Epilogue

For the Curious

Since it might have occurred to some readers to wonder how much of this novel is my imagination and how much of it actually comes out of the Bible and other sources--and since I find it difficult to stop writing--I see no reason for not satisfying their curiosity.

First of all, I am perfectly aware that there is no evidence that the sinful woman of Luke 7.36 ff., who washed Jesus's feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair, and Mary of Magdala of Luke 8.2, from whom seven devils were driven out, were one and the same person, nor that this person was Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha of Luke 10.38, and the sister of Lazarus of John 11.2, who in his house bathed his feet in oil of nard and wiped them with her hair.

Still, there is no proof that they are not the same person, and in fact, there is a tradition to this effect; and for my purposes, it made an interesting premise for a novel. What set of circumstances could one conceive which would make it seem natural for Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus to leave Bethany, go to live in Galilee long enough to be called the Magdalene rather than the Bethanian, become a notorious prostitute possessed of seven devils, take that bizarre method of begging forgiveness from Jesus in the Pharisee's house, then get back to Bethany in time to meet Jesus and annoy Martha, and repeat a version of her Magdala performance in Bethany? Whether I succeeded in making this sequence psychologically believable is, of course, up to the reader. The point here is that I make no pretense that this is "what really happened"; I know no more of what actually went on back then than anyone else. It is a story, that is all; even though I think it could have happened, based on what is reported in the Bible.

Now then, the whole beginning of the story, right up to the first meeting with Jesus at the end of Chapter 5, is totally imaginary, with the single exception of what Judith tells Mary on page 44, about Jesus's raising the dead at Nain, which is from Luke 7.11, except that Judith thinks it was a girl and not a boy who came back to life. Judith, by the way, and Zebediah, are totally imaginary; all the other main characters are from the Bible.

The driving out of the devils is not described by Luke, but simply mentioned (8.2) as having happened. My first real qualms appeared at this point; I had originally intended to have Jesus say nothing that was not a direct translation from the Gospels; but it became apparent here that this would not work; and so I had to swallow hard and put words into his mouth. Part of my purpose in writing this book was to show the humanity of those I told about; but when it comes to the God-man, how he actually appeared is anybody's guess. But I could not bring myself to make him some kind of aloof, other-worldly being, staring off into the distance and speaking as if in a perpetual trance; and from reading the Gospels, especially Mark and John, I think I am right. On the other hand, this modern notion that he was just a guy who found to his astonishment that he had wondrous powers has got to be nothing but bunk; and it is no accident that I put that theory in the mouth of Judas.

The feet-washing scene in Chapter 8 is from Luke 7.36-50; and from the bottom of page 108 to the top of page 110, it is practically verbatim what is in the Greek. I should mention here that my translations of the Gospels are not to be relied on, because they contain interpolations based on the needs of the novel at that point and omissions when Mary, for instance, is distracted by her own thoughts.

After Mary leaves the dining-room, everything is mine until page 121, where Matthew gives his version of why Peter was called "Rock" (8.27-29). In this book, he is not called "Peter," (which is Greek for "rock") because that name now is a common name, and the nickname Jesus gave was a very odd thing to call a man.

This brings up my "unbiblical" terminology, so let me justify a few other departures from what people are familiar with. The disciples in this novel are called "students," because they would not have thought of themselves as some special kind follower; that was how one learned in those days (and, of course, that is what the word really means). The Twelve are called "Emissaries" and not "Apostles," because the term was the one used for those sent out by the King to represent him; and so this is what they would have considered themselves. And finally, Jesus is the "Prince" rather than the "Messiah" or the "Anointed" one or the "Christ," because what the people were looking for is, as Matthew says on page 121, "the anointed successor to David, who was prophesied to come and rule forever"--that is, the Crown Prince, the Pretender to the throne. The Twelve probably considered that they would make up his Cabinet when he was named king--as they fully expected him to be. Simon the Revolutionary has that name because the "Zealot" party was in fact a revolutionary group; and so it does not have anything to do with his being fervent. The "Lord" is the Master (whether referring to the Father or to Jesus) because the term is the one a slave used in reference to his owner, while "lord" for us implies a nobleman in relation to his vassals (who theoretically at least were not his slaves).

