Cue ominous Dateline NBC-like music:
In the charming hillside village of San Gimignano, Italy, named for the fourth-century bishop Saint Geminianus, there is a tiny tourist attraction that one could easily pass by in the shadow of the town’s stunning skyline of towers. The Museum of Torture, a disturbing and brutal reminder of humanity’s inhumanity, turns out to be a big hit with the kids. Far enough removed from the reality of many of the ancient torture devices on display, one might be tempted to indulge in a little gallows humor. Still, the attraction has a distinctively gruesome and somber vibe. Perhaps in part because right there, front and center, is the torture device about which Christians are most familiar.
Kidding aside, before we bust out the jelly beans, Cadbury eggs, and fancy Easter clothes, before the first mimosa is poured, we are confronted with the stark reality of torture on a cross and the cost of speaking truth to power in a politically volatile climate.
Although the protagonist in our Gospel story does not speak, her bold and scandalous action speaks loudly.
Six days before the Passover, Jesus and friends gather for a celebratory meal. By now, people are talking about the resurrection event—so much so that Lazarus may be in just as much danger as Jesus.
Martha serves. Mary brings out her best, most expensive oils for anointing and floods the room with exotic fragrance. Fresh in Mary’s mind, no doubt, is the foul odor of Lazarus’ open tomb as her brother is miraculously brought back to life.
After the death (and resurrection) of a loved one, priorities tend to get really clear. Mary seems clear and focused as she lets down her hair and begins to tenderly wipe Jesus’ feet. Judas is mortified, mostly about the expense. We hear nothing from the others. But Jesus defends Mary’s extravagant and prescient love offering. She is preparing another body for burial. This time it is Jesus who is still very much alive. Perhaps Judas is right to consider the cost – and not only with regard to the poor (John 12:1-8).
What might this sensuous and outrageous act have cost Mary? Perhaps her true identity.
(Music up)
Maybe it’s time for the real Mary to please stand up…
We begin our investigation with the anointing of Jesus in the four gospel accounts. John’s Gospel names Mary of Bethany as the woman who anoints Jesus’ feet. An unnamed woman in Matthew and Mark anoints his head. Luke calls the woman who also anoints Jesus’s feet with her hair and her tears “a sinner.” We might also look to Mark and Luke, who describe Mary Magdalene as having been plagued by seven demons. Does any of this evidence point to something fishy in Magdala? We must press on.
While there is only one Martha in the Gospels, there are multiple Marys. Luke depicts the hardworking sister Martha and contemplative Mary. While some consider Mary Magdalene to be the only “apostle to the apostles,” based on John’s telling, there is some evidence of third-century usage of the title referring to both Martha and Mary. To further muddy the waters, Eastern Orthodox icons of holy myrrh-bearing women include Mary, the mother of Jesus, Martha, Mary Magdalene, and others.
This mystery grows more complex when we consider some extracanonical texts, like the Gospels of Mary and Thomas, that simply name Mary with no additional descriptor.
With all the different Marys, it stands to reason that later Christians might conflate or compress all of them together. Eastern Christianity, however, did not. In the Orthodox Church, the two Marys (Bethany and Magdala) retain their individual sainthood.
In an influential sermon in the 6th century, Pope Gregory changed the Western narrative about the sinful woman who anointed Jesus’ feet in Luke, by identifying her as Mary Magdalene. Thankfully, Mary, “the prostitute,” only had her reputation destroyed for a short 15 or so centuries and was finally exonerated in 2006 by Pope Benedict.
The plot thickens when we consider the still popular legend claiming that Martha, Mary Magdalene, and Lazarus relocated to Southern France after the crucifixion. Intrigued? Just wait, there's more:
(Music up)
New Testament Scholar and Villanova Professor Elizabeth (Libby) Schraeder recently uncovered some fascinating inconsistencies in John’s Gospel, believed to have been written after the other three, sometime in the late first or early 2nd centuries. Some original Johannine manuscripts, dating to the 2nd century, contained no mention of Martha, only Mary. According to Schraeder, Martha was added to these documents around the fourth century. More similar edits have since been uncovered.
Why so much ado about Mary? And to borrow more Shakespeare, what is in a name? Turns out maybe a lot.
Is it possible that all the women with the precious ointment are Mary of Magdala? Contemporary scholars are not the only ones who seem to think so. Jerome, an early church father, speculated that Magdala, which means tower, may have actually been Mary’s nickname. Another early church patriarch, Tertullian, corroborates that Mary was Lazarus’ only sister and goes so far as to attribute the Christological confession in John chapter 11 to Mary. According to Schraeder and others, this evidence elevates Mary’s status to one of equality with Peter, who makes his own Christological confession in the synoptic Gospels. Could Mary Magdalene have played an even more prominent role than previously thought?
After all, the dinner in our Gospel passage takes place in Bethany, just two miles from Jerusalem, a week before the crucifixion. Mary Magdalene was there. Just saying…
What are we to make of these Mary mashups and mix-ups? Were they intentional? Could some of the confusion have been a deliberate tactic, a cover-up to protect the real Mary? Had her true identity been revealed, would she have been cut down like many of the other disciples before having time to preserve the wisdom gleaned at the foot of her teacher? Was there something more sinister involved?
(Music up)
It’s a lot to take in on this last Sunday in Lent. It’s a lot, but soon, Jesus will travel to Jerusalem, where he will suffer a violent and tortuous death. This should put things into clearer perspective. Whichever Mary anointed Jesus at this first dinner party, it was clearly an act of love and devotion, a precursor to Jesus’ foot-washing at the second and last supper—a precursor to the final act of sacrificial love that will flood the world with the incomprehensibly joyful fragrance of resurrection.
Mary gets this. Her raw, organic, earthy anointing suggests we slow down and notice the love in the room, that we honor the feet of the one who walks into the fire for the least of us, and that we celebrate, as poet Lucille Clifton writes, “that every day something has tried to kill (us) and has failed.”
It seems altogether possible that a dark-skinned Jewish woman whose name means beloved was closest to Jesus. But a tower on a hill is not so easily hidden. Perhaps Mary was wise to lay low for a couple thousand years.
In these final days of Lent 2025, may we consider, or perhaps reconsider, Jesus and Mary’s scandalous love offerings with clarity, with open eyes and hearts, so “that among the swift and varied changes of the world, our hearts may surely there be fixed where true joys are to be found.”