Let me first elucidate an important point:

How many women were there under the cross?

The Gospel says (17th century KJV translation):

"Now there stood by the cross Mary his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas and Mary Magdalene."

How many women? Apparently three:

- Mary, mother of Jesus
- Mary her sister and so-called "wife" of so-called "Cleopas"
- Mary the Magdalene

In fact this is not so. Notice that there is no "and" after "his mother's sister":

"...there stood by the cross Mary his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas and Mary Magdalene."

Mary his mother and his mother's sister

Mary the wife of Cleopas and Mary the Magdalene

Some commentators (Esther de Boer) see here a symmetrical construction: 2+2. In this case, "Mary the wife of Cleopas" refers to Mary and "Mary the Magdalene" to "his mother's sister".

There is another possibility: "Mary the wife of Cleopas and Mary Magdalene" is the unfoldment of "his mother's sister":

"...there stood by the cross Mary his mother and his mother's sister, i.e. Mary the wife of Cleopas, even Mary the Magdalene."

Mary the Magdalene is the "wife" of Cleopas and Mary's sister.

Now you might say: why do you want so much that there should be only TWO women under the cross?

-Because it is possible from a linguistic point of view to understand and translate the verse thus

-Because the Semites are people enamored with symmetrical formulas and symbols. Two people on each side of the cross is a perfect symmetry. Three would be too much.

-Because only TWO people are mentioned in the following verse:

"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!"

Personally I think that the second interpretation is the right one. I will explain later why.

.......................................................................................................

There has been a lot of discussion on "the other disciple whom Jesus loved mentioned in "John"20, 2. Most people have failed to notice the word "other" and rushed to the erroneous conclusion that because the Magdalene is mentioned concurrently with the "disciple whom Jesus loved", she could not possibly be that disciple.

Mary the Magdalene is indeed not "the OTHER disciple whom Jesus loved".

That there are two beloved disciples is made PERFECTLY CLEAR by John 21, 20 : "Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which ALSO leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? "

Two disciples leaned on Jesus' breast...Who are they?

But let us come back to "John" 20,2 .

"Then she(MM) runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them..."

There are two new words here: one, apparent in the translation, is "other", which completely changes the situation, the other is "loved" . This important linguistic feature of the original text is unfortunately not apparent at all in English for lack of a precise equivalent. The Greek verb used to describe the love that Jesus has for this OTHER disciple is "philein". This verb means love for relatives and parents, for friends and even pets.

Now the FIRST disciple whom Jesus loved, the one who was ALSO present at the Last Supper is loved with "agape". "Agape" is spiritual love, divine love. It is the unconditional love that Jesus has for his sheep, whom he knows by name and who listen to his voice (John 10) . The love that goes unto the end (John 13,1).

The contrasted use of "agapan" and "philein" (I'm using the present active infinitives of the Greek verbs) is not something one can dismiss lightly as a mere coincidence. The two verbs have different meanings and they are used with contrasted meanings in the last chapter of John, when Jesus asks Peter whether he really loves Him. He first uses "agapan" and then switches to "philein" when he realizes that Peter's love is not deep enough.

"Peter do you love me with unconditional love(one that is ready to lay down one's life for the beloved)? =agapais

-Peter do you love me with unconditional love? =agapais

-Peter, do you love me as a friend?" =phileis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that we have established beyond doubt that there are TWO beloved disciples, let us turn to the burning question of who that OTHER disciple is.

Before we do that let us notice something strange in what Mary the Magdalene tells Peter and that other disciple:

"They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and WE know not where they have laid him. "

Notice the "we". How come Mary the Magdalene uses the plural here? Verse 1 of chapter 20 only mentions Mary the Magdalene as going to the sepulchre:

"The first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre."

Did she go there with somebody else? The Synoptic Gospels mention several women, namely Mary the mother of James and Salome(see Mark 16,1).

Why did the author fail to mention those other women?

Now this intriguing fact should make us aware of the fact that the author of the Gospel of John, when he/she describes events, is not writing in the manner of a modern journalist. "John" is not so much interested in a precise chronology, in a precise description of who was there or not there as in a narrative that brings home a religious point to the reader. The spiritual meaning comes first.

Let us proceed further:

"Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. "

Question: did Peter and the disciple live in the same place?

Answer: No. They lived apart. Read verse 2. The meaning is very clear but easily overlooked if one is not very attentive.

According to the text, she first goes to Peter's house and then to the place where the other disciple lives. That MAY explain the "WE": "...we know not where they have laid him... is said (breathlessly) with the accompanying disciple at her side, either Peter or the other disciple.

