Elizabeth Schrader-Polczer on Rethinking Mary Magdalene (Part 2)

>> Name: Um. >> 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 Richmond Juniore. >> Loren: Welcome to the Future Christian podcast.

Today, Martha Tatarnic welcomes doctor Elizabeth Schrader Pulzer to the show. This is the second of a two part episode, so go back and listen to the first half, which can be found in the show. Notes Elizabeth Schrader Pulzer 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 Review, the Journal of Biblical Literature, 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: Uh, welcome Back to the Future Christian podcast. Last week was part one of my conversation with one of the most groundbreaking biblical scholars of our day, Doctor Elizabeth Schrader Pulitzer. If you haven't already done so, make sure to check out last week's episode in which we

discuss doctor Schrader Pulitzer's research into the gospel according to John, papyrus 66, and what this might mean for our emerging picture of Mary

Magdalene. Her research has been integral in forming a picture of Mary Magdalene as a disciple of key importance in the life and work of Jesus, not only one to bear witness to his death, not only the first witness of the resurrection, but also also potentially the one to make the christological confession at the tomb of her brother Lazarus and to anoint Jesus at Bethany prior

to his execution. With all of these pieces of her story in place, we can begin to see more clearly how central Mary was as a leader in this new christian community, but also how as a woman that might have been seen as threatening and how there might have been some need to downplay the centrality of Mary Magdalene, um, or even to shadow her a little bit in the accounts

that we have. Um, a lot of us came to know the work of Elizabeth through Diana Butler Bass, um, who gave a sermon at the Wild Goose festival in July of 2022. And in that sermon, she articulates Elizabeth's research about, uh, papyrus 66, about the possibility, um, that Martha might have been added into the story of the raising of Lazarus in order to downplay the role of Mary. And, uh, this sermon went absolutely viral, uh, with people listening to it or reading

its transcript all over the world. I think there have been, like, a million downloads or listens at this point. I, um, had a lot of colleagues send it to me in 2022, really excited about what the implications were. Now, we talked last week about, uh, kind of that moment where you don't have to push the boulder up the hill any longer in getting people to pay attention to what you're doing. Um, suddenly everybody is paying attention

to what you're doing. So can you just talk a little bit about that reaction and whether it surprised you? >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Hmm? Whether it surprised me? Well, it was a surprise. I knew that Diana was going to preach on it because she's like, oh, I'm going to the Wild Goose festival. Oh, look at the lectionary. It's Luke ten. It's Mary and Martha. How m would you feel if I told people about your research? And I was like, oh, sure, that's fine.

And she preached it extemporaneously, basically from memory. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Um, and so some of the details in the sermon are a little off. Like, she says that every single time, the name Mary is changed to Martha in papyrus 66. And it just

happens for the first five verses that Martha's getting added. But she was just going from memory, basically. But, um, she did say, like, oh, yeah, I gave this sermon. Um, and she actually was driving through Durham. I was still at Duke at the time. She was driving home to Virginia through Durham. She's like, hey, can we get coffee? She's like, yeah. Earlier today, I gave the sermon, and people seem to have a really strong reaction to it at the wild

goose festival. I'm like, oh, that's so nice. And she's like, can I send this to you? Would you look it over? And would it be okay if I shared it? And, um, I was like, sure. So she had recorded it, and she showed it to me. And, um, when she first showed it to me, actually, there was some parts of it that I was like, this isn't quite accurate. I wouldn't say it that way. And this is like, I'm a very meticulous textual

critic, and all the details have to be just right. And I remember there was this sort of moment where I was like, I was a little frustrated because some of the details were not quite right. And, um, I was like, I started writing an email with all the things that I would say differently, and I was like, you know what? I don't need to be a control freak here. Just, what's the most important thing? I was like, okay, just make sure that Diana tells people that it's theoretical, you know, that this,

uh, I haven't proven anything. This is just a theory. Kind of like, you know, did q exist for Bible dorks out there? Right? The source that was known to Luke and matthew. It's like that. Like, we don't. Like, first of all, I haven't proved it. It's just a theory. And also, she says something like that the nest Leia land committee is going to change the text. And it's like, well, maybe. I know that they're talking about it. I check in with them from time to

time. I hope that there will be some, um, updates to the footnotes of. It's not the actual greek text. It would be the footnotes of the greek critical edition. I want to just make it really clear that that's what's going on. And also, I love the nestle alum guys. They're some of the coolest, smartest, most, um, upright. They are not stuffy. They are fun, uh, and extremely smart guys. And I was like, just, you know, that's the kind of things that I would like for her to say.

