Comment on St. Mary Magdalene icon by Theophilia
Comment History
Very nice. About time Mags got a look in! Much as I always imagined her. (Appreciate the dedication.) I think it's quite likely that Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and the unnamed sinner in Luke were the same person. John's gospel has Mary of Bethany anointing Christ, Luke the unnamed sinner. There is no mention in any gospel of there being more than one significant anointing of Christ while he was alive, so it seems reasonable to suppose these accounts refer to the same event. The first mention of Mary Magdalene in Luke is right after the anointing episode. Then all the gospels make Magdalene the leader of the women who go to anoint the body after the Crucifixion, so it would seem fitting that same woman has the task. Some people want to accuse the Papacy (in the person of Gregory the Great) of being up to no good in identifying Magdalene with the sinner, as though it were some move to slander her or minimise her importance, but I don't see how that would necessarily work. There are also two references to seven devils being driven out of Magdalene. Very few people with that many devils in them could maintain a respectable reputation and avoid the committing of any sins, I suspect.
Counting against the identification, however, is that Magdala and Bethany are not in the same region (though it is not impossible that the same family could have homes in different places). Also the Greek tradition maintains that they were distinct. This was among the things debated by Eastern and Latin clergy at the time of the crusades.
May as well mention my book on the subject... www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00D3MT7LA…
Counting against the identification, however, is that Magdala and Bethany are not in the same region (though it is not impossible that the same family could have homes in different places). Also the Greek tradition maintains that they were distinct. This was among the things debated by Eastern and Latin clergy at the time of the crusades.
May as well mention my book on the subject... www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00D3MT7LA…
Yay! I'm glad you like her! 
After doing a lot of reading and researching on the subject I've come to the same conclusion too.
I like the quote from Frank Sheed where he says, "Was Mary of Bethany Mary Magdalen? Glance at Jesus’ answer to the criticism of her extravagance: it is given slightly differently by Matthew, Mark and John: but in all it linked her act of anointing of his body for burial. And Mary Magdalen was one of those who brought the ointment to the tomb—the ointment they did not need to use. Here in Bethany was the anointing for the burial." I had not thought of that before I read it, so I thought that was a cool link he made there.
Yeah, I never really quite understood the vehement opposition to Mary Magdalene being identified with the sinful woman. The whole point is to hold her up as a great woman of bold faith and a great example of God's mercy. That's supposed to be an encouragement to the rest of us (if she can come back from being possessed by seven demons to being a great saint, what could hold us back?
).
There's another passage from Frank Sheed's To know Jesus Christ where he addresses that. "Was Mary of Bethany Mary of Magdala? Bethany was in Judea, Magdala in Galilee. It is not improbable that a Galilean family should have moved to Judea, and it would be easier to account for Jesus' friendship if they were Galileans: Magdala is only a dozen miles or so from Nazareth. It is hard to believe that the Mary who was absorbed in contemplation of Him in Bethany did not travel the two miles to be with Him on Calvary. It is hard, too, to believe that the Mary who anointed His feet in Simon's house--"For my burial" Our Lord said--would not have been of the party that brought sweet spices to anoint Jesus in the tomb. Beyond that we cannot go..."
Huh, that would be pretty interesting to read about, certainly! I chuckled a little when I read this reviewer's take on your book "The only caveat lector is that the author sometimes loses sight of his main subject whilst discussing the Crusades - understandable, given Napier's other publications." Haha...guilty as charged?
That would definitely make it more interesting reading to me, certainly! 
Yeah, I remember also reading about a controversy in the Reformation era between St. John Fisher (who later got his head cut off by Henry VIII) and Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples, who argued the the separate identities of Mary Magdalene, the sinful woman, and Mary of Bethany. Fisher replied in a work called De Unica Magdalena (1519) arguing that she was one and the same person. So the debate has certainly been around for awhile.
After doing a lot of reading and researching on the subject I've come to the same conclusion too.
I like the quote from Frank Sheed where he says, "Was Mary of Bethany Mary Magdalen? Glance at Jesus’ answer to the criticism of her extravagance: it is given slightly differently by Matthew, Mark and John: but in all it linked her act of anointing of his body for burial. And Mary Magdalen was one of those who brought the ointment to the tomb—the ointment they did not need to use. Here in Bethany was the anointing for the burial." I had not thought of that before I read it, so I thought that was a cool link he made there.Yeah, I never really quite understood the vehement opposition to Mary Magdalene being identified with the sinful woman. The whole point is to hold her up as a great woman of bold faith and a great example of God's mercy. That's supposed to be an encouragement to the rest of us (if she can come back from being possessed by seven demons to being a great saint, what could hold us back?
).There's another passage from Frank Sheed's To know Jesus Christ where he addresses that. "Was Mary of Bethany Mary of Magdala? Bethany was in Judea, Magdala in Galilee. It is not improbable that a Galilean family should have moved to Judea, and it would be easier to account for Jesus' friendship if they were Galileans: Magdala is only a dozen miles or so from Nazareth. It is hard to believe that the Mary who was absorbed in contemplation of Him in Bethany did not travel the two miles to be with Him on Calvary. It is hard, too, to believe that the Mary who anointed His feet in Simon's house--"For my burial" Our Lord said--would not have been of the party that brought sweet spices to anoint Jesus in the tomb. Beyond that we cannot go..."
Huh, that would be pretty interesting to read about, certainly! I chuckled a little when I read this reviewer's take on your book "The only caveat lector is that the author sometimes loses sight of his main subject whilst discussing the Crusades - understandable, given Napier's other publications." Haha...guilty as charged?
That would definitely make it more interesting reading to me, certainly! Yeah, I remember also reading about a controversy in the Reformation era between St. John Fisher (who later got his head cut off by Henry VIII) and Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples, who argued the the separate identities of Mary Magdalene, the sinful woman, and Mary of Bethany. Fisher replied in a work called De Unica Magdalena (1519) arguing that she was one and the same person. So the debate has certainly been around for awhile. I do like your depiction. (Never saw her as a red-head, either, so this is more like my mental picture than the various auburn-haired Magdalenes of medieval and renaissance art- though I do like Titian's 'Noli Me Tangere' scene. Less so his overly fleshly 'penitent'.) You've also given her a sense of dignity and resoluteness, which is probably appropriate.
Good points about Christ's portentous response, and defence of the anointing woman's actions, which prefigure the funereal anointing.
Being identified (in the West) with the sinner clearly made Magdalene a symbol of potential redemption. That may have given her some connection to the crusading movement, which was also concerned with penitence and forgiveness of sins. Hence Vezelay, which housed her relics (or was thought to prior to the 'invention' further South) became a major mustering point for crusades. Also the legend of her evangelism in France gave her an association with the conversions of pagans and the expansion of the faith. And her role at the crucifixion and resurrection also caused her to be associated with the Holy Sepulchre and devotion thereat. One could contend that she led the first pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre. (Mary of Bethany appeared in one of the medieval lintels over the church of the Holy Sepulchre's entrance, depicting the raising of Lazarus, which survives though not in situ, and apparently there used to be a mosaic of the 'Noli Me Tangere' encounter in the blank arches above that.
The humility involved in penitence is probably something that makes identification with the penitent sinner unfashionable in certain more recent, politicised circles. You get some radicals who seem to want her to he the Gnostic high priestess from the get-go, not to mention matriarch of the Merovingians, living Holy Grail and that jazz.
Fisher was a decent fellow. I'm not a big fan of Henry VIII.
Good points about Christ's portentous response, and defence of the anointing woman's actions, which prefigure the funereal anointing.
Being identified (in the West) with the sinner clearly made Magdalene a symbol of potential redemption. That may have given her some connection to the crusading movement, which was also concerned with penitence and forgiveness of sins. Hence Vezelay, which housed her relics (or was thought to prior to the 'invention' further South) became a major mustering point for crusades. Also the legend of her evangelism in France gave her an association with the conversions of pagans and the expansion of the faith. And her role at the crucifixion and resurrection also caused her to be associated with the Holy Sepulchre and devotion thereat. One could contend that she led the first pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre. (Mary of Bethany appeared in one of the medieval lintels over the church of the Holy Sepulchre's entrance, depicting the raising of Lazarus, which survives though not in situ, and apparently there used to be a mosaic of the 'Noli Me Tangere' encounter in the blank arches above that.
The humility involved in penitence is probably something that makes identification with the penitent sinner unfashionable in certain more recent, politicised circles. You get some radicals who seem to want her to he the Gnostic high priestess from the get-go, not to mention matriarch of the Merovingians, living Holy Grail and that jazz.
Fisher was a decent fellow. I'm not a big fan of Henry VIII.
Yeah, I've typically seen her depicted as having blonde hair in art.
Huh, I did not know that connection! And thank you for sending me the manuscript of your book! That was very generous of you!
I'll definitely do some reading on her connections with the crusading movement (which of course, are utterly fascinating ).
Hahah, "unfashionable" certainly is the way to put it. But then, so is taking responsibility for one's own actions and owning up to one's mistakes. These days it's much more fashionable to play the victim card (and it's just easier to blame other people for one's own problems). But I suppose those are also perennial faults of human nature as well. Once again, another reason Magdalene is laudable. Being honest with oneself is the first stage of humility and penitence.
Me neither.
Whenever I read about the English Reformation it just makes me depressed. Though one of the best novels I've read on the subject (and one of the best historical novels I've ever read period) is Man on a Donkey by H.F.M. Prescott dealing with exactly that time period.
Huh, I did not know that connection! And thank you for sending me the manuscript of your book! That was very generous of you!
I'll definitely do some reading on her connections with the crusading movement (which of course, are utterly fascinating ). Hahah, "unfashionable" certainly is the way to put it.
But then, so is taking responsibility for one's own actions and owning up to one's mistakes. These days it's much more fashionable to play the victim card (and it's just easier to blame other people for one's own problems). But I suppose those are also perennial faults of human nature as well. Once again, another reason Magdalene is laudable. Being honest with oneself is the first stage of humility and penitence.Me neither.
Whenever I read about the English Reformation it just makes me depressed. Though one of the best novels I've read on the subject (and one of the best historical novels I've ever read period) is Man on a Donkey by H.F.M. Prescott dealing with exactly that time period.Hope the manuscript is of interest, or parts of it at least.
There are only fleeting references to Magdalene in the Templars' rule. No evidence of particular devotion, though in the context of absolution they prayed that God would pardon their sins as he forgave the blessed Magdalene. So obviously their view of the saint was fairly typical for the West.
Indeed.
The 'Reformation' is a depressing topic, if only from an art/heritage standpoint. The destruction was incalculable. (There again gothic monasteries also look good in ruins, so there is that). It wasn't just images and stones that were destroyed, though. When you hear about the sadism unleashed (such as the cruel fate of of the last abbot of Glastonbury) it's hard to see it as a positive development.
There are only fleeting references to Magdalene in the Templars' rule. No evidence of particular devotion, though in the context of absolution they prayed that God would pardon their sins as he forgave the blessed Magdalene. So obviously their view of the saint was fairly typical for the West.
Indeed.
The 'Reformation' is a depressing topic, if only from an art/heritage standpoint. The destruction was incalculable. (There again gothic monasteries also look good in ruins, so there is that). It wasn't just images and stones that were destroyed, though. When you hear about the sadism unleashed (such as the cruel fate of of the last abbot of Glastonbury) it's hard to see it as a positive development.