Elizabeth Schrader-Polczer on Rethinking Mary Magdalene (Part 1)

>> Paul: Welcome to the Future Christian podcast, your source for insights and ideas on how to lead your church into the 21st century. At the Future Christian podcast, we talk to pastors, authors, and other faith leaders for helpful advice and practical wisdom to help you and your community of faith walk boldly into the future. Now here's your host, Loren Richman Juniore. >> Loren: Welcome to the Future Christian podcast. Today, Martha Tatarnic welcomes doctor Elizabeth Schrader

Pulzer to the show. This is the first of a two part episode, so be sure to stay tuned next week for the second half. Elizabeth Schrader Pulser is assistant professor of New Testament at Villanova University. She holds a doctorate in early Christianity from Duke University with a focus on textual criticism, Mary Magdalene, and the Gospel

of John. Her research has been published in the Harvard Theological the Journal of Biblical Literature, TC A, UH, Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, the comparative oriental manuscript Studies Bulletin, and the Journal of Early Christian Studies. She is regularly invited to present her peer reviewed research at churches and conferences internationally. One more thing. Please take a moment to leave a review on whatever podcast app you're listening on and share this

episode with a friend. Thanks and enjoy the episode. >> Martha Tatarnic: welcome to the Future Christian podcast. I am your host for the summer season, Martha Tatarnic. And today I am having a conversation with somebody whose work I have been following closely for the past couple of years, and for a variety of reasons, would count as a personal hero. Doctor Elizabeth Schrader Pulitzer and we are

going to hi. We're going to be discussing Elizabeth's groundbreaking work in biblical scholarship, particularly in how we see and understand Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of John. We're going to be doing this over the course of two separate podcasts in order to do justice, not just to her work, but also to its implications.

Uh, I say with quite a bit of seriousness that Elizabeth is kind of the Taylor Swift, um, uh, biblical scholarship, and that says, uh, something about both her talent, uh, and her reach. So welcome to the podcast. >> Elizabeth: Thank you so much. I don't know if my reach is quite as big as Taylor Swift's, but I like where you're going with that. >> Martha Tatarnic: Well, uh, it helps my kids to understand, you know, why this interview is such a big deal.

So, um, speaking of Taylor Swift, uh, and music and, uh, that analogy, let's just set this context a little bit here for how you became one of the most talked about biblical scholars of our day, because it's not exactly an obvious path. Um, but, uh, maybe you could just begin by telling us a little bit about what your relationship with christianity and the church was growing up? >> Elizabeth: Sure, yeah. I, um, mean, I grew up in the episcopal church. Um, I

am from Oregon. Um, I had a really strong youth group growing up. Um, and I would say I got really involved in the church as a teenager. And, um, you know, we did these church weekends called teens encounter Christ. And, uh, all of my best friends still to this day went to that with me. Um, so it was very good for bonding. And, um, then in college, I don't think I really went to church in college. I went to school in southern

California at Pomona college. And I think I kind of, like, dropped off from church attendance in my twenties, as probably a lot of people do. I got really interested in meditation in particular, actually. And, um, I got along the way. I was interested in finding a guru, which maybe a lot of people do at some point in their spiritual seeking. And, um, I would say I did get interested in meditation, and I would say I was kind of

seeking for a while. And then sort of in my early thirties, somehow it just became clear to me that my guru, well, I knew I had an intuition that my guru was female. And I'm like, who is it? And, um, after a lot of seeking, I learned that I realized it's Mother Mary. Mother Mary is my spiritual guide. And I was like, oh, really? Okay. And then I just started going back to church. Really? Yeah, I started going back to episcopal church at that point. I lived in, um, Brooklyn,

New York. And so, yeah, I started going back to church in my thirties, um, but it was kind of like right back where I left off. The episcopal church is pretty consistent, um, and has been for quite a while. And one of the nice things about growing up in the episcopal church is I feel very aligned with their values. And I never felt like I had to leave or change. Um, and so, yeah, so then I was going back to an episcopal church in

my thirties. And, um, during this whole time, I was a music major in college and I was in a band and we won this big contest sponsored by Pantene. And we opened for Jewel. And then we were invited to tour with Jewel a little bit, which was cool. And, um, we also, uh, toured with Poe, who maybe people remember her song angry Johnny. That was kind of like her biggest hit. >> Martha Tatarnic: Uh, I was really into that. Well, I still am into that album. I still on playlists that

I have. I loved that album. >> Elizabeth: Yeah. And we were on tour with her for her second record, which is called haunted, um, which is also a really good record. And so that was fun to tour around the country with her. Um, and then we also won a contest where we got to open for rusted Root, which was cool, in San Francisco. And, um, then because I had won the Pantene contest, I got to go back to a future iteration of that contest. And I met, like, michelle

Branch and India. Ari. There's these pictures of me with these artists, which is fun. And I. So, yeah, that was all really fun. My band, though, didn't really. They were kind of like dudes who wanted to be in like, a guy band. And they were sort of, like, embarrassed to have a female lead singer because the song I won the contest about was called Blood Red Moon, which was about a late period. And I think they just found it kind of embarrassing. And so the band didn't really work out

in the long run. And so, um, they sort of started their own band, which is called the action cats, which is like, everybody in my band except me, which is kind of a bummer. Um, and so that was really hard for me. But I ended up, um, just being a female singer songwriter after that. And I did that for quite a while. And, um, I toured so many colleges, including Villanova, where I'm a professor now, which is super funny. I'm like, the last time I was here, I was playing at the Connelly center.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Like playing and probably not necessarily dreaming about becoming a professor. >> Elizabeth: No, no, no. I was trying to make it in the music business. Um, I did have some more fun things happen as a solo artist. I got to be on an episode of the Gilmore Girls, the 6th season finale. You can see me as one of the troubadours. Um, in this episode called partings, where Lorelei and Luke

have a fight. I mean, you can see me. I was at Stars Hollow, which is actually in Burbank, California, um, for a few days filming that episode. Um, my songs are on like, a lot of sort of MTV reality shows and I still get royalties for my songs. Being in the background of, I don't know, true life, I self injure or like, julianna and Bill. Like, there's all these, like, funny shows. I mean, the music business is hard.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, yeah, I did it for a. >> Elizabeth: Long time and I still, you know, it's nice to get some royalties every once in a while still. But, um, I think I was definitely starting to get burned out on it because after this huge, amazing thing of winning this contest and touring with jewel and seeing what it's like to play for like 5000 people and touring the country and all that, um, and uh,

making records and getting better and better at my craft. I think I became a better and better artist as I got older, but it's a really youth focused culture. And like the. I felt like, um, the entertainment business cared more about me for being young than for being accomplished. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, well, and it's interesting the piece about your male band mates going on without you too, because, um, I have quite a bit of background in music

as well. I studied music in university, although I was never like a pop artist or anything like that. I'm a french horn player. Um, but I, uh, think that the misogyny in the music world sort of puts the church to shame. >> Elizabeth: Well, yeah. Ah, there's that too. >> Martha Tatarnic: Ah, I also grew up in the anglican church, and, um, so I certainly grew up thinking that women had a place in the church. I didn't grow up thinking that women particularly had a place in music

or in the history of music. And, um, yeah, the music industry can be quite famously, uh, misogynistic. Can it? >> Elizabeth: Yeah. I mean, I think also there was a part of me that was a little naive, that I'm like, if I'm just really good at what I do, then, like, that's all it takes, right? I, um, was not willing to sleep with older industry executives like that. Just, I was like, you know,

my music is good. Like, why would I do that? And it's like, I mean, maybe I would have gone further if I'd been willing to do that kind of thing, but that was not something that I participated in. Um, you know, it was a little depressing to see that, um, especially in entertainment, you know what they call it, the casting couch or whatever. That is a real. That is a real thing. >> Martha Tatarnic: It is a real thing, yeah.

>> Elizabeth: And so I was not willing to participate in that. And so maybe I. That's part of why I didn't get further. But, um, I mean, I did have fun. I had fun doing it in my twenties and early thirties. Um, and yeah, I would say that during my early thirties, I was trying to figure it out. I'm like, okay. So I expected myself to be doing better by now. Um, there were some people I knew personally, like Sarah Bareilles, um,

Colby Calle, Katy Perry. Those are all people that I knew personally that I, um, mean, Sarah would say, hi. Libby, too. Me, now, she does know me. Um, but Katy Perry and Colby Kelly, I, like, hung out. I was in groups with at the time before they were getting big, and so I saw that some people made it and I'm like, I was gonna

be one of them. But of course, I mean, I talked to my friends now who are singer songwriters, and, um, for every one of those, there's like 50 to 100 who are just as qualified who didn't make it, and we're all focusing on the person who did make it. And I'm like, come on, let's talk to each other. You know, we don't need to focus all of our attention on what I call lottery winners. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, well, it really is like a lottery. Um, and

I would have probably put the. The ratios as a lot higher than 50 to 100 for everyone, because, you know, most of the people I know in music, like, it's. It's a real grind. Like, they have to be, uh, extremely committed to that vocation, you know? >> Elizabeth: Um, well, people are committed to it into their thirties and sometimes than even their forties. And there comes a point, like, I don't. I just want to stop saying, will you please come to my show? I want to stop

saying, can I sleep on your couch? Like, I'm. Can I borrow your keyboard? There's enough of that. Like, that's okay for a while, and at a certain point, you're just like, huh? Like, no more. Yeah. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, for sure. Was there, like, a spiritual dimension to songwriting, in particular, to being a, uh, musician on that circuit, following that calling for all those years?

>> Elizabeth: I'd say there was, yeah. I mean, certainly, um, in my lyrics, you can hear hints of me sort of, um, referencing scripture. I mean, you two was always my favorite band. And the way that you two sometimes references scripture, I kind of do similar stuff in my lyrics. Like, I'll talk about, like, telling you truly, that's something that I would bring up or taking a vow of silence. These are the kinds of lyrics that show up

in my songs. But, um, also, as I said, during this time, I was getting really into meditation, and I would do some. I mean, there was a time, um, I think in my late twenties, when I was meditating for an hour every day, every morning. Wow. Yeah, I was taking it very, very, very seriously. Yeah. Um, I don't think it's unrelated, by the way, to, um, some of the stuff that I found in biblical scholarship. I mean, how many people do meditate for an hour every day? I did that for, I don't

know, six, seven years. I was doing that, which is quite a while. And, um, so, uh. And it was around that time that I was making this transition from just meditating to be like, oh, Mother Mary is my spiritual guide, so I'm gonna start going back to church. M um, and, uh, yeah, no, I

would say that there was definitely a spiritual aspect. And when it came to my music, somewhere along the way, I think it was right after I moved to New York in 2008 because I was in LA after I graduated, um, and with the band, we lived in LA, but eventually I transitioned to living in New York. And I remember when I was in New York, I was on the subway, strangely, and I was reading a book by Bell Hooks, who's an amazing, um, feminist

author, uh, who passed away recently. And, um, I had this moment where on the subway it was like, my purpose in life is to bring the valuation of feminine into the world that, like, the feminine has value. >> Martha Tatarnic: Wow. >> Elizabeth: And I had this very strange experience where I literally felt sort of, it sounds weird, but like, uh, it felt like energy was shooting out of my head for like an hour afterward. And it was actually freaking me out.

I was texting my best friend. I'm like, there's this weird thing happening right now, so maybe that's a little bit tmi. Um, but this is when I was purely a singer songwriter, like just pure music. And so I was like, okay, well, I gotta write songs about the feminine and the feminine voice. And, um, uh, yeah, I mean, I think a song of mine called share it is kind of like the best job that I did, um, of actually articulating that

feminine voice. And I was able to showcase for the president of, was it Sony? Which, um, I think it was, her name was Amanda Ghost. I did a showcase with the song share it, and then I didn't get the record deal from it. And I'm just like, it felt really like I was sort of hitting a dead end. I was like, right, right, yeah. I was like, I was doing what I thought I was supposed to do. I was so certain that this was my life path that, like, being a singer songwriter, being a musician

was the way. And, um, then, uh, it just wasn't working out and I was really frustrated. And I would go, there was this catholic church actually not far from where I was living at the time in Brooklyn, um, that was dedicated to the Virgin Mary. Really beautiful garden with all these statues of the Virgin Mary. And I would go there to meditate sometimes. And I had had this meeting with my music lawyer and also Jewel's mother, Jewel's mother, Lenedra Carroll,

who had been sort of helping me a little bit. Um, we all had this sort of pow wow. And I remember that, uh, Lanidra was like, you just need to jump off the cliff. Like, what is it that's blocking you? You just need to jump off the cliff. And I was meditating in this m garden and dedicated, um, to the virgin Mary. And I had this. I heard words, which is really rare for me, in a prayer, um, or a meditation. And their words were, maybe you should talk to Mary Magdalene about that.

>> Martha Tatarnic: And that was really kind of the clarifying encounter that led you onto quite a different path, right? >> Elizabeth: Yes. Really weird. That's not the story that you usually hear from a Bible scholar who works on manuscripts of the New Testament. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. >> Elizabeth: Uh, yeah. So I was just like. I was like. I was talking to the Virgin Mary here and now I feel like. Like, go talk to Mary Magdalene. I was like,

I didn't. It was very strange to me. And, um. So as I was walking home from this experience, this encounter in the garden, I was like, oh, I went to the garden of the holy virgin and I asked for the blessing of the Magdalene. I'm like, that's a cute lyric. So I went home and I, um, worked out this song in just, like a couple days. It came real fast, like, just boom. Which, um, sometimes songs take me years and years to write. And this one just came in a couple days. And, um, I sent it to Jules

mom. I'm like, check this out. And she's like, this song is amazing. We're sending it to Michael, my lawyer. We're going to. We're like, oh, this is the breakthrough we were looking for. Yeah. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. >> Elizabeth: And maybe it was, but it just wasn't into the music business. >> Martha Tatarnic: It definitely was a breakthrough. It just wasn't quite what you were expecting. >> Elizabeth: And so then I walked over to the Brooklyn public

Library, which was also close to this garden, by the way. The garden, it was at the co cathedral of St. Joseph. And a couple years later, they unfortunately, um, destroyed the garden to make it into a parking lot. Very Joni Mitchell. >> Martha Tatarnic: Very Joni Mitchell. That was immediately what came to mind. >> Elizabeth: I know, it's so sad. Um, but I made a music video of the Magdalene song in the garden, so you can actually see what it looked

like. So, fortunately, we did make the music video before the garden was destroyed. But, um, I walked over to the Brooklyn public library and got the complete idiots guide to Mary Magdalene. And so I started researching Mary Magdalene and it just keeps on going. It's like the world's deepest rabbit hole. That was in

2011, I think. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. Like, you couldn't have possibly known what you were getting into. >> Elizabeth: No idea. And, um, then I made the record and I decided to call it Magdalene. And then I was like, oh, I can't, I can't make a record called bag because I put other songs on it, including that song, share it that I mentioned and a bunch of other ones.

Also a song called Beautiful Girl that's in the same vein as what I was talking about earlier about like, valuing the feminine. Um, and, uh, yeah, then I, um, wrote this, I released this album, and I put this music video out and I was like, okay, now what's gonna happen? And what happened was that I just got completely obsessed with researching the Bible and, okay, um, and so, yeah, maybe now you want to talk about what happened next.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. Well, let's get into the crux of what has made you such a groundbreaking and talked about force in the world of biblical scholarship, because it definitely involves that rabbit hole that you jumped into, um, following that spiritual encounter. Um, a lot of your work has centered around John Eleven, the, ah, story of the raising of Lazarus, and the earliest known copy that we have of the gospel according to John, which is known as papyrus

66. Um, so can you just set the scene for us about papyrus 66 and when, uh, it was discovered and then what you began to see when you came across it? >> Elizabeth: Sure. Yeah. So, um, the papyrus was discovered, I think they used to say 1952, but now they're saying 1956, near Dishna, Egypt, which is not too far away from where the Nag Hamadi codices were found. Um, some people have theorized they came from the same place. It's hard to, it's like a day's walk from one to the other.

Um, but they were found in different locations. It was found in a jar with a bunch of other papyri similar to the Nayakhamadi codices. Um, in this jar were, um, also papyrus 75 and papyrus 45, which are other gospel manuscripts from probably slightly later because p 45 and p 75 are bound up with other gospels, whereas papyrus 66 is, um, just the gospel of John, which tells you that maybe its a little earlier because its not being bound up with other gospels yet. Right. Yeah, that makes sense.

And also some letters of like, uh, some letters were in there and also, um, copies of the iliad. So it was like a jar. Yeah, it was like a jar of somebody's library. Um. Uh, and they found Papyrus 66, and it was quickly identified and published. I think it was first published in 1958. Um, and, uh, yeah, it was just, uh, they recognized that this was probably the world's oldest, near

complete copy of the Gospel of John. It's actually called Papyrus Bodmer two, because it was acquired by this, um, wealthy. He's from Switzerland, his name is Martin Bodmer and he has this thing, it's a library today called the Bodmer Library. And um, there was sort of like this race for antiquities in the 20th century. And all these richest, uh, magnates in Europe, including Chester Beatty, also in Ireland, they would just buy it basically on the black market.

Well, of course, because they have all the money and they want the manuscripts. And in Egypt, um, I think at this point you're not really supposed to smuggle stuff out. Egypt is like, hey, don't take our stuff. Um, but then if you get this copy of the gospel of John and some guy in Switzerland is going to pay you, who knows how much money? Like they're going to find

a way. So there was this, um, uh, I can't remember his name offhand, but there was an antiquities dealer, um, who basically got it through Cyprus and then it made its way to bodmer and then Bodmer hired somebody, um, to transcribe it and just do a first edition of it. Um, and I think his name was Martin, Victor Martin. And then, um, it became able to be studied. So it was just first, ah, like in 1958, it was first

available to be studied, just the transcription of Papyrus 66. There was a few notes on it and then people in the 1960s started to comment on it, um, people like Marie Emile Boimard, a french dominican scholar, and, um, Gordon fill, who was one of the best known textual critics of the 20th century, they started making sort of comments on what was

interesting about the manuscript. And what's interesting is that both of those scholars in the 1960s said, hey, there's this place where the name Mary's been crossed out a couple times and like this woman's been split in two. And they're like, that's the weirdest change in the whole manuscript. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. >> Elizabeth: And they published that and nobody followed up on it. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right. Right.

>> Elizabeth: Yeah. >> Martha Tatarnic: Just not, yeah. >> Elizabeth: Uh, they knew, they knew that the name Mary had been crossed out a couple times and they had, they just said weird. And papyrus 66 is, um, very old, but also the scribe is really unpredictable and the scribe makes a lot of corrections, 450 corrections, in fact,

along the course of the text. And so it's kind of a weird, it's a weird situation because it's the oldest copy we have of the gospel of John, but the scribe is also really idiosyncratic. So, um, some people think that the scribe had access to two copies of John, um, and so the scribe is correcting, sorry, they're copying from one to call it an exemplar or a forlog. They have an exemplar that they're copying from and then they have a second one that they're correcting the text

against because at this time there's no printing press. So you're just trying to get. >> Martha Tatarnic: We're a long ways away from the printing press. >> Elizabeth: Yeah, definitely. So if you're really lucky, you know, uh, let's say it's 200 ad. That's usually when it's dated to like the turn of the third century. Late second, early third century is when papyrus 66 is usually dated, which is 100 years after the gospel was written.

So this is our earliest surviving copy, but it had been already circulating for a century before that. And so at this point, Christianity is just sort of getting started. And if you're lucky enough to have access to two copies of the Gospel of John, I mean, they were very expensive to make these sorts of copies, very labor intensive. This scribe is trying to make a good copy. Um, and so that's might be part of the reason for so many corrections and changes is that one of the copies says

this, the other copy says that. And so the scribe is trying to sort of reconcile which one is the right one. Um, and so, uh, it's a really interesting manuscript in that way, but the text is not particularly stable. And my dissertation is actually about how at the origins of Christianity, the text wasn't particularly stable. >> Martha Tatarnic: Okay. >> Elizabeth: Yeah, and so that's a. I think that's part of what's going on there.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Um, yeah, so, um, there are these instabilities around the names Mary and Martha in John eleven, um, where a number of those corrections can visibly be seen. Right. Like if you look at papyrus 66, you can actually see, um, these scratchings and changes.

>> Elizabeth: Absolutely, yeah. And so I should just give the piece of, you know, after I went to the Brooklyn public Library and got the complete idiots guy to Mary Magdalene, and I was like, I released a record about her. I said, I want to look at the world's oldest copy of the Gospel of John because, you know, the complete idiots guy talked about how Mary was a controversial character. And I'm like, well, let's just look at the world's oldest copy and see if anything has been

changed. And, um, it was hard for me to find, uh, because it hasn't been translated or at the time it hadn't been. It's all in Greek. Um, and so I had to kind of meet with a professor at general Theological seminary, which is the episcopal seminary in Manhattan, um, or it was. It's kind of been absorbed by Virginia theological Seminary now. But at the time it was still a real seminary. And I met with Deirdre Goode,

um, who is the professor of New Testament. And she directed me to this website that the University of Birmingham had put together, um, called johannes.com. i o dash h dash h dash a dash n dash s.com, comma, which you can still go to. And they had transcribed hundreds of copies of the gospel of John in Greek and Latin. And so she's like, go there. And then you can look at the transcription of papyrus 66. I said, okay.

Because I knew that. I also googled what's the world's oldest copy of the gospel of John, and it was papyrus 66. I'm like, I want to look at that. So I went and, um, now I had this website, johannes.com, i could look. And, um, I first, of course, went to John 20, the scene between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in the garden. Nothing was weird there that I could see John 19, and I didn't read Greek, but I could use an interlinear study Bible to see what each word was.

Um, and so, yeah, then I went to John 19. At the cross, it all looks like it was supposed to look. And I said, okay. Well, I actually said, oh, I was probably wrong. Like, who am I? I'm just some singer songwriter. Like, why would I, um, be able to. I mean, these scholars, to think that they had missed something is a silly thought. And honestly, it is a silly thought

because they spend all their time looking at this stuff. Um, and I said, but, you know, just in case, let me look at John eleven. Because, uh, some people think that Mary of Bethany, Lazarus sister, is Mary Magdalene. So I should just check. I literally almost just gave up. But I was like, uh, let me just check. Some people think that Mary Bethany

is Mary Magdalene. And so when I went to John eleven on Johannes.com, comma, I could see, see that there was all this editorial activity happening for five verses. And I could see that the name Maria was being crossed out and being changed to Martha. And, um, that the name Maria was totally scratched out and changed to say, the sisters. >> Martha Tatarnic: Okay? >> Elizabeth: And I was like, whoa. I was

like, what is this? And I knew enough from going to church that there was another story of Mary and Martha in. By the way, I'm so intimidated talking to someone named Martha about this. I'm sorry for all the consequences for someone named Martha. >> Martha Tatarnic: Oh, I'm totally fine with it.

>> Elizabeth: I mean, I am saying that Martha existed, but I am saying, I'm thinking just as somebody who had no training, it looked like the character Martha was being added, was being added into the story. Yeah, yeah. That's just, uh, and the thought never would have occurred to me because, you know, Mary and Martha, they go together, as, you know, in both Luke and John. You know, Mary and

Martha, the two sisters. And I, it never would have occurred to me except that I saw the scribe doing it. I'm like, is the scribe adding Martha to the story? I'm like, wait, Luke has a Martha? Luke ten has a story of Mary and Martha. By the way, they don't have a brother in that story. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, there's no mention of a Lazarus. >> Elizabeth: Yeah. And so I'm like, did this scribe take Martha and stick her into

John? Like, somebody who read Luke, did they stick her into John's gospel? Um, I mean, that never would have occurred to me if I hadn't seen it. So I copied the greek text and I sent it to Deidre. Um, and the email subject line just had, like, twelve exclamation points. And I was like, look. Look at this. It looks like they're adding Martha. Look at this. And she said, oh, very interesting. I was like, come on, that's cool, right? Or that's weird. Or that's

disturbing. It's something, you know, she probably figured that the work had already been done because, as I mentioned, it was the 1960s when people were commenting on it. Uh, surely at some point, this is in 2012. Surely sometime between the 1960s and 2012, somebody would have done it, Alex, 50 years. But the answer was no. Nobody had really done anything. And m so I was frustrated. And so I just kind of kept on researching, and I I think I sent it to Karen

King. I sent it to Elaine pagels. They're like the Harvard and Princeton ladies who are really big and Mary Magdalene stuff. And I was like, hey, look at this. Papyrus 66, it's been changed. And they were like, um, cool. They were too busy. They had other projects going on. And I was getting really frustrated and kept emailing Deidre. And, um, my best friend Kelly, um, had said to me, hey, you can't keep bothering, uh, these scholars. You have to go learn Greek. You got

to do this work yourself. And I was like, no, I'm a musician. I'm a singer songwriter. I know who I am. I've been doing this for, like, twelve years. This is about my music career and whatever. And, um, after maybe a year at the end of, I guess, in 2013. I was like, okay, fine, I'll get this master's degree. I'll learn Greek. But just because nobody's doing anything about this, I want to show everybody that papyrus 66 is messed up. I'm going to do a study. So I entered this

master's program at General Theological seminary. Deidre was my thesis supervisor. And when I was there, some of the professors were like, oh, have you looked at, um, Nandra Irving, uh, at the time, he's another great professor. He was like, have you looked at the Vitas Latina? What are the Vitas Latina? Um, the old latin manuscripts before St. Jerome translated the Vulgate. Um, they're older copies, uh, like the first translations into Latin of the gospel of John. He's like,

look at those. And it turns out that all over the place in the textual transmission of John, not just in papyrus 66, I looked at, I don't know, maybe 150 copies for my master's thesis on this johannes.com website. I could look, I could just click right through every single copy. Go to John eleven. One in five greek copies had something weird happening around Martha. Like, sometimes the name Mary would be changed to Martha, or sometimes Mary would be doing something that you expect

Martha to do, like, Mary's serving the supper in John twelve. That's not what you would expect. Um, and in the old latin copies, it's even worse. You sometimes just see Martha's name really getting awkwardly added in the margin. Really one in three of the old latin copies, you see something weird happening around Martha. So I was like, this is surprising. This is a lot.

And also church fathers, I found out that, um, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom Tertullian, they were all saying that Mary did things that your bible would say that Martha does. And I was like, right, this is weird. I was like, I think, is there a corruption in the gospel of John? Is that what this is? So I, um, I wrote my master's thesis. It was called, was Martha of Bethany added to the fourth gospel in the second century? And I knew if I really had found something that big, it

needed to go to a big journal. And again, as a master's student, it was maybe a little presumptuous. And Deirdre said. I was like, how about the Harvard theological Review? That sounds fancy. And Deirdre was like, okay, but you got to write to them and say, I'm just a master's student, and ask if it's okay to submit. And I wrote to them, and they wrote back and they said, as long as it's under the word limit, yes, you may submit. So I did. And miraculously, it made it through the

most rigorous peer review process. Um, I found out later that my peer reviewer was Eldon Epp, who was another one of the 20th century's most esteemed textual critics. Uh, and it got published in the Harvard Theological Review. And I was like, okay. And people are like, so where are you going to do your PhD? I was like, I'm a musician. I just. >> Martha Tatarnic: So you're still, like. You're still feeling like you're a musician at this point?

>> Elizabeth: I released a record in 2017, I released another record called Red Thread. Um, yeah. I was like, this is. >> Martha Tatarnic: But you've also learned Greek, and. >> Elizabeth: I mean, academia didn't sound. I mean, I actually. I actually was enjoying it. I guess I was. I was doing well, right? I got my master's thesis published in this top tier journal, but I certainly wasn't planning on doing a PhD. But, um, people were asking me, what are you going

to do? Where are you going to do your PhD? And also it was, um, I actually deferred my PhD a year, partly because general seminary is a nice place to live in Manhattan if anybody's ever been there. It's really beautiful. Um, and also because I wasn't sure, I was like, I don't know if I want to do this. Um, I'm a musician. And I think what it was is that, um, I realized if I don't do this, nobody else is going to.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, because you tried. You tried to get other people to take it up. >> Elizabeth: Yeah, yeah. And I even got it published. And then, like, so many publications, it could have just been published and then lost, right? >> Martha Tatarnic: Mhm. >> Elizabeth: I said, I have to kind of steward this. If I don't do it, nobody else is going to. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's, uh, a piece of the calling, isn't it?

>> Elizabeth: Yeah. So, yeah, I would say letting that singer songwriter thing go, and honestly, I don't miss it at all at this point. >> Martha Tatarnic: Is that right? >> Elizabeth: Yeah. I mean, I'm really proud of the songs that I wrote. Um, some of the ones I've mentioned here, there's, like, war on science, beautiful girl. Share it. Wish you were the woman. These are. I think they're top notch songs. Go look them up. You can find them on, like, apple music or whatever.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. Uh, they're available everywhere. >> Elizabeth: Yeah. And, um. But, you know, I guess it's really frustrating to do really excellent work and for it not to receive the, um, attention and um, reception that you want for it. And I got just tired of that. And, um, especially when I turn around and I suddenly, instead of writing songs, I'm writing academic articles and it's going great. Like, okay, now I'm getting published in top tier journals, I'm getting

invited to conferences. Instead of me begging people to come to my show, people are now like flying me places and there's an audience that's waiting for me to give my talks. Wow. Like, this is kind of, it's similar to being a singer songwriter, except like, actually, uh, a lot of the skills that I developed as a singer songwriter I now use. Like, I know how to be on stage, I know how to entertain. >> Martha Tatarnic: M mhm. >> Elizabeth: Um, I know how to sort of tell a joke or

craft a story. And, um, actually crafting an article and an argument is not unlike crafting a song. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, that self, ah, promotion that you have to do in the arts so much of the time can really feel like pushing a boulder up the hill. Right? >> Elizabeth: Yeah. >> Martha Tatarnic: Like, to have other people just be so excited about what you're putting into the world that they want to push the boulder up the hill.

>> Elizabeth: Like, it was such a relief I wasn't to do that anymore. Um, and so, yeah, I have to say I don't really miss the music business, though. Um, I'm happy for the people who were able to push through and to succeed at it. Um, and it's just like, okay, well, this was actually, even though I was so sure that the music business was the right path for me, it's like, well, maybe it was the right path at that time for me to get good at certain things.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Um, well, it clearly needed to be part of the path to lead you to the path you're on now. >> Elizabeth: Yeah. And, um, now it's like, okay, I'm definitely on the right path now. And it's nice. Um, you know, I finished my PhD at Duke last year, and, um, now. Thank you. And I'm now a tenure track assistant professor of New Testament at Villanova University, which is a great place to be. Um, and it's, yeah, it's like the path is very clear.

>> Martha Tatarnic: It's good. So let's talk about, um, the Martha piece in John eleven, because, um, in the bibles that we all have, um, Martha has a pretty big role in John eleven, but it does get sort of overlooked because Martha is a minor character in the Bible and so it doesn't, I don't know, raise

major alarm bells. Um, can you just talk about that Martha figure has been passed along to us and why that might be significant in, um, all of this editing that you can see going on in the gospel of John. >> Elizabeth: So are you asking what Martha's function is? The gospel? Yeah. Yeah. Well, right now it seems that her main function is to utter the thesis statement of the gospel of John.

Um, you know, Jesus comes into Bethany and, um, it says that he loves the Bethany siblings and Martha runs out to meet him, whereas Mary stays at home. And, um, Martha says, lord, if you've been here, my brother would not have died. And then Jesus says to her, um, I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live. Um, do you believe this? And she says, yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the son of God, the one who is coming into the

world. And, um, that is generally, that's considered to be the christological confession in John's gospel, which has an equivalent in the other synoptic gospels to Peter's confession, I believe that you are the messiah, the son of God. And in Matthew's gospel, Jesus says, you are Peter. And on this rock I will build my church in response to Simon Peter giving this christological confession at Caesarea Philippi

in Matthew 16. So, um, John seems to be sort of providing an equivalent confession, but now it's a woman that's saying, not Peter. Okay, so that seems sort of radical. Um, and it's not just that it's the equivalent of Peter's confession. Like, I identify you, you are the Christ.

But it's also that what most scholars think was the original ending to the gospel of John, John 2031, says, these things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and then by believing, you may have life in his name, which sounds very much like what Martha says. >> Martha Tatarnic: Mhm.

>> Elizabeth: In John eleven. So this sort of parallel, uh, has caused people to say, okay, martha's the one who utters the central thesis statement of the gospel of John. And, um, after she utters it, she runs and gets Mary. And then Mary can come on the scene. And then Mary says the exact same thing that Martha says. Um, lord, if you'd been here, my brother would not have died.

And before I had done my work, uh, in the seventies and eighties, it was very hip to do redaction criticism, which is where scholars look at a biblical text and they see, uh, seems in the way that the text has been written. Um, places that seem awkward and they think this is maybe where the evangelist edited their source. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right. >> Elizabeth: And, um, maybe there was a testimony of the beloved disciple, and then the evangelist was

tweaking it in certain ways. And what's really funny is that several scholars had said, martha's presentation is weird. And they're not talking about the manuscripts, they're talking about the received text. And they're assuming that the evangelist had access to some source that was then turned into what is our gospel narrative now. And several people had said in the evangelist source, there was only one sister. >> Martha Tatarnic: Hm.

>> Elizabeth: People had said this. I think Robert Fortna said that Gerard, um, Rocher said that, um. And, uh, probably Marie Emile Boimard and, um, Brendan Boyle, I think. Uh, and actually even John P. Meyer, who is a really big catholic theologian, he wrote in this historical Jesus thing, a marginal jew. He said the early version. He said the lucan story of Martha and Mary has no Lazarus. And apparently the early johannine version of the Lazarus story had no Martha.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Had no Martha. >> Elizabeth: But they're not talking about the textual transmission. They're talking about the evangelist writing at the very beginning. Like the evangelist has heard some sort of story that is now being crafted into our gospel. And they think that the evangelist added the sister. Um, and the difference between the two is that the evangelist is writing what you would call the autograph copy, the first copy

from which all other copies would be copied. And they're saying that in that autograph, um, the evangelist has crafted a narrative with two sisters, but that the evangelist knew a story with only one sister. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right. >> Elizabeth: That's what the theory was. That's what the redaction critics had argued. And what's really funny is it's like, wait a second. That's the difference between redaction criticism and

textual criticism. Textual criticism is a comparison of the manuscripts. >> Martha Tatarnic: Okay? >> Elizabeth: So an evangelist can take, oh, I heard this story and I heard that story, and I put it all together and I made this beautiful narrative that we now call the Gospel of John. That's different

than this gospel of John that begins circulating and copyists tweak the story. That's different because the evangelists, you assume, if you believe that there was a dohenine community, the evangelist is aligned with whoever. If you believe that there was an eyewitness, the beloved disciple, they come from that same community. They can directly trace their lineage to Jesus. And they're like, this is the gospel that we've decided

to put forward from our perspective. That is different than some rando, like 100 years later or 50 years later, saying, I don't like this part of the story. And changing it in the course of copying it. Textual criticism. And so what my study was showing is that, yeah, maybe Martha was added, but not by the evangelist. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right. >> Elizabeth: Maybe Martha was added by a very, very

early editor. It would have to be second century, because, um, papyrus 66, if it's dated to 200 AD or around that time, it means that this is around the time that Martha is getting added in, around the turn of the third century. Also, origen of Alexandria writes about Mary and Martha in the mid third century, and he knows that Martha is there in the story of John. So it would have had to be second century that this change was made, perhaps right around the time that Luke started to get

read alongside John. And that's when somebody has read Luke and they are importing Martha into John's story. That's when it would have to be, of course, completely theoretical, because Martha is in every copy that we have, including papyrus 66. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, yeah. And I mean, all of this is kind of, ah, a working theory that we certainly don't have the evidence to back up conclusively at this

time. But, um, the theory that I've certainly heard you and others discuss is that Martha might have been imported in order to distract from just how central a character Mary Magdalene was. >> Elizabeth: Right. >> Martha Tatarnic: And so she is a witness to the resurrection, the first witness to the resurrection. If she's the one who was at the crucifixion, if she's the one who anointed Jesus at Bethany and gave the christological. >> Elizabeth: That's right.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Suddenly she's a main character. >> Elizabeth: Yes, she's a very central character in John's gospel in that case. And so I should emphasize that, first of all, we also do have, I have not yet found a manuscript where Mary is uttering the confession in John eleven. So I should make that very clear. But we do have a church father Tertullian, who wrote around the same time as papyrus 66, was copied, like

210 AD. And he says, um, in his treatise against Praxias that Mary confessed Jesus as the Christ. Every single copy of that treatise by Tertullian says that Maryland gives the christological confession in John. So, um, it seems that maybe Tertullian's copy didn't have Martha in it, and he's writing at the turn of the third century. So he's probably got a second century copy of John where Martha's not in it. Um, but again, that's a church father writing about John. And, um, so it just says

Mary. It never explicitly says the word Magdalene in any copy of John. Eleven. And that's actually something that some people have said. Oh, well, Mary of Bethany is not the same person as Mary Magdalene. Mary's from Magdala. First of all. Um, and if it is Mary Magdalene, why didn't the evangelist just say so, like, why not just say Lazarus and his sister Mary Magdalene? Um, and, uh, I've got good answers for both of those. >> Martha Tatarnic: Okay, so tell us.

>> Elizabeth: Yeah, so first of all, the word magdalene, um, is based on the aramaic word magdala, which means tower. And the ane ending is just like a greek, uh, feminine ending. So I, um, was just looking at a syriac manuscript this morning, um, that says magdaletha when it's referencing Mary Magdalene. And eth, syriac is the same language as Aramaic. It's just like a later stage of Aramaic. So, um, when it says magdalitha, it's the same thing as Magdalene. It just means tower, eh?

That's all it means. Tower s. Tower s. And, um, there were some towns, uh, in the first century, actually, a lot of them called Magdal this or Magdala that. Uh, in Hebrew it's Migdol. So there's like a place called, which is like tower of the fishes and there's Migdol el and Migdal gad. There's all these different migdols and it just means tower of this,

tower that, tower of this, tower of that. And, um, so to say Magdalene or Magdaletha is clearly referencing one particular one of these magdalas or amygdals is really vague. First of all, I mean, there's so many at this time. And some people said, oh, no, no, no. Everybody knew that Migdal Nuneathehe one by the sea of Galilee, that was the one that everybody knew. That's the one. If you go to the holy land today, they're like, magdala. This is where

Mary Magdalene came from. There's a synagogue, um, in fact, uh, that's not what the most popular Magdala was. Um, and this is. So I wrote an article with Joan Taylor in 2021 where we totally blew that out of the water because we cited Eusebius, who lived in the holy land. And he's writing in the fourth century.

He does know a place called, um, Magdala. He had this book called the Animistikon where he just literally goes through every single place that's mentioned in the Bible and he tells you what it is. And he does know a place called Magdala. He does not associate Mary Magdalene with it. And he thinks it's Magdal gad. Which is in the south. It's in Judea. So, yeah, everybody did know Amygdala, but it's not the one that people think it is today. And he didn't think

it had anything to do with Mary Magdalene. It just means tower. Okay? >> Martha Tatarnic: Right. >> Elizabeth: And so there's all these towns called Tower in the first century. And so the question becomes, is it really about the place she came from? Or does it mean, is it that Mary came from a town called tower? Which, by the way, is super vague because there's so many of them. Does she come from a town called tower, or is Mary herself the tower?

>> Martha Tatarnic: Well, yeah, because we have Simon Peter, Simon the rock and Mary Tower. >> Elizabeth: And there's James and John Boanerges, sons of thunder. There's Thomas the twin. There's all these, um, different names that Jesus gives, supposedly to his closest disciples. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, like titles. >> Elizabeth: Right. And so the question is, did Mary get one of

those titles? And, um, so Jo Taylor and I looked at the interpretation history of the name Magdalene, and it turns out that there has always been a division of interpretation. Some people did think it was a town that she came from. Um, but some people thought that it was a title. And St. Jerome, for example, thinks that Mary was given the name tower, s for her ardent faith. And St. Jerome also lived in the Holy Land, and he also knew Eusebius, Unamasticon. So, um,

definitely really far back. Some people thought it was a place she came from, and some people thought it was a title. Um, but what we pointed out was that St. Luke seems to think it's a title because he says Marie he Calumene Magdalene, Mary, the one called Magdalene. And whenever he uses this word called throughout Luke or acts, it's always like Simon called Peter, or Elizabeth called Barren, or Martha had a sister called Maryland. So this word, um, this kaleo participle that

Luke uses is for nicknames. And so in the first century, it seemed to have been thought of as a nickname, not a place that Mary came from. And that place, Migdol Nunaya, besides that, it was called Tarakay. In the first century, it was a very burgeoning big city known to a lot of people. But it was not called magdala in the first century. It was called Tarakay. And, um, it's a big city,

um, that would have had plenty of synagogues. So, yeah, they're great synagogues that you can excavate at this awesome ancient city called Tarakay. But it wasn't called Magdalen in the first century. >> Martha Tatarnic: So how does that connect to this idea that Mary of Bethany might, um, have been Mary Magdalene, even though it doesn't explicitly say that in. >> Elizabeth: Yeah, it doesn't use the word Magdalene in John, uh, not until John 1925. At the cross.

Um, what is clear that a lot of important scholars have noticed is that there's some really obvious parallels between the Lazarus story and the story of Mary Magdalene and Jesus in the garden. Obviously, both of them have a tomb and a stone, and somebody rises from the dead and there's a woman named Maryland, and she's crying. And, um, there's even more subtle things, like there's

a handkerchief. Um, they take the handkerchief, the sudarion, which is sort of a rare word, they take the sudarion off of Lazarus in John eleven. And then you look in the tomb and there's the sudarion that's rolled up in John 20. In, um, John eleven, Jesus says, where have you laid him? And then in John chapter 20, Mary Magdalene says, I do not know where you have laid him. And it's the exact same sort of greek

words. Um, and, uh, so there's all these sort of hints that there is a really clear parallel between the Lazarus story and John 20, the encounter between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in the garden. So all biblical scholars would agree that there are deliberate craftings of a parallel between the Lazarus story and John 20. The question is, why? Also in John twelve, um, Judas complains about Mary anointing Jesus at Bethany, and Jesus says,

leave her alone. Um, uh, she will keep it for the day of my burial. Right, right. And so if he's talking about a woman named Mary at his burial, in John's gospel, there's only one woman named Mary at Jesus Field, it's Mary Madison. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right. >> Elizabeth: So you can see why people would have thought, um. And actually, as far back as interpretation, history can be traced. People did think that Mary of Bethany was Mary

Magdalene. People blamed Pope Gregory for this. But that's not true. Pope Gregory identified Mary Magdalene with Luke's sinful anointer in Luke, chapter seven. That was his innovation. But centuries before that, people thought that Mary of Bethany was the same woman as Mary Magdalene. >> Martha Tatarnic: So there's a lot of extra biblical. >> Elizabeth: Um, support for church fathers. Yes. Hippolytus, um of Rome, Ambrose of Milan, Severus of Antioch,

also, um, the Manicheans thought so. They were kind of heretical. But they seem to think Mary of Bethany was Mary Magdalene. And if you read the Gospel of Mary, which is a second century text, this character Mary has aspects of both Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene. Jesus loves her. She's crying and she sees the Lord in a vision. So it seems as far back as we can trace the interpretation history. Some people thought that Mary of Bethany was Mary Magdalene. Not everybody, but

some people thought so. And so, um, so you can see why if somebody's reading John and they see these parallels. I'm not saying that it was never explicitly said, but I think that the evangelist has crafted the narrative in such a way so that not the first time you read the Gospel of John, but maybe the second or the third time, especially when you notice, oh wait, there's a woman named Mary crying at a tomb. Oh, Jesus is, where have

you laid him? And Mary says, where have you laid him? Like, is Lazarus his sister Mary, Mary Magdalene? It's a question that the evangelist has put into the reader's mind. And maybe the reason why the evangelist didn't explicitly say that this is Mary Magdalene is because in these Bethany stories the evangelist is giving very controversial content to Lazarus. Sister, first of all, that christological confession, isn't that supposed to be Peter's? Right. So, um, John, almost everybody would

agree, has had some access to Mark's gospel. John has at least heard Mark's gospel. That's a near consensus in biblical scholarship these days. And some think that John has access to all the synoptics. I personally think maybe Matthew, um, but definitely Mark. So in Mark's gospel, Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ. But also I'm sure you know what happens in the anointing. In Mark's gospel. There's Elizabeth Schuster Fiorenza wrote a whole book about

it. What she has done at the Bethany anointing, um, wherever the gospel is preached, what she has done will be told in memory of her. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right. >> Elizabeth: But her name is not given. Right. So. And Matthew basically does the same thing. So if John is trying to say, trying to give a counterpoint to Mark's presentation, John knows that it will be controversial to give a woman, perhaps Mary, this

christological confession. And John knows that it will be controversial to identify who the anointer was because Mark withheld that name. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right, right. >> Elizabeth: Yeah. So I'm saying that John is trying to be strategic. John is trying to say, okay, I want to identify who the christological confessor is and the anointer as Mary Magdalene. That's what John's view is. But I can't say it explicitly. I gotta do it under

the radar. So what John does is John just calls her Mary, makes her super similar to Mary Magdalene. And John, tway, like, super obvious parallels, but doesn't say so explicitly and doesn't actually name her as Mary Magdalene until Mark does, which is at the cross. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right. >> Elizabeth: Because that's where it's actually safe to do. So that's where

it's safe to say that it's Mary Magdalene. Because obviously, Mark has withheld that information, or in the anointing, has withheld the identification and gave the christological confession to someone else. So I'm saying that John is anticipating that this is going to be controversial. >> Martha Tatarnic: Mm hmm. Mm hmm. >> Elizabeth: And in fact, I think it really was

controversial. So much so that the text, people knew that some folks thought that Mary Magdalene was doing these things, and so the text had to be edited. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. So with that bombshell, um, because, uh, definitely we can see, um, how John and then others understood this as the bombshell that it. That it potentially was. Um, we're going to end today's podcast, uh, there, leaving hanging, because there's a lot of implications to

this research. Um, and this research has sparked a lot of excitement across the church and across church leadership. Um, so we're going to come back next week, uh, and we'll delve into some of the implications and some of the nerves that are being touched in, um, this work that Elizabeth is unfolding. Thank you so much for part one of, uh, my pleasure, this podcast today, and, uh, we'll look forward to coming back to this for part two.

>> Paul: Thanks for joining us on the Future Christian podcast. To learn more about Loren or the podcast, visit future dash christian.com. one more thing before you go. Do us a favor and subscribe to the podcast. And if you're feeling especially generous, leave a review. It really helps us get the word out to more people about the podcast. The Future Christian podcast is a production of torn curtain

arts and resonate media. Our episodes were mixed by Danny Burton and the production support is provided by Paul Romaglevitt. Thanks and go in peace.