have seen the Lord.’ The invitation to Thomas to ‘Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side’ ( 20:27 ) implies touching as a way of verifying; it is an invitation to faith (‘Do not doubt but believe’ in 20:27 ). The encounter with Mary Magdalene is not about faith. Mary testifies that she has seen the Lord ( 20:18 ). If a{ptomai in 20:17 had the same meaning and function as the touching of Christ’s hand and side in the narrative of Thomas, this would mean that Mary Magdalene arrived at faith in the resurrection because of the prohibition on touching Christ to verify the truth, whereas Thomas’ faith would come about through this verifying touch (or at least the invitation to do so) (see 20:28). As has already been mentioned, it seems unlikely that Mary Magdalene’s wish which is presupposed in 20:17 but which is not granted by the risen Christ, is an expression of her lack of faith in the resurrection. This discussion is closely related to the question of whether by addressing Jesus as ‘Rabbouni’ Mary Magdalene is attempting to continue communicating with Jesus as she was accustomed to doing during his earthly life. However, as some scholars believe, ‘Rabbouni’ might actually be an expression of her faith in the resurrection.

This contextual study of the meaning of mhV mou a{ptou in John 20:17 has resulted in the translation ‘Do not attempt to touch me’ or ‘Do not come closer to me’. The verb a{ptomai is seen as a verb of movement. Instead of allowing her to come to him, Jesus sends Mary Magdalene to the disciples (‘Go to my brothers and say to them’, 20:17 ). The verbs a{ptomai and poreuvomai are antithetical expressions of movement in 20:17 . After Mary has already turned around twice (in 20:14 and 16), she must once again turn from Jesus and go to his ‘brothers’ (and sisters?). The prohibition of closeness or touch is not intended to paralyse Mary Magdalene. Rather her new task and mission sets her in motion to join the community of disciples. In this interpretation of John 20:17 , this verse says nothing about an intimate relationship (with or without a sexual connotation) between Mary Magdalene and Jesus.

The command ‘Do not come closer to me’ has nothing to do with any shortcoming in Mary Magdalene (as a disciple or as a woman). In the fourth gospel, the prohibition simply indicates a transition from the time when the disciples were close to the earthly Jesus and the time when the disciples may have only the closeness of each other in the believing community under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In this scene, Jesus diverts Mary Magdalene’s attention from himself to the believing community of disciples. In John 20:11-18, the focus is not on the mhV mou a{ptou of John 20:17 , but rather on the task that is given to Mary Magdalene.

The almost exclusive emphasis on the Noli me tangere in Western art is not justified. Representations of the Noli me tangere motif should be accompanied by representations of Mary Magdalene on her way to the ‘brothers’ or of her passing on the message to them. Regrettably Western art rarely depicts Mary Magdalene in the scenes following her encounter with the risen Christ. Instead the emphasis is on the Noli me tangere motif. Thus Western art inadvertently says more about the image of women operative in the surrounding contemporary cultures than it does about Mary Magdalene in John 20:11-18.

[1] A similar addition can be found in the Old Syriac translation Vetus Syra, which dates back to the 3^rd or 4^th century.

[2] The Scripture quotations in this article are taken from the New Revised Standard Version.

[3] This is also confirmed by the fact that Mary Magdalene first believed the person she met to be the gardener (see 20:15 ).

[4] The identification of Mary Magdalene with the sinful woman of Luke 7:36-50 did not necessarily have to mean that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute before she met Jesus, because ‘sinner’ can refer to other sins than sexual sins. But during the history of interpretation, the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50 was usually interpreted as being a prostitute.

[5] See also Matthew 28:10, where the risen Christ does not oppose the women taking hold of his feet.

[6] For a positive interpretation of the perception of the body in the Gospel of John, see Luise Schottroff, The Samaritan Woman and the Notion of Sexuality in the Fourth Gospel, in Fernando F. Segovia (ed.), "What is John?" (SBL Symposim Series, 7), vol. 2: Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel, Atlanta GA : Scholars Press, 1998, pp. 157-181. For a non-dualistic interpretation of the antithesis of ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ (cf. John 3:6 and 6:63), see Mary Elsbernd and Reimund Bieringer, When Love Is Not Enough: A Theo-Ethic of Justice, Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2002, p. 63.

[7] But see Harold W. Attridge, ‘Don’t be touching me’: recent feminist scholarship on Mary Magdalene, in Amy-Jill Levine (ed.), A Feminist Companion to John (Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings, 5), vol. 2, London - New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003, p. 142, n. 6: ‘Whether Jesus issues a prohibition of a possible or actual embrace, he rejects it and so manifests a negative stance toward contact’.

[8] However, this is rarely reflected in Bible translations. See, e.g., the King James Version: ‘make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise’ and the Revised Standard Version: ‘you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade’. Exceptions are the New American Bible and the New Revised Standard Version: ‘Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace’.

[9] The use of the present imperative and the aorist imperative is distributed fairly evenly throughout the NT and the Gospel of John (697 occurrences, with 58 of them in John; and 692 occurrences, with 74 of them in John). The situation is, however, very different with regard to negative imperatives (prohibitions). The negative present imperative is used 137 times in the NT, 16 of which are in the fourth Gospel. The fourth Gospel does not include one single example of the negative aorist imperative and the whole NT contains only six uses (these statistics are based on GRAMCORD). According to the grammar of Blass-Debrunner-Rehkopf § 335, in some cases the difference of aspect (durative – non-durative) between the present imperative and the aorist imperative has been lost. They believe that the aorist imperative comes across more forcefully than the present imperative.

[10] For a survey of Mary Magdalene in the New Testament, see Reimund Bieringer, Mary Magdalene in the Four Gospels, in The Bible Today 43 (2005) 34-41.

[11] In the longer ending ofo Mark, which was probably added to the Gospel in the second century and which appears to be a harmonising summary of the accounts of the resurrection in the other three Gospels, it does say that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene (16:9), but this is all that is said about the encounter.

[12] Cf. the explanatory parenthesis in John 20:9: ‘For as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.’

[13] In Mark 16:7 the message is given by the young man; in Matthew 28:7 by the angel; but in Matthew 28:10 and John 20:17, it is given by Jesus himself.

[14] Cf. Bianca Lataire, The Son on the Father's Lap: The Meaning of eij" toVn kovlpon in John 1:18 , in SNTU 22 (1997) 125-138.

[15] According to some scholars this shift from ‘what’ to ‘whom’ illustrates the transformation from impersonal to personal religious searching, as intended by the fourth Gospel.

[16] In 19:25 -27, where Mary Magdalene appears for the first time, the same occurs in the new relationship between the mother of Jesus and the beloved disciple.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5:20	6:1
uJpeVr Cristou' ou\n presbeuvomen
wJ" tou' qeou' parakalou'nto" di= hJmw'n	sunergou'nte" deV kaiV parakalou'men
deovmeqa uJpeVr Cristou':
katallavghte tw'/ qew'/.	mhV eij" kenoVn thVn cavrin tou' qeou' devxasqai uJma'"