Finally, when on page 123 Matthew gives some of the Beatitudes, from 5.3, ff., he says that it is a "good thing" to be poor, not that the poor are "blessed" or "happy." The term means "lucky" or "fortunate" in the sense of having received a "blessing," not being blessed (i.e. holy), or happy (i.e. enjoying yourself). In other words, poverty is a blessing and riches (according to Luke's report, 6.20, ff) are a curse. Why that is so is given by Matthew. On the bottom of page 123, I gave what I think Matthew meant by the qualification (which is not in Luke) of being poor "in spirit," and why he probably added it.

In Chapter 10, there is the first mention of Judas as a priest, for which there is not the slightest shred of Biblical evidence. It is true that in my seminary days, we used to say, "Judas Priest!" as an exclamation, to wean ourselves from "Jesus Christ!"--and that may have put the idea into my head. But it serves the purpose of the novel. That he is the group's treasurer comes from John 12.6.

The Prodigal Son story is from Luke 15.11-32. I have rather freely moved events and especially parables about to serve the needs of the novel; but I have no qualms about this, since the Evangelists themselves were evidently arranging things to make a convincing case, not to give a chronological account (the cleansing of the Temple, for instance, occurs at the beginning of Jesus's ministry in John, and at the end in the others).

In Chapter 11, Susanna's quotation about looking at another with lust is from Matthew 5.27. Joanna's character was imagined because of the needs of the novel at this point (though the fact that she was the wife of Herod's steward Chuza was not). The Jairus episode is in Mark 5.21-43, Luke 8.40-56, and Matthew 9.18-26.⁽¹⁾ That the woman with the flow of blood is Judith's mother is, of course, purely my imagination.

Chapter 13 begins with references to the curing of the man with a withered hand (Mk 3.1-6, Lk 6.5-11, Mt 12.9-14), the demons who went into the pigs (Mk 5. 1-20, Lk 8.26-39, Mt 8.28-34), the cure of a leper (Mk 1.40-45, Lk 5.12-16, Mt 4.18-22). The reference on page 174 to John's being groomed to be connected with the high priest takes as its source John 18.15, where John is allowed to get into the high priest's courtyard because he was known to him. The initial meeting with Jesus in Judea is from John 1.35, ff.; I am assuming that John was the other of the two (with Andrew) who had listened to John the "bather" (which is what "baptizing" meant) and followed Jesus. The call from the boats is from Mk 1. 16-20, Lk 5.1-11, Mt 4.18-22. Interestingly, Luke (alone) includes in this the episode of the miraculous catch of fish, which looks to me enough like what happened after the resurrection in John (21.1-23) that I suspect that Luke displaced it here, for his own purposes. When Matthew remarks that he is better at writing Greek than John, this is a conclusion I drew from looking at the texts. His reference to John's temper can also be found in the texts (especially John's remarks about Judas, e.g. Jn 12.6), and to the name Jesus gave him and his brother ("sons of thunder"--a little touch only in Mark 3.17). The reference to Gideon is, of course, to Judges 7.5. The story of the farmer and the seeds at the end of the chapter is from Mk 4.1-9, Lk 8.4-8, Mt 13.1-9. The little remark about the different yields is a conclusion I drew from Matthew's use of anticlimactic order in relating them (as opposed to Mark's climactic order, which I believe Matthew saw and deliberately changed).

In Chapter 14, the reference to what happened to Thomas's twin brother is my imagination, though John (11.16, etc.) does call him "the twin." His "by their fruits you will know them" and Matthew's reply comes from the Sermon on the Mount (Lk 6.44 and especially Mt 7.20). Matthew's mention on page 184 of Jesus's motivation for the stories (the parables) is from the explanation of the parable of the sower (Mk 4.10-13, Lk 8.9-10, and especially Mt 13 10-17). Thomas's version of the Rock's asking Jesus how many times to forgive a person is a rather embellished version of Mt 18.21-22; Luke has a slightly different rendering in 17.3-4. Andrew's problem was with the story of the workers in the vineyard, which is found only in Matthew: 20.1-16.

Matthew's keeping records of the sayings of Jesus (Chapter 15) is mentioned by Papias, who lived around the year 100. The business of Cicero's slave inventing shorthand is also historically based (though it is doubtful, to say the least, that Matthew knew the method). Judas's statement on page 197 that Jesus taught that we ought to be willing to be treated unjustly was never said by him in so many words, but is clearly implied in the Sermon on the Mount, for example Mt 5.38-49 (also in Lk 6.27-36). Judas's explanation draws on Aristotle and Plotinus, as well as the Stoics.