So she said, yes, of course I can make those changes. So I actually almost stopped it. There was this moment when I'm like, it's not quite right. And I was like. And, uh, there's this sort of moment of just sort of breathing and saying, this is just an organic thing, and I'm going to let it go. There's a couple really crucial things that she does need to say, but she can just let it go. So, um, yeah, I wrote this email saying, please make sure that you say these things. And so she

did. She put a couple of sort of caveats at the top of her transcription of it. Not the recording, obviously, but the transcription that went out to her cottage newsletter. Um, I'm not sure people paid so much attention to those caveats. I think they were mainly paying attention to the text of the sermon itself. And, um, anyway, so it went out there, and she pushed send, and I guess that she saw that immediately the numbers were going

way up, much for, like, 10,000 people. She would tell the real numbers, but 10,000 people in, like, a day or something, right? And she was like, whoa. Oh, something's happening. And I was like, okay. And, um, I don't know, especially as a singer songwriter and also as a biblical scholar, you know, you sort of hope, like, oh, maybe someday my work will go viral. >> Martha Tatarnic: Viral. Yeah, right. That's the word.

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: And I have to tell you that it was super stressful. It was so stressful. It was. You know, of course I was happy that the work was getting out there, um, and this was sort of the moment, um, that I've been waiting for. For the work to. Because I'm like, hey, this is the gospel of John, right? There might be a change to the gospel of John. I had gotten it published in 2017 in a top tier journal, and I was like, I have arrived. But just

publishing in a journal is not enough. That doesn't bring it to the broader consciousness. And that's Diana's gift. That's Diana's gift. She really knows how to synthesize things and make them compelling and understandable to a broad audience. I mean, I'm okay at that stuff, but she's a. She's a pro, she's a world class preacher, and so she really knew how to bring it home. And, um, I was grateful that she brought it to so many

people's attention. But the thing that was stressful was that there are some things that she said, like, about the Nestle lawn committee and about the, um, text of papyrus 66 that weren't accurate. And I was having to navigate that. Like, I had to write to the Nestle lawn folks and say, just so you know, there's this thing happening that kind of makes them. Puts pressure on them, first of all, and also makes them look

other than what they are. And so that put me in a really awkward place, actually. Um, I think it's okay. I think it's okay. But, um, I don't want them to think that by inviting me to speak to them, which I did in moonster, that I'm gonna make it into this viral moment. >> Martha Tatarnic: Like, that's not well, and they're probably not used to their work being looped into a viral moment.

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: I don't know. I mean, not everybody knows what the Nest Leilan committee is for those listeners who don't know. Um. Uh, it's a greek critical edition of the New Testament. Um, that is kind of put into two parts. There's sort of the part, the main text that's sort of above. They call it above the line, and then there's the text below the line that's in smaller print, and the text below the line in smaller print is

manuscript variations. And like, that change of like the woman getting split in two. That is found in the nest Leilan edition. Like, you could find it in your greek critical edition. Um, but that's in the footnotes. But the main text, the top part of the text, the big font, um, it's in Greek. And it is their best guess at what the evangelists or the New Testament, what the writer actually wrote, the autograph, their

best guess of their reconstruction of the autograph. And they use a lot of very sophisticated techniques to figure it out. And there's a lot of debate. And these editions, this is the 28th edition. They're coming out with the 29th edition very soon. Um, they work on this constantly. Um, and each change is highly debated and has to be backed up with rigorous peer review. And, um. So, uh, what's going on is that this greek critical edition is the base text from which all translations are made.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Right. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Okay, so your new revised standard Version and your new American Bible and your new international version, and your ESV, your, uh, english standard version, all of those different translations are using this as their based text. So this is the greek text from which bibles get translated into French, into German, into Swahili. So this is the critical

greek text. And this text, um, I'm not going to make any kind of an impact on the main text, the big text above the line, but there might be some changes to the footnotes, to the footnotes, which is, um, these are the variations in the manuscripts that we need to be paying attention to. And honestly, we shouldn't change the text above the line because, as I said, martha is in every single copy that we have.

That we have, that her presence is very unstable. It blinks in and out throughout the entire transmission, all the way from John eleven one to John twelve two. There's manuscripts where Mary's doing something where you would expect Martha to do it, or where there's one sister when you expect there to be two. So her presence is unstable. We shouldn't take Martha out of the text, um, because she's in every copy. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right.