I would rather think that she went first to the disciple whom Jesus loved (with philia). They would have talked on the way to Peter's hiding place, anxiously speculating about a possible explanation for the disappearance of Jesus'body.

To go to Peter's place first would be against feminine psychology. She first goes to that other disciple in order to find comfort and let off steam. Having briefly discussed the situation, they brace themselves to tell the appalling news to the boss, Peter. What shall we tell him? How is he going to react?

BUT in writing down the text, the author of the Gospel of John prefers to mention Peter first. This, I think, has a symbolic meaning. Peter is the head of the disciples. I have to show him deference.

........................................................................................................

The other disciple runs and outruns Peter but does not go in first. Again apparently a display of respect for Peter's preeminence in the small community of Jesus' disciples.

When Peter has entered and checked what is inside, the other disciple enters and immediately this mysterious figure has a most profound insight: the son of God has resurrected:

"Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed."

The disciple has not seen anything but he (?) believes.

Truly it is of him (?) that Jesus spoke when he said "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.

This disciple is blessed. More blessed than Thomas, of course. But more blessed also than all the other male disciples of Jesus who had to see his hands and side to recognize him:

"And when he had so said, he shewed unto them [his] hands and his side. THEN were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.


This disciple did not need anything. Or better said: the empty tomb and the linen clothes were enough to awaken his(?) faith.

Who, I'm asking you, would consider "emptiness" proof of God's existence? See how great this disciple's insight is !

NOW WHO IS THIS DISCIPLE?

Ask yourself:

Who was the first person to know of the incarnation and to believe in it without seeing any tangible sign of it, being OVERSHADOWED by the Holy spirit?

Of whom is it written that "BLESSED is she who did believe?

Who wrapped in swaddling clothes a divine babe born in a cave?


Her name is Mary, the mother of Jesus.

The mother of Jesus? "Original, interesting will you say but...but...she is Jesus' mother, how come she is called a disciple?"

Very simple. Remember the scene under the cross? What happened there? Jesus divested Mary of her biological motherhood: "Behold your son, behold your mother".

After John 19, 26, Mary is no longer Jesus' mother. She has become something even higher: she has become his disciple, the disciple, says "John", whom he loved as a son loves his biological mother (philein in Greek). Big hint here.

Mary the Magdalene, so-called wife of Klopas, took her to her house. It is there that she went first after discovering the empty tomb. Then the two of them went to see Peter. The three went out to the garden.

Mary, being what she is, outruns Peter.

Don't say:"She was old and withered. How could she have possibly outrun Peter?" If you say that it means that you don't understand not only a woman and a mother's heart but also the heart of a great spiritual being moved by love. Peter was slow because his love is slow and impure. Remember: he had betrayed Jesus three times. Mary had brought him to the world and she had risked her life by accepting to conceive him out of wedlock.

And she could not outrun Peter?

Now, when she reaches the cave, she stops and waits for Peter. Female deference for males and nothing else, I think.

When she finds herself inside the empty cave and sees the linen clothes, she believes. Linen clothes, swaddling clothes. Birth and death. Are they not the same? Yeah, this is a new birth, one that leads to life everlasting and an everlasting kingdom:

"And of his kingdom there shall be no end..."(Luke 1,33)

When they leave the place, says "John", each goes to their own place: "Then the disciples went away again unto their own (Greek eautous) home." (20,10)

Another proof that that other beloved disciple did not live with Peter and the other male disciples.

She is not there when Jesus appears in the Cenacle. She does not need to see him. She believes, that is enough. But it is of her that Jesus said "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed". Elizabeth had said almost exactly the same thing 33 years before...

Finally she may possibly have been on the fishing boat with Peter, Thomas, Nathanael and the sons of Zebedee (among whom we find John):

"There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the [sons] of Zebedee, AND TWO OTHER of his disciples. "

Glory to her who has not seen and yet has believed for ever and ever!

Amen.

On the question of the masculine pronouns used to designate the disciple whom Jesus loved see the following link:

http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/00_1/m-forum.htm

Originally posted by Magdalenbrother

Let me first elucidate an important point:

How many women were there under the cross?

The Gospel says (17th century KJV translation):

"Now there stood by the cross Mary his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas and Mary Magdalene."

How many women? Apparently three:

- Mary, mother of Jesus
- Mary her sister and so-called "wife" of so-called "Cleopas"
- Mary the Magdalene

In fact this is not so. Notice that there is no "and" after "his mother's sister":

"...there stood by the cross Mary his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas and Mary Magdalene."

Mary his mother and his mother's sister

Mary the wife of Cleopas and Mary the Magdalene

Some commentators (Esther de Boer) see here a symmetrical construction: 2+2. In this case, "Mary the wife of Cleopas" refers to Mary and "Mary the Magdalene" to "his mother's sister".

There is another possibility: "Mary the wife of Cleopas and Mary Magdalene" is the unfoldment of "his mother's sister":

"...there stood by the cross Mary his mother and his mother's sister, i.e. Mary the wife of Cleopas, even Mary the Magdalene."

Mary the Magdalene is the "wife" of Cleopas and Mary's sister.

Now you might say: why do you want so much that there should be only TWO women under the cross?

-Because it is possible from a linguistic point of view to understand and translate the verse thus

-Because the Semites are people enamored with symmetrical formulas and symbols. Two people on each side of the cross is a perfect symmetry. Three would be too much.

-Because only TWO people are mentioned in the following verse:

"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!"

Personally I think that the second interpretation is the right one. I will explain later why.

.......................................................................................................

There has been a lot of discussion on "the other disciple whom Jesus loved mentioned in "John"20, 2. Most people have failed to notice the word "other" and rushed to the erroneous conclusion that because the Magdalene is mentioned concurrently with the "disciple whom Jesus loved", she could not possibly be that disciple.

Mary the Magdalene is indeed not "the OTHER disciple whom Jesus loved".

That there are two beloved disciples is made PERFECTLY CLEAR by John 21, 20 : "Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which ALSO leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? "

Two disciples leaned on Jesus' breast...Who are they?

But let us come back to "John" 20,2 .

"Then she(MM) runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them..."

There are two new words here: one, apparent in the translation, is "other", which completely changes the situation, the other is "loved" . This important linguistic feature of the original text is unfortunately not apparent at all in English for lack of a precise equivalent. The Greek verb used to describe the love that Jesus has for this OTHER disciple is "philein". This verb means love for relatives and parents, for friends and even pets.

Now the FIRST disciple whom Jesus loved, the one who was ALSO present at the Last Supper is loved with "agape". "Agape" is spiritual love, divine love. It is the unconditional love that Jesus has for his sheep, whom he knows by name and who listen to his voice (John 10) . The love that goes unto the end (John 13,1).

The contrasted use of "agapan" and "philein" (I'm using the present active infinitives of the Greek verbs) is not something one can dismiss lightly as a mere coincidence. The two verbs have different meanings and they are used with contrasted meanings in the last chapter of John, when Jesus asks Peter whether he really loves Him. He first uses "agapan" and then switches to "philein" when he realizes that Peter's love is not deep enough.

"Peter do you love me with unconditional love(one that is ready to lay down one's life for the beloved)? =agapais

-Peter do you love me with unconditional love? =agapais

-Peter, do you love me as a friend?" =phileis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that we have established beyond doubt that there are TWO beloved disciples, let us turn to the burning question of who that OTHER disciple is.

Before we do that let us notice something strange in what Mary the Magdalene tells Peter and that other disciple:

"They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and WE know not where they have laid him. "

Notice the "we". How come Mary the Magdalene uses the plural here? Verse 1 of chapter 20 only mentions Mary the Magdalene as going to the sepulchre:

"The first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre."

Did she go there with somebody else? The Synoptic Gospels mention several women, namely Mary the mother of James and Salome(see Mark 16,1).

Why did the author fail to mention those other women?

Now this intriguing fact should make us aware of the fact that the author of the Gospel of John, when he/she describes events, is not writing in the manner of a modern journalist. "John" is not so much interested in a precise chronology, in a precise description of who was there or not there as in a narrative that brings home a religious point to the reader. The spiritual meaning comes first.

Let us proceed further:

"Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. "

Question: did Peter and the disciple live in the same place?

Answer: No. They lived apart. Read verse 2. The meaning is very clear but easily overlooked if one is not very attentive.

According to the text, she first goes to Peter's house and then to the place where the other disciple lives. That MAY explain the "WE": "...we know not where they have laid him... is said (breathlessly) with the accompanying disciple at her side, either Peter or the other disciple.

I would rather think that she went first to the disciple whom Jesus loved (with philia). They would have talked on the way to Peter's hiding place, anxiously speculating about a possible explanation for the disappearance of Jesus'body.

To go to Peter's place first would be against feminine psychology. She first goes to that other disciple in order to find comfort and let off steam. Having briefly discussed the situation, they brace themselves to tell the appalling news to the boss, Peter. What shall we tell him? How is he going to react?

BUT in writing down the text, the author of the Gospel of John prefers to mention Peter first. This, I think, has a symbolic meaning. Peter is the head of the disciples. I have to show him deference.

........................................................................................................

The other disciple runs and outruns Peter but does not go in first. Again apparently a display of respect for Peter's preeminence in the small community of Jesus' disciples.

When Peter has entered and checked what is inside, the other disciple enters and immediately this mysterious figure has a most profound insight: the son of God has resurrected:

"Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed."

The disciple has not seen anything but he (?) believes.

Truly it is of him (?) that Jesus spoke when he said "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.

This disciple is blessed. More blessed than Thomas, of course. But more blessed also than all the other male disciples of Jesus who had to see his hands and side to recognize him:

"And when he had so said, he shewed unto them [his] hands and his side. THEN were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.


This disciple did not need anything. Or better said: the empty tomb and the linen clothes were enough to awaken his(?) faith.

Who, I'm asking you, would consider "emptiness" proof of God's existence? See how great this disciple's insight is !

NOW WHO IS THIS DISCIPLE?

Ask yourself:

Who was the first person to know of the incarnation and to believe in it without seeing any tangible sign of it, being OVERSHADOWED by the Holy spirit?

Of whom is it written that "BLESSED is she who did believe?

Who wrapped in swaddling clothes a divine babe born in a cave?


Her name is Mary, the mother of Jesus.

The mother of Jesus? "Original, interesting will you say but...but...she is Jesus' mother, how come she is called a disciple?"

Very simple. Remember the scene under the cross? What happened there? Jesus divested Mary of her biological motherhood: "Behold your son, behold your mother".

After John 19, 26, Mary is no longer Jesus' mother. She has become something even higher: she has become his disciple, the disciple, says "John", whom he loved as a son loves his biological mother (philein in Greek). Big hint here.

Mary the Magdalene, so-called wife of Klopas, took her to her house. It is there that she went first after discovering the empty tomb. Then the two of them went to see Peter. The three went out to the garden.

Mary, being what she is, outruns Peter.

Don't say:"She was old and withered. How could she have possibly outrun Peter?" If you say that it means that you don't understand not only a woman and a mother's heart but also the heart of a great spiritual being moved by love. Peter was slow because his love is slow and impure. Remember: he had betrayed Jesus three times. Mary had brought him to the world and she had risked her life by accepting to conceive him out of wedlock.

And she could not outrun Peter?

Now, when she reaches the cave, she stops and waits for Peter. Female deference for males and nothing else, I think.

When she finds herself inside the empty cave and sees the linen clothes, she believes. Linen clothes, swaddling clothes. Birth and death. Are they not the same? Yeah, this is a new birth, one that leads to life everlasting and an everlasting kingdom:

"And of his kingdom there shall be no end..."(Luke 1,33)

When they leave the place, says "John", each goes to their own place: "Then the disciples went away again unto their own (Greek eautous) home." (20,10)

Another proof that that other beloved disciple did not live with Peter and the other male disciples.

She is not there when Jesus appears in the Cenacle. She does not need to see him. She believes, that is enough. But it is of her that Jesus said "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed". Elizabeth had said almost exactly the same thing 33 years before...

Finally she may possibly have been on the fishing boat with Peter, Thomas, Nathanael and the sons of Zebedee (among whom we find John):

"There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the [sons] of Zebedee, AND TWO OTHER of his disciples. "

Glory to her who has not seen and yet has believed for ever and ever!

Amen.

On the question of the masculine pronouns used to designate the disciple whom Jesus loved see the following link:

http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/00_1/m-forum.htm

This is actually being discussed in Apologetics, and it is less overwhelming to read through, than the size of this initial post.

Originally posted by Bib Lit Major

This is actually being discussed in Apologetics, and it is less overwhelming to read through, than the size of this initial post.

Magdalen is a heretic who denies the deity of Christ and His virginal conception.

See:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27947

for more on the "disciple whom Jesus loved" and the continuing story of the bumbles and tumbles of Magdalenbrother.

Mildly intriguing, but there is no particular strength to translating it that way. What I see is little more than a hypothetical, which seems consistent with a great many things concerning mary. While I find your argument intriguing and not entirely without some small level of merit, I do not see enough reason presented to agree with you.

After all, there is also the argument which holds a certain strong level of merit that John uses these phrases as self-referential. He, himself, is the "Disciple whom Jesus Loved." Perhaps, looking at verses such as the one you cite, you may find that this also works quite well, especially in consideration that the Gospel of John itself rarely speaks of John directly, while he is a decently important character in the others. Textually, there is strong merit for this view.

Interesting perspective. Have you look at the possibility also of Lazareth being the disciple that Jesus loved? "Now Jesus loved Mary, Martha, and Lazarus." Having been resurrected, he would easily have believed upon seeing the grave clothes.

Even more than Mary, there is nothing more than a vague reference to that one passage to indicate that your comment is more than idle speculation.