His view of Jesus is, in fact, a common but rather egregious misrepresentation of what Jesus is all about. His idea of Abraham and so on is perhaps nearer the mark, but to say that Jesus is a man "full of God" in the sense of some "force" that acts in him, is nonsense from a certain type of Biblical scholarship, which a priori rejects the miracles as legendary, and simply picks and chooses what it takes as historical based on this bias--and it placed where I think it belongs, as I said, in the mouth of Judas. It makes Jesus a superfluity, since Epictetus would have done just as much for the world. In any case, his quotation "the truth will set you free" is from Jn 8.32. Note that in Judas's view "everlasting life" is interpreted as if Jesus were the Buddha. Note also that on page 193, he alludes to Simon the Revolutionary's way of interpreting Jesus, which is that of modern Liberation Theologians--and he treats it with the contempt I am convinced it deserves.

But on Judas's behalf, I have to say that his explanation of Jesus's claims to be divine is what a thoughtful rationalist would have to say if confronted with incontrovertible proof that Jesus made the claims; nowadays, of course, Biblical scholars simply say that Jesus never said any such thing--which makes it an interesting question why the authorities took such pains to kill him in that elaborate way. My view of Judas is that he is thinking what a very brilliant person confronted with Jesus would tend to think to explain him; and this determined effort to force him into a rational system is what leads to disaster. Mary's struggles are those of a rational person with a certain humility, who is willing to face the facts.

The whole first part of Chapter 16 is my imagination, until the point where Mary comes upon the students feeding the multiplying bread to the crowd, which is from Mk 30-44, Lk 9.10-17, Mt 14.13-21, and Jn 6.1-15. In Mk, Mt, and Jn, the walking on water immediately follows; and in John alone this is followed by the Bread of Life speech (6.22-71, and in the last verse John makes it clear that the one with the "devil" is Judas). Simon the Revolutionary's previous remark to Thomas during their night walk around the lake about Jesus's scolding them for waking him during a storm comes from Mk 4.35-41, Lk 8.22-25, and Mt 8.23-27.

Chapter 17 is mine up until the attempt of Jesus's mother to see him, which is from Mk 3.31-35, Lk 8.19-21, and Mt 12.46-50. The characterization of Jesus's relative James as living in Alexandria is an inference from the style of his letter (which I think was in fact written by him); he is referred to as the adelphos of Jesus in Mk 6.3 and Mt 13.55, but though the Greek term means "brother," it was also used to refer to any close relative, such as a cousin. That his was the family Mary and Joseph stayed with in Egypt when Jesus was an infant (Mt 2.14) is, of course, pure speculation. His advice to Jesus to leave for Judea comes from Jn 7.3-5. Jesus's pedigree that Mary heard comes from Lk 3.23-27 and Mt's rather different one in the very beginning of his Gospel.

The cure of ten lepers John mentions in Chapter 18 is reported only by Luke (17.11-19); and John's reaction is close to what Luke reports of him in 9.54 when Jesus was rejected by a Samaritan village. The belated entry into the festival is from Jn 7.10, ff. Matthew's reference to the incident at the pool is from Jn 5.1-47. I moved the story of the vineyard and the tenants (Mk 12.1-12, Lk 20.9-19, Mt 21.12-17) to this place, since those three Evangelists put everything that happened in Jerusalem at the end of Jesus's life, and I thought it fit here. The people's reaction to it and Jesus's reply resumes John's account from 7.15 to 31. Matthew's reaction to Judas's theory is what I think any thoughtful but true believer's reaction would have to be. Matthew's reference to John the "bather's" indicating at the beginning that Jesus was the Son of God is from Jn 1.34, though a few--a very few--manuscripts have "God's chosen one" here; but even earlier (1.18), John has him say, "The only Son, God, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known." (Of course, modern scholarship says that this is putting words into John's mouth; in which case, if its purpose was--as it must have been, on this hypothesis--to present [false] evidence that John claimed that Jesus was God, then it is a lie, pure and simple.) Lazarus's mention of Jesus's driving the buyers and sellers out of the Temple puts it where John has it, at the beginning of his career (2.13-22), rather than the end, as in the others (Mk 11.15-19, Lk 19.45-48, Mt. 21.12-17); and the reference to the interview between Jesus and Nicodemus is from Jn 3.1-21.

Chapter 19 is completely my imagination. Chapter 20 begins with the trap about taxes to Caesar from Mk 12.13-17, Lk 20.20-26, and Mt 22.15-22. This is followed by the episode of the woman caught in adultery, from Jn 8.1-11 (though various manuscripts put it in various places