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: But we should maybe say a mention in the footnotes. Oh, there's all these really important copies where you see weird things. And if the footnotes are updated to reflect that more clearly, that means that future translations, like the new revised standard version, um, might have, you know, if you ever looked at a study Bible, in the bottom it says, um. Some ancient authorities say, yeah, yeah, that's

where it might get changed. Like, we might get a little note that says, some ancient authorities lack Martha. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right in this verse. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Right. That's what we might get. And, I mean, that's still a big, that's still a big thing. >> Martha Tatarnic: That's a big change. Yeah.

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Yeah. Um, it's not. I don't think. I don't want people to think that the greek critical edition is going to get rid of Martha or that your Bible is going to get rid of Martha. That's just not going to happen. Unless there were some really very authentic, very ancient manuscript of John found where Martha were completely absent. Um, that might cause a change to the.

>> Martha Tatarnic: And that is the hypothesis. That's the hypothesis that might have been the case. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Just like Q is a hypothesis. Maybe there was a document circulating, but we don't have a copy of Q, so it's just a hypothesis. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right? Yeah, yeah. And, you know, a hypothesis that could be proved one day. Who knows?

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: It could be proved if such a manuscript and authentic manuscript were to be found. >> Martha Tatarnic: So when, um, you can watch this recording of Diana's sermon, and she gets quite emotional at one or two points in the sermon, I know when people were sending it to me and it was mostly my female colleagues who were sending it to me, um, there was a lot of excitement, a lot of emotion in this getting shared as well.

Um, what do you think the nerve is that is hit with this possibility of Mary Magdalene, um, almost having a parallel role to the apostle Peter?

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Well, I think the nerve that it hits is that we've always, you know, we've suspected that something like this might have happened, but we just couldn't put our finger on it. Like there's something weird, there's something that was changed and it was like, no, no, no. Just look at everything. Everything's very clear. We know what the Bible says, we know what's happened. And so it's. I feel like it's sort of like the smoking gun.

Here it is. This is where it happened. And I feel like that's what's exciting about it, is to actually be able to name and to put your finger on this is the change that was made that caused the diminishment of Mary Magdalene and women's roles in Christianity here in John in the second century. In this story. Um, I think because, uh, so much, oftentimes people have intuitions that are dismissed because

there's no hard evidence. And so to say, here's the hard evidence that supports what all of our intuitions have been saying to us our whole lives, that there's something wrong about the way that women's roles turned out in the church. I think that that's the nerve that it hits and, um, to be able to articulate it in a way that makes sense exegetically. I mean, some of the people that are the most enthusiastic about my work are John scholars, because they're

like. Right, like, Mary and Martha say the same thing twice. Oh, that makes so much more sense. Sense if Mary, Bethany M. Is okay. Like the John scholars, the exegetes are the ones who it resonates with the most, which are, by the way, the people that it really matters with, because they have a sense of the evangelist's voice and what the

evangelist is trying to convey. So, um, it makes sense from a biblical scholarship level, it makes sense from a text critical level, from the manuscripts, and it makes sense from, like, what many of us know to be wrong about the way that the church has turned out in certain ways. The sort of suppression of women's voices, the misogyny, um, the imbalance in power that honestly has created some real problems. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, yeah. Has definitely created

problems. And it's not that you can't point to places where clearly women did have a big role in the biblical witness, in the life of Jesus and in the early church, but it's so easy to downplay it or overlook it. Um, and you know, as well as Diana says in her sermon, like, I knew it. I knew that. That gut instinct that no women had a role, and maybe this woman in particular had, uh, a central role. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Yeah.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Has there been a negative nerve that your work has touched at all? Like, has this received blowback? >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Um, not as much as you would think. Partially because it's just a theory, right? If people are going to come knocking on your door and say, q did not exist, or like Martha, I'm not demanding that this is true. I'm saying it's a competitively plausible hypothesis to explain all of the

strange phenomena. You can't argue that there's strange phenomena happening around Martha. Um, and some people have tried to argue, I guess there was one peer reviewed article that came out in November that said, oh, some of this is just sexism. Uh, in, like, oh, they're saying, like, they, uh, tried to argue that there was sexism, but the sexism was

in the opposite direction. I don't know, like, by saying that Martha's getting diminished, or that, like, when it says marry his sister, like, I've argued that the text would say there was a certain sick man, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary, his sister. Um, and this was the Mary who anointed the Lord with women. I'm saying that's what

you can actually reconstruct. Most of the texts. Well, all of the texts actually, of John eleven one through five, using real readings from some of the most important manuscripts of John in the world. And, um, I think that John eleven one said the village of Mary, his sister, and that John eleven five says Jesus loved Lazarus and his sister. There are real copies that say that. Right, okay. Um, and this, uh, Richard fellows said, oh, that's misogyny by saying his

sister. So he's still arguing for misogyny, but in a different way. >> Martha Tatarnic: Okay. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: I'm like, okay. I mean, like, you could argue that even though, um, I don't know, like John scholars and those redaction critics that I mentioned pointed out the inconsistency between John eleven one and five. How it says there is a certain sick man, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha says Lazarus, mary,

Martha. And then in John eleven five it says now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. People have pointed out that that seems to show two different hands. Uh, smart redaction critics have pointed that out. Because why is Lazarus first and Martha last in John eleven one, but Martha's first and Lazarus as last in John eleven five? That seems to show two different intentions. This is what the redaction critics had talked

about. And I'm saying that's because somebody imported Martha and is trying to, and has done an awkward job of doing so. And actually, if you look at John eleven one through five from my textual reconstruction, which is you had to cobble together readings from three different manuscripts. Um, it's called an eclectic text. It's not a conjecture. It's like these are real readings from different manuscripts. And by the way, the Nestle Hollande edition is also an eclectic text.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Right. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: It's not like it's picking one manuscript. We're going to copy Codex Vaticanus for you. No, they're taking all the manuscripts and picking the best readings. >> Martha Tatarnic: Mhm. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: From those various manuscripts and creating this eclectic constructed text, which is the same thing as

I did. I just chose different readings than they did. Mhm. And in my eclectic reconstruction of John eleven one five, there's consistency. There was a certain sick man, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary, his sister Lazarus first, Mary second, and then John eleven five says, jesus loved Lazarus and his sister Lazarus first, Mary second. So I'm saying that actually makes more narrative sense. Um, but the thing is that you can make an argument and say, oh no, the misogyny is adding the word

his over and over. And it's like, okay, you can make that argument. I think it's kind of a weak argument, but, um, I would say that that's, um, the furthest pushback that I've gotten is saying like, oh, there is some sort of sexism going on, but it's by making all the things into his. I'm like, or, um, the reading Jesus loved Lazarus and his sister is because they're trying to put the man first. I'm like, okay, you can make that reading, you

can make that argument. Um, but to me, uh, what's most compelling about it is that there is a coherent text form. >> Martha Tatarnic: Mhm. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Um, where it's just Lazarus and Mary. That is substantial. Uh, in my Harvard theological review article, you can get five solid verses of text with just Lazarus and Mary from three of the world's most important copies of John. It's papyrus 66, codex alexandrinus, and codex

culbertinus. Those are some of the world's most weighty manuscripts of John. And by combining crossed out readings from those three manuscripts, you get an alternate text form that is totally coherent. And, um, that wasn't really addressed. It's just like, oh, this word or that word is more male friendly. It's like, okay, that's like losing the forest for the trees. When you accurately zoom out, you can see, first of all, there's a consisting of the text

form. Second of all, zoom out to johannine exegesis. The John scholars are like, wait, no, this resonates. This makes better sense. This makes sense of why Mary and Martha say the exact same thing. Lord, if you've been here, my brother would not have died. It also makes sense of why Lazarus sister Mary is so similar to Mary Magdalene. There's so much exegetical sense that it makes

without Martha there. Um, and, uh, also, I'm sorry, but I just don't think it's that big of a blow to women to change her sister to his sister. That's just not as big of a deal as taking the christological confession away from somebody. I'm like, that's misogyny. That's. It's not just like a little tweak here and there, which we see in other places, like you do see. Um, I don't know, the book of acts, sometimes Aquila is listed before Prisca in certain copies. Um, like, you do see certain

tweaks of name order in other manuscripts. And so, yeah, you can build that argument. I'm just saying I don't find it to be a very compelling argument. Um, we know that there was so much controversy around Mary Magdalene and early Christianity. We know people thought Mary of Bethany was Mary Magdalene. Like, we've got the Gospel of Mary where Peter and Nandra were challenging her. We've got the gospel of Thomas where Peter says women are not worthy of life. Um, that, to me,

sounds. And also specifically the conflicts between Mary and Peter, especially when there's this christological confession issue. Um, also in the Pistis Sophia, we've got so many ancient documents where Peter is challenging Mary Magdalene and her worthiness to lead. That, to me, is a much more coherent picture of why you would see. See these edits. Um, but, yeah, so much of textual criticism and scholarship is building arguments, and you can have the same data and

interpret it in multiple ways. And so, yeah, I would say, um, you were asking me if I've been, like. My research has been seen as threatening or if I've had negative, harsh reactions. And it's like, m. I've had a really positive response from the johannine exegetes. I've had a, um, one legitimate peer reviewed article that I think makes a kind of a weak argument. Um, also, it doesn't address, really, the patristic stuff that I was talking about, how Mary does weird things in the patristic

authors, nor does it address the artwork, which I haven't mentioned yet on this podcast, but the standard ancient artwork, um, like, on all the sarcophagi, or, uh, nearly all the sarcophagi in antiquity, is that, uh, Jesus is raising Lazarus, and there is one sister. >> Martha Tatarnic: One sister?

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Yeah, yeah. It's all like, just look at the standard iconography, and it's just the one sister at Jesus's feet, which sounds like Mary, because that's John 1132, that Mary falls at Jesus's feet. Um, and so you got the artwork and the patristics and the manuscripts of John. That's three different kinds of evidence that are all showing inconsistency around Martha's

presence. To me, that. I mean, there is no other ancient evidence other than artwork, church fathers commentary, and gospel manuscripts. That's all we have. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: So when all three of them are showing this similar trend, um, that's, to me, like a really clear through line that there's something going on there. Uh, and I think it's the simplest explanation is that there are multiple text forms

circulating. There is a circulating text form where Lazarus has one sister, and then there's a very inconsistent text form circulating where Lazarus has two sisters and different manuscripts. It shows up in different ways. >> Martha Tatarnic: I think that it is harder to push back against, um, your research when you do take such care to make sure that you're clear about what you're saying and what is, um, the hypothesis from the evidence that we actually

have. Uh, you're not Dan Browning it, right? Like, you're not kind of like taking, um, pieces of evidence and then constructing a whole story and saying, this is the way it is. Like, you're very clear about what we know and what we don't know at this time. Um, I'm always fascinated, or I've always been fascinated by the portrayal of, uh, Mary Magdalene over the course of pop culture. And I mean, not just modern pop culture, but, like, pop culture over the centuries.

I find it quite incredible, um, how often there's this assumption that, uh, Mary Magdalene must have had romantic feelings toward Jesus because, like, how could we possibly understand her interest in Jesus apart from she must have been in love with him? >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Um, well, I do want to push back on that a little bit because I think it is also built into the gospel of John that there is an intertext with the song of songs where the bride is

searching for her beloved. In song of songs, chapter three. Like, by night I searched for my beloved, and, um, I passed by the watchman. Have you seen my beloved? And when I found him, I held him and I would not let him go. That is absolutely known to the author of John. And it is absolutely an inner text that is going on underneath the story of John eleven. Sorry, not John 20, of Mary Magdalene searching for Jesus in the garden. And people have pointed out that intertext with the song of songs

from the very beginning. Hippolytus of Rome in the third century points it out. M. Ambrose in the fourth century knows about it. Even, um, M. Bernard of Clairvaux. Like, it's. People know that. So it is sort of hinted at that, like, Mary Magdalene is personifying the bride, searching for her beloved.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Right. Okay. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: In John, chapter 20, and beyond that, of course, there's the Gospel of Philip, which is, you know, which was lost to us for most of christian history, but, you know, published in the 1950s, it's one of the Naik Hamadi gospels. And it says that Mary Magdalene was the companion and the twin of Christ. This word hotre, in, uh, coptic is, it says koinonos in

Greek, which means companion. And then it says, uh, Mary was his mother and his sister and his hotre, which means something more like consort or twin. And so that does seem to have. It has this connotation of being yoked, right? Um, and that one, I think, does have some sort of romantic over it. And it says that Jesus used to kiss her often. So, I mean, I would say the gospel of Philip. I'm not going to say it says anything about them being married because it

doesn't. But it does have some sort of romantic connotations in this one document, in the one, just one perspective. Clement of Alexandria in the second century also says the Lord did not marry. So these are two different ideas about Jesus's romantic life circulating simultaneously that say two different things. We can't know. Clement of Alexandria and the gospel of Philip are both second century and they're saying two different things. We can't know. We can't actually know. We

can't get to the origin of it. But I do think, um, this idea that there's some sort of romantic love that Mary Magdalene has, which has definitely picked up in a lot of medieval interpretation and certainly in the Da Vinci code. The da Vinci code has been influenced by the gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary that says that Jesus loved her more than all other women. But, um, I would say it's in John 20 that there is this subtle hint that Mary

Magdalene is personifying the bride in the song of songs. I mean, I think you have to look at it that way. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. Okay. That definitely brings in a lot of the different pieces of the puzzle. And the bottom line is that, uh, although we can see how Mary Magdalene has been downplayed, um, and misunderstood, um, and associated with pieces, uh, that there aren't biblical foundations, um,

for connecting. She has been said to be a prostitute and, um, there's no biblical foundation for that. Um, there has been just this rampant fascination with her as well that we can see down across, uh, the centuries of the church, um, I find it really interesting, I think that we can definitely point to, um, Mary Magdalene's role. And as you said earlier, what could have been, um, the role of women if we had more accurately been able to see

her. Um, but I've also heard you talk about how, um, maybe there was a truth that the church just wasn't previously able to hear and now we can hear it. Can you just say a little bit more about how maybe the hand of God is revealed in both Mary's downplaying and in the illuminating of her story now? >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Well, I always liked that this is a story about death and resurrection, right? M the

Lazarus story is a story about death and resurrection. And as I was working on my master's thesis and I was looking over and over and over and over at hundreds of transcriptions of John, this one verse, John eleven four was constantly popping out to me where Jesus says the illness is not unto death but it is for the glory of God so that the Son might be glorified

through it. And um, I felt that, it felt to me as I was doing this work on John eleven that it was not just a comment on Lazarus's illness but it was almost a comment on the illness in the text itself that I was witnessing through looking at hundreds of transcriptions. There is an illness in the text but it is not unto death. Um, so if I switch out of my text critic hat and I put on my theologian hat, um, to me that really resonated with me that um, also that Jesus waits for a couple of

days like they're like, come and take care of my brother. And he's like no, I'm going to wait because I'm going to show the glory of God, right? And to me I'm like that sounds to me just as an interpreter of the text that that could be what's happening here, that there is an illnesse, you could say due to the imperial patriarchal mindset especially that women were supposed to be uh, in private life and

only men are meant to be in public life. That's, I think the central issue with Mary Magdalene is that she's too public. She's speaking out publicly. And um, that's why the Virgin Mary is seen as a better exemplar of women's roles because she's private. She speaks but only in private to family members. Um, Luke does a good job of crafting women so that women do speak, but only with family members at home. They're not allowed to speak public like the men.

Um, women are allowed to serve, they're allowed to support, they're allowed to have house churches and take care of the men in Luke's vision. And I think that the way that the church turned out is very much aligned with Luke's vision which is very much aligned with imperial values. Yeah, uh, women are private, men are public. And that's why Mary Magdalene is such a problematic character, by the way. That's why I think Luke doesn't like Mary

Magdalene. You know, he doesn't. He takes her name away from the cross. He has access to Mark's gospel but he removes her name from the list of women at the cross. She does not get an appearance of the risen Jesus. People are like, who did Jesus appear to first? Mary Magdalene. Unless you're reading Luke's gospel. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right, right.

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Jesus does not appear to her in Luke's gospel. Um, I think that that is sort of the way that the church turned out was, uh, this problem with women, uh, in public life. And so Mary Magdalene is taking over this sort of more public role in John's gospel. That I think, um, was a problem at that time. And now we're in a day and age where, of course, women are allowed to be in public life. And so, um, maybe John. I'm not sure that things could have turned

out to differently. I think that if John had insisted on putting the word Magdalene in John eleven, or even if the text had not been changed, that maybe this gospel would not have been received into the canon. It would have gone the way of the gospel of Mary, which, um, is not even mentioned in lists of heretical books, even though we know that it was circulated fairly widely. We have as many copies of the Gospel of Mary as we

do of the Gospel of Thomas. We've got greek copies, a couple greek copies, and a coptic translation, same as the gospel of Thomas, same number. Everybody talks about the gospel of Thomas in antiquity. They're like, don't read that gospel of Thomas if you really believe about this gospel of Thomas. But they never talk about the gospel of Thomas. >> Martha Tatarnic: So no airtime whatsoever. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Yeah. Not even to say that it should not be read.

And I'm saying that's what could have happened maybe, to the gospel of John if. If John had insisted. Insisted. And I'm saying that John did not insist. And there's all these johannine verses that work so well with this theory that the light shines in the darkness and the darkness does not master it or does not comprehend it, whichever way you want to read that verb, however you want to

translate it. Um, so there is this light that's shining, the gospel is going through, and the darkness doesn't know what it's up to. Right. And, um, also this idea that there's no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends. I mean, I think that Mary's identity has died in this text and that to some extent, she has laid down her life in the text so that her friends, us, uh, could receive the gospel. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right.

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: It was more important that the gospel went forward than that it demand that Mary was the one who did these things. And I think that Mary was the one who did those things. But it does not insist. It does not insist on its own way. That's very first corinthians 13. Right. Love is not insisting on its own way. Even if it's right? >> Martha Tatarnic: Right.

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Even if it's right. And, um, this whole concept of laying down one's life on behalf of others, I don't want to. I know that that can get, um, tricky. You know, a lot of womanist theologians have objected to this idea of, like, oh, women should just be doormats and just be stepped on, especially black women. Like, like, just, you know, lay down your life. So that, I mean, it's. It's been. It's. Women have been abused.

And, um, I think that the distinction here to be made is that it's the person who is stronger who lays down their life for the person who is weaker. That's what this is about. And I think that Mary is stronger, in a way, than Peter here. This is what Peter needed. And so I'm saying that the text met us where we were at. At that time. >> Martha Tatarnic: Mhm. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: And, um, it adjusts over time to meet our

needs. And, um, I have said at some time it's not just that there's an illness in the text, it's that the. The word itself has been wounded. >> Martha Tatarnic: Right. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Yeah. Yeah. That there's an actual wounding of the word of God. Just like Jesus's body is vulnerable, the. >> Martha Tatarnic: Text is vulnerable, is vulnerable. And yet there's also this truth that is preserved in some way in the text that does eventually shine in the darkness.

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Yeah. And it's almost like there's a. There's something very profound in the wounding and the allowance of the wounding of something sacred that it bears our sin in its body. >> Martha Tatarnic: Mhm. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Right. The crucifixion is like taking on the sin of the world, right? Because it's bigger than that. >> Martha Tatarnic: Mhm. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: And I'm saying that this,

um. If this is true, if that's not true, it's just an idea that'll be published and it'll be footnoted in other books like that, then there's no power to it. But if Mary was the person who anointed Jesus at Bethany, if she did confess Jesus as the Christ, if that's true, then nothing can kill it. No pen stroke can kill that. And that truth is maybe waiting for us to be ready for

it. And I think that John, especially with the ability to see hundreds of manuscripts simultaneously, which we've only had in the last decade or so, honestly. >> Martha Tatarnic: Mhm. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: That ability to see, uh, hundreds of manuscripts, for us to pull back and to maybe see that wounding of the word, um, is a profound moment of maybe conversion, I hope, of the church's culture. That's sort of what I would hope, um, would be possible. I

recognize that because it's theoretical. We would probably need an actual manuscript, um, to really persuade everyone. But I feel like what I'm hoping to do in this podcast and in my publications is to at least till the soil. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. Yeah. So I want to bring this full circle, and again, a plug for listening to part one of this conversation. But can you just take us back to that

subway? And, uh, that sense of a calling that you had when you still thought that it was as a singer songwriter, that this is what you were being called to do. Can you just take us back to that subway? That moment of. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: I just know I was reading bell hooks book, bone Black. I don't even remember exactly what the exact passage was. Bell hooks. Oof. Read her. She. Oh, you know what? She also said

this one thing that really resonated with me. She said, white women do not want to be a part of feminist movement. White women want to lead feminist movement. Mhm. I read that at a good time because it's important for me and you and all of us, um, white women who do this kind of thing to remember that it's not about us. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. Yeah. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: And, um, especially if we're going to be thinking about sisterhood. But

that's a real. That's a real important part. I think that what Diana and I are trying to do is sisterhood. Um, it's not about us being the queen in the room that everybody worships or whatever. There are some Mary Magdalene people who do that. And I don't want to be one of those. I want to be someone who's operating in sisterhood, who. These are my gifts. These are your gifts. We're working together. These are Martha's gifts, uh, that we get the word out, um, sort

of as a team. And in lifting up one another's voices and supporting one another, um, that was something that I think bell hooks gave me. Um, and in that moment on the subway, I mean, I've never had anything like that happen to me before or since. Just this. It literally felt like there was a

radio wave coming out of my head. That's just so. I know it sounds strange, um, but again, I was meditating every day for an hour, and I had been doing so for years at this point, so maybe that had something to do with it as well. But, um, yeah, it was just, uh, the valuation of the feminine. There's something to do with the feminine being a thing, which some people I know, like Judith Butler would say that there's no such thing, but

I do think that there is such a thing as the feminine. Um. Um, the feminine exists and it has value. That's the lesson that I've had to learn in my own life, that I'm still learning, honestly, because my masculine side is very, very developed. Um, I, um, have to learn that and also just learning that the feminine in itself has value and bringing that to people's attention, I guess partly through my music, but more so through my work on the

gospels. And I'm, um. It's. It's a real treasure that it's being received. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. Well, I just have to say on a personal note, I mean, it means a lot. Like, it means a lot to me as a, ah, woman in leadership in the church. It means a lot to my colleagues. It means a lot to have this biblical grounding, to have this unfolding research, um, that allows us to lean into that valuing in a way that feels true, um, and powerful

and collaborative. And, uh, I really want to say thank you to you for not just your work, but your voice and, um, I think your ability to connect, like, really solid, careful research, um, into a framework of why it matters as well, um, is such a gift. So thank you very much, Elizabeth.

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Thank you. And again, it's a real pleasure for me to know that, uh, the work that I'm doing matters, and it makes a difference, which is, of course, what I wanted in the music business as well. And sometimes life is just unexpected. It takes you down paths you never thought you'd go on. Who knew that my brain was good at manuscripts? So strange. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Yeah.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Well, uh, we're definitely on a path full of surprises and twists and turns in the road. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: The red thread. >> Martha Tatarnic: The red thread. Love that. Uh, okay, well, let's take a quick, uh, break, and then we'll come back for a couple of closing rapid fire questions. Okay. Welcome back to the Future Christian podcast and our closing rapid fire

questions. And we always say to our guests that you can take these questions as seriously or not as you want. Um,

so don't be thrown too much by this first question, but, Elizabeth, if you were pope for a day, what would that day look like? What would be on your agenda? >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: I would abdicate. I don't want that kind of responsibility. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, I think that just totally flies in the face of everything that you just said about, uh, the feminist movement and sisterhood and. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Yeah, exactly.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Okay, so, clear answer. What is a, uh, theologian or historical christian figure that you would want to meet, have supper with bring back to life. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: I mean, probably Jesus. Obviously, if you got to meet Jesus, that would be the best, obviously. But, um, if you're talking about somebody other than Jesus, well, and of course, Mary Magdalene, I'd want to hang out with her. And the Virgin Mary, those are my besties. Like, I

want to hang out with them. Um, but if you're talking about somebody a little bit deeper cut, probably. I really like Gregory of Nessa. I think he's really smart, theologian, and he has some of the ideas that he has, um, on, like, ransom theory, uh, really resonate with me. I know that's kind of dorky patristic stuff, but I think Gregory of Nyssa understood. I think he's a smart guy.

>> Martha Tatarnic: I think we should try to get all those people around the supper table, Jesus and the Marys and Gregory and you. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Sounds like not Gregory the great. I don't need to have dinner with him, but Gregory of Nyssa, the cappadocian, I like him. >> Martha Tatarnic: Okay, good. To be clear about that, what will history remember from our current time and place?

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Oh, man. Probably it's that moment, like, you know, it's like, oh, when I. When did we invent farming? Or like, when did we invent the printing press? It's going to be like, when did we invent AI? That's probably what this is going to be. I like to think that there is a higher power beyond that. Um, but we'll see. We'll see if AI just takes everything over and becomes our

new reality. But that's what I think history is going to remember from where we're at right now. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, we did, uh, roundtable on AI a couple of months ago on the podcast. The m implications are huge and not fun. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: As a professor, I made all my students do blue books for their finals. I'm like, no computers of any kind. Their hands were shaking. They're like, I don't actually write this

much. I'm back to blue books to keep them away from that stuff. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, yeah, that's good, good, uh, hack, for sure. What are your hopes for the future of Christianity? >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Well, you know, like any researcher, I hope that

my. My work might make a difference, not just from preaching to the choir, from people who already agree with me, but for people who might really have thought something differently for a long time about the roles of men and women. I hope that this might be able to make a shift in, um, people who have been certain for so long of the roles of men and women. I hope to create a little crack. I also love this laird Cohen quote, there is a crack in everything.

>> Martha Tatarnic: That's how the lights in. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: That's what I think is going on in these manuscripts of John. Let's follow that crack and see if the light gets in that way. >> Martha Tatarnic: Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's beautiful. Where can people find more about you, Elizabeth?

>> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Um, I have a website, uh, elizabethshrader.com, and that has not, uh, only links to my publications and my schedule of presentations and my biography, but, uh, also a music tab where you can hear a lot of my songs and, um, watch Magdalene music video. >> Martha Tatarnic: And I highly recommend doing that. Just a plug. People should definitely get you on their playlists as well. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Oh, thanks.

>> Martha Tatarnic: Okay, well, we always wrap up with a word of peace. So, um, again, I just want to say thank you so very much for your time today in a very demanding, um, and in demand schedule. And, Elizabeth, may God's peace be with you. >> Dr. Elizabeth Schrader Polczer: Thank you, Martha. You too. >> 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 Romig-Leavitt. Thanks and go in peace. >> Martha Tatarnic: Mhm.