James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls II (60 page)

Later Luke 24:10 groups Mary Magdalene and Joanna with another ‘Mary’ – this time, ‘
Mary (the mother) of James
’, all pointedly denoted in 24:1 once again as ‘
some
’. For Mark 16:1, the parallel trio is ‘
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome
’ –
Salome
here clearly taking the place of
Joanna
– and it is now these ‘
who bring perfumes
’ or ‘
aromatics that they might come and anoint him
’. Once again we have the ‘
coming
’ allusion coupled with the ‘
anointing
’ one, but now we have two more ‘
Mary
’s
coming to Jesus to
‘
anoint him
’ (living or dead, as in this case – it hardly matters).

While in Luke 24:10 it is this trio who report ‘
these things
’ – meaning,
the empty tomb
,
the two Angels
‘
in shiny white clothes
’, and
what they said –
‘
to the Apostles
’; in Mark 16:5, as in Matthew 28:2, only one Angel ‘
clothed in a white robe
’ is seen in the empty tomb. Of course Mark’s version of such post-resurrection appearances is considered defective by most scholars. Still for Mark 16:9, Mary Magdalene alone, as we just saw, is – as in John 20:14–17, for whom there are (as in Luke 24:4) ‘
two Angels sitting in the tomb in white clothing
’ (20:12, the complexity of these inter-relationships becoming legion) – the recipient of Jesus’ first post-resurrection appearance. This she duly reports, as in John 20:18,
to the Disciples
, whereas in Matthew it is the two
Mary
s who report the ‘
Angel of the Lord
’, ‘
with a gaze like lightning and his clothing white as snow
’, and the fact of
the empty tomb
to
the Disciples
(28:2–3). In Luke 24:4 and 10, it is ‘
two men
’ – later identified as
Angels
– and now it is
the three women
, including ‘
Joanna and Mary (the mother) of James
’, making the report, this time
to the Apostles
.

Of course for John, too, it is ‘
the Disciple whom Jesus loved
’ who ‘
outruns Peter
’ for the honor and is
the
‘
first
’
to enter the empty tomb
, where he sees the linen cloths and the napkin for his head rolled up to one side – Mary still ‘
standing
’ outside weeping –
but no Angels
(20:2–11). It was only after this and after
the Disciples had gone home
that Mary ‘
stooped down into the tomb
’ and gets her vision of the ‘
two Angels in white
’ and following this, as usual,
Jesus
‘
standing
’
behind her
(
n.b
.
, ‘
the Standing One
’ ideology again). So in the end in John we have ‘
three
’
people
entering the tomb, but not the ‘
three
’ reported in the Synoptics. For Matthew 28:7–8, it is only ‘
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
’ (whoever she may be) who experience this and they are instructed to report this at one point ‘
to the Disciples
’ – and, at another (28:10), ‘
to my brothers
’ – as Mary Ma
g
dalene is in John 20:17 – not, as in Luke 24:10, ‘
to the Apostles
’.

It is perhaps because of the nature of such a post-mortem encounter with Jesus that Mark 16:9 includes at this point Luke 8:2’s earlier characterization of
Mary Magdalene
as having
been possessed by
‘
seven demons
’. Instead, however, of ‘
going out of
’ her – as Luke and Mark 7:19’s own picture of Jesus’ words concerning what ‘
went out into the toilet bowl
’ – now the ‘
se
v
en demons
’ are characterized as being
‘
cast out of her
’ (
ekbeblekai
) by Jesus. The usage is yet another variation of his own ‘
ekballe
’ earlier in his version of the Greek Syrophoenician woman’s request to Jesus ‘
to
cast
the demon
out
of her daughter
’ (Mark 7:26) and the ‘
ekballetai
’ in Matthew 15:17’s version of the food ‘
cast out
down the toilet drain
’ excursus preceding this.

Mary Magdalene, Jairus’ Daughter, the Woman with ‘
the Fountain of Blood
’ and Jesus’ ‘
Feet
’ Again

Interestingly enough, the parallel at this point in Matthew 28:9 which, while ignoring the allusion in Mark to ‘
casting out
’
vis-a-vis
Jesus’ treatment of Mary Magdalene’s ‘
seven demons
’, once more picks up another important notation from this circle of related usages – that of
Jesus
’ ‘
feet’.
We shall continue our consideration of these sometimes repetitious allusions, because the mutual reverberations resound back and forth in so many different combinations and permutations that something edif
y
ing usually emerges from their analysis, even if only because of the slightly differing contexts with or perspectives from which they start.

As Matthew 28:9 puts this – now with only two women: ‘
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
’ and like Mark 16:5, which probably derived from it, only one Angel ‘
whose face was as lightning and his clothing white as snow
’: ‘
Lo and behold Jesus met them … and they
came
to him
,
took hold of his
feet
and worshipped him’
!

So now we have two ‘
Mary
’s ‘
coming to
’
Jesus
and
falling at
‘
his feet
’ – not one as in John and Luke’s
Mary
,
Martha
, and
Lazarus
scenarios – one called ‘
Mary Magdalene
’ and the other ‘
Mary the mother of James and Salome
’ (Mark 16:1). Elsewhere – as in Mark 15:47 – this ‘
Mary
’ is called ‘
Mary the mother of Joses
’ and, in Mark 15:40 earlier, ‘
Mary the mother of James the less and Joses
’. We have already treated to some extent in
James the Brother of Jesus
these multiple confusions and overlaps b
e
tween ‘
mothers
’, ‘
brothers
’, and ‘
cousins
’ of Jesus (including even the one presumably between ‘
Joses
’ and Jesus himself) as the doctrine of the supernatural Christ gained momentum in the early Second Century and beyond.
3

This allusion to ‘
falling at his feet
’ is also reprised in Mark 7:25’s picture of the
Greek Syrophoenician
woman (whom we have already connected to some extent to the picture of Mary Magdalene – to say nothing of Queen Helen of Adiabene) ‘
fal
l
ing at his feet
’ above. It is also reprised in John 11:32’s picture of Lazarus’ sister ‘
Mary
’ – after Jesus ‘
came
’ to Bethany the s
e
cond time – and how after ‘
coming
’ to him,
she
‘
fell at his feet
’ (‘
come
’ repeated about seven times in eight lines – not to me
n
tion a number of other times throughout the episode).

But this same ‘
Mary
’ had earlier in John 11:2 (repeated more dramatically in 12:3) had already
taken
‘
the  litra of precious spikenard ointment and anointed Jesus
’
feet
’
with it
, ‘
the house being filled with the odor of the perfume
’. The same allusion to ‘
feet
’ was replicated in Luke 10:38–42, but this time it was ‘
Mary sitting at Jesus
’
feet
’
while Martha complained about ha
v
ing to do
‘
so much serving
’. Again in this last, there is the possible play in
Jesus
’
response (
‘(
she
)
has
chosen the good part
’)
to Martha’s complaint over Mary’s having
‘
left her alone to serve
’ in Luke 10:42 on the critique of ‘
the Lying Spouter
’ and ‘
the Seekers after Smooth Things
’ – ‘
the Pharisees
’ and ‘
the Pauline Christians
’, as we have defined them – at the end of the First Column of the Cairo Damascus Document.
4

These last were described in CD 1.19 in terms of ‘
choosing the fair neck
’ (evidently meaning ‘
the good part
’ or ‘
the easiest way
’) and connected to ‘
seeking Smooth Things
’ and ‘
watching for breaks
’ in the passage from Isaiah 30:10–13 being drawn on there. The reason the Damascus Document gives for applying this allusion (‘
choosing the fair neck
’) to such persons is b
e
cause ‘
they chose illusions
’, ‘
condemning the Righteous and justifying the Wicked
’ – the opposite, it should be appreciated, of the proper ‘
Justification
’ activity by
the Sons of Zadok
later in the same Document of ‘
justifying the Righteous and condem
n
ing the Wicked
’, ‘
transgressing the Covenant and breaking the Law
’.
5

Nor is this to mention that the issue of these ‘
feet
’ is so much a part of these Talmudic traditions, not only regarding the various daughters of these proverbial ‘
Rich Men
’, but also ‘
the Poor
’, who ‘
gather up the woollen garments that were laid down
’ so the ‘
Rich
’ Nakdimon’s ‘
feet
’
would not have to touch the ground
. Again there is the motif of ‘
touching
’ here, already variously underscored above in episodes involving
the
‘
touching
’
of both Jesus
’ and
James
’
person
,
fringes
, or
clothes
. More
o
ver this same ‘
touching
’ theme, along with a number of other motifs, will again
intrude into the incidents surrounding another character – this time, in the Synoptics – named ‘
Jairus
’ and designated as ‘
a Ruler
’ (compare with how John 3:1 designates ‘
Nicodemus
’) or ‘
Ruler of the Synagogue
’, and
yet another individual whose daughter will need to be cured
(Matthew 9:18–26/Mark 5:21–43/Luke 8:40–56).

Here, too, in both Mark 5:22 and Luke 8:41, ‘
Jairus
’ is described as ‘
falling at his (Jesus
’
) feet
’.
6
This is interrupted by the ‘
coming
’ of another in this endless series of unnamed women – this one now described as ‘
with a flow of blood for twelve years
’ (Mark 5:25/Luke 8:43/Matthew 9:20). Here, again, there is another use of the miraculous number ‘
twelve
’, which will then be the age of Jairus’ daughter in Mark 5:42 and Luke 8:42 and, of course, Jesus’ age in Luke 2:42 when ‘
sitting among the teachers in the Temple
’, and the number of ‘
talents
’ and ‘
water cisterns
’ in the Nakdimon story, to say nothing of the ‘
twelve handbaskets full of broken pieces
’, ‘
gathered up
’ (like ‘
the Poor
’
do Nakdimon
’
s
‘
woollen clothes
’) in the aftermath of Jesus’ miraculous
famine relief
/
signs
demonstrations in all Gospels.