Is it possible the Samaritan woman at Jacobs well is Mary Magdalene?

[Crown_of_Stars]

The Magdelene was purposely conflated with that woman (the foot washer) early on in a shameless attempt to disgrace her: being independent and being the first to see the risen Christ rubbed many men in the early church the wrong way…

If anything, Mary, His mother, might first have seen Him, and there was just no record of it.
Did the early church fathers really hate women that much, do you think? If women are garbage, and our only role to be forever kept under the foot of men, God wouldn’t have created us. No. He, Himself, saw that the first Man was incomplete…hear that?..without the Woman.

 

[patrick457]

Not necessarily.

Eh, no it does. Because:

(1) If Mary M. was a Jewess (as is implied by ‘Magdalene’), what was she doing in Samaria? Conversely, if she was actually a non-Jew (a Samaritan), what was she doing in Magdala? John himself says that “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.” Seriously, this was the time period when Samaritans could do stuff like murder Galilean pilgrims going to Jerusalem and scatter human bones in the Temple during Passover, and when Jewish mobs in return would burn Samaritan villages and kill their inhabitants.

(2) There is no tradition that I know of that insinuates Mary M. was not Jewish.

(3) The first people to try to connect Mary M. with the Samaritan woman that I know of were the Cathars in the 13th century. They insinuated that the Samaritan woman and the woman taken in adultery were actually Mary M. all along, and that she was actually the wife or the concubine of the second, evil Jesus. (The Cathars supposedly believed that there were two Christs: the good one who was a purely invisible, spiritual entity, and His evil counterpart who had a physical body. This ‘bad Jesus’ was the one who was born and crucified in this world, they supposedly said.)

 

[jcrichton]

Because in that citation Mark says that Mary Magdalene had 7 devils cast out of her, it would be easy to confuse her with the woman either caught in adultery, or the woman that washed the feet of Jesus with her tears and her hair, neither of whom are named.

This was in response to the poster that had said:

I am not sure which two Marys you are referring to…

Hi!

The issue was the Samaritan woman at the well; the OP inquired about the possibility of her being Mary Magdalene; the issue then travelled to Lazarus’ sister, another Mary.

…so while it is true that the Samaritan woman and the woman “caught” in adultery are not named, Lazarus’ sister, Mary, is identified as the woman that washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and poured alabaster perfume on His head and she is known to have lived in Lazarus’ home, in Bethany/Bethania.

The original issue (the Samaritan woman) cannot be confused with any of the Mary’s since she was not a Jewess; conversely, Mary Magdalene cannot be confused with Lazarus’ sister since they lived quite a huge distance apart (Mary of Magdala was known to have been from the region of the Sea of Galilee, about 70 miles from Jerusalem and Bethany).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[James248]

Eh, no it does. Because:

(1) If Mary M. was a Jewess (as is implied by ‘Magdalene’), what was she doing in Samaria? Conversely, if she was actually a non-Jew (a Samaritan), what was she doing in Magdala? John himself says that “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.” Seriously, this was the time period when Samaritans could do stuff like murder Galilean pilgrims going to Jerusalem and scatter human bones in the Temple during Passover, and when Jewish mobs in return would burn Samaritan villages and kill their inhabitants.

(2) There is no tradition that I know of that insinuates Mary M. was not Jewish.

(3) The first people to try to connect Mary M. with the Samaritan woman that I know of were the Cathars in the 13th century. They insinuated that the Samaritan woman and the woman taken in adultery were actually Mary M. all along, and that she was actually the wife or the concubine of the second, evil Jesus. (The Cathars supposedly believed that there were two Christs: the good one who was a purely invisible, spiritual entity, and His evil counterpart who had a physical body. This ‘bad Jesus’ was the one who was born and crucified in this world, they supposedly said.)

I was speaking of Mary M. and Mary sister of Lazarus. Sorry I confused you.

 

[James248]

Hi!

The issue was the Samaritan woman at the well; the OP inquired about the possibility of her being Mary Magdalene; the issue then travelled to Lazarus’ sister, another Mary.

…so while it is true that the Samaritan woman and the woman “caught” in adultery are not named, Lazarus’ sister, Mary, is identified as the woman that washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and poured alabaster perfume on His head and she is known to have lived in Lazarus’ home, in Bethany/Bethania.

The original issue (the Samaritan woman) cannot be confused with any of the Mary’s since she was not a Jewess; conversely, Mary Magdalene cannot be confused with Lazarus’ sister since they lived quite a huge distance apart (Mary of Magdala was known to have been from the region of the Sea of Galilee, about 70 miles from Jerusalem and Bethany).

Maran atha!

Angel

Mary of Bethany could have moved to Magdala to indulge herself without her family in the way. Didn’t the first anointing of Jesus take place in Galilee at the home of Simon? And isn’t Mary of Bethany identified by John as this woman?

1
Now a man was ill, Lazarus from Bethany,a the village of Mary and her sister Martha.
2
Mary was the one who had anointed the Lord with perfumed oil and dried his feet with her hair; it was her brother Lazarus who was ill.

Even John makes that connection!

 

[jcrichton]

Mary of Bethany could have moved to Magdala to indulge herself without her family in the way. Didn’t the first anointing of Jesus take place in Galilee at the home of Simon? And isn’t Mary of Bethany identified by John as this woman?

1
Now a man was ill, Lazarus from Bethany,a the village of Mary and her sister Martha.
2
Mary was the one who had anointed the Lord with perfumed oil and dried his feet with her hair; it was her brother Lazarus who was ill.

Even John makes that connection!

Hi, James!

…but the connection is with the woman that washed Jesus’ feet not with Magdalene.

…again, while any person could move from town to town, that person would not be known by the various towns but by the town of origin (be that of birth or the town to which he/she belongs).

…as far as I can remember, not once in Scriptures is Mary of Magdalene associated with Lazarus.

…but, I can see your point; Mary could have disguised herself and traveled to the area of Galilee… and it could be that the Gospel Writers did not make the connection of the two Mary’s being one and the same.

Yet, if we follow the line in St. Luke 7, it places Jesus in Capernaum, then in the town of Nain, then at the house of the Pharisee–it seems that Jesus was traveling away from Galilee and towards Jerusalem when He encountered Lazarus’ sister, Mary; so it is more likely that Mary of Magdala is in deed a different person than Mary of Bethany, Lazarus’ sister.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[James248]

Hi, James!

…but the connection is with the woman that washed Jesus’ feet not with Magdalene.

…again, while any person could move from town to town, that person would not be known by the various towns but by the town of origin (be that of birth or the town to which he/she belongs).

…as far as I can remember, not once in Scriptures is Mary of Magdalene associated with Lazarus.

…but, I can see your point; Mary could have disguised herself and traveled to the area of Galilee… and it could be that the Gospel Writers did not make the connection of the two Mary’s being one and the same.

Yet, if we follow the line in St. Luke 7, it places Jesus in Capernaum, then in the town of Nain, then at the house of the Pharisee–it seems that Jesus was traveling away from Galilee and towards Jerusalem when He encountered Lazarus’ sister, Mary; so it is more likely that Mary of Magdala is in deed a different person than Mary of Bethany, Lazarus’ sister.

Maran atha!

Angel

So? Mary M., a.k.a. Lazarus’ sister could have gotten wind of where Jesus was going and tracked Him to Simon’s house.

 

[patrick457]

Mary of Bethany could have moved to Magdala to indulge herself without her family in the way. Didn’t the first anointing of Jesus take place in Galilee at the home of Simon? And isn’t Mary of Bethany identified by John as this woman?

1
Now a man was ill, Lazarus from Bethany,a the village of Mary and her sister Martha.
2
Mary was the one who had anointed the Lord with perfumed oil and dried his feet with her hair; it was her brother Lazarus who was ill.

Even John makes that connection!

There’s this theory that John’s gospel was written to complement and even correct the gospel of Mark. In other words, John’s aside here is meant to tip off those who have already heard or read about the story of the anointing of Jesus in Mark’s gospel.

 

[James248]

There’s this theory that John’s gospel was written to complement and even correct the gospel of Mark. In other words, John’s aside here is meant to tip off those who have already heard or read about the story of the anointing of Jesus in Mark’s gospel.

Or better yet, John is tipping off Luke’s audience.

2. Because S. John (xi. 2) writes, It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick, thus plainly alluding to this passage of S. Luke, and signifying that only one woman anointed the Lord. For if there had been more than one, the words just quoted would have insufficiently described her. But the meaning is, “when I say Mary, I mean the penitent who anointed the feet of the Lord, as recounted by S. Luke, whom all know to be Mary Magdalene.”

 

[patrick457]

Or better yet, John is tipping off Luke’s audience.

2. Because S. John (xi. 2) writes, It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick, thus plainly alluding to this passage of S. Luke, and signifying that only one woman anointed the Lord. For if there had been more than one, the words just quoted would have insufficiently described her. But the meaning is, “when I say Mary, I mean the penitent who anointed the feet of the Lord, as recounted by S. Luke, whom all know to be Mary Magdalene.”

Richard Bauckham (cited in the link I gave) actually addresses this:

The narrative functions performed by verses 1-2 together are two: (1) They introduce three important characters, who enter the Gospel’s narrative at this point, by identifying one of them, Mary, as the woman about whom hearers/readers already know the story of her anointing of Jesus, and the others as her siblings. (2) They distinguish the Bethany where the three reside from the other Bethany in the Fourth Gospel, “Bethany beyond Jordan” (1:28), where Jesus is at this point in the narrative (10:40-42). The knowledge presupposed in the implied readers/hearers by these two functions is knowledge that readers/hearers of Mark have: they know of a woman who anointed Jesus in the Bethany that is near Jerusalem (Mark 14:3-9; cf. 11:1, 11). Readers/hearers of Luke would not have the required knowledge, since it is not the sisters Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42, not located in Bethany) of whom readers/hearers of John 11:1-2 are expected to have heard, but a woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany near Jerusalem.

I think the confusion here is because you’re conflating the anointing Jesus received in the house of Simon the Pharisee somewhere during His ministry (Luke) with the one he received in Bethany before His passion (Mark, Matthew, John). Granted, some people do assume that Luke’s account is just an alternate version of the one recorded in the other gospels, but even if we assume ‘Simon the leper’ = ‘Simon the Pharisee’ and ‘woman accused of many sins’ = ‘Mary of Bethany’ (?), it still would not equate to ‘Mary of Bethany’ = ‘Mary of Magdala’.

 

[James248]

Richard Bauckham (cited in the link I gave) actually addresses this:

The narrative functions performed by verses 1-2 together are two: (1) They introduce three important characters, who enter the Gospel’s narrative at this point, by identifying one of them, Mary, as the woman about whom hearers/readers already know the story of her anointing of Jesus, and the others as her siblings. (2) They distinguish the Bethany where the three reside from the other Bethany in the Fourth Gospel, “Bethany beyond Jordan” (1:28), where Jesus is at this point in the narrative (10:40-42). The knowledge presupposed in the implied readers/hearers by these two functions is knowledge that readers/hearers of Mark have: they know of a woman who anointed Jesus in the Bethany that is near Jerusalem (Mark 14:3-9; cf. 11:1, 11). Readers/hearers of Luke would not have the required knowledge, since it is not the sisters Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42, not located in Bethany) of whom readers/hearers of John 11:1-2 are expected to have heard, but a woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany near Jerusalem.

I think the confusion here is because you’re conflating the anointing Jesus received in the house of Simon the Pharisee somewhere during His ministry (Luke) with the one he received in Bethany before His passion (Mark, Matthew, John). Granted, some people do assume that Luke’s account is just an alternate version of the one recorded in the other gospels, but even if we assume ‘Simon the leper’ = ‘Simon the Pharisee’ and ‘woman accused of many sins’ = ‘Mary of Bethany’ (?), it still would not equate to ‘Mary of Bethany’ = ‘Mary of Magdala’.

The anointings were different, but the same woman performed them. And it’s pretty interesting that Luke mentions Mary Magdalene a few verses later. So, that may not be how you read it, but that’s how I do so…

 

[patrick457]

The anointings were different, but the same woman performed them. And it’s pretty interesting that Luke mentions Mary Magdalene a few verses later. So, that may not be how you read it, but that’s how I do so…

She was not the only woman mentioned though, so who knows? Could have been anyone of them, or not.

Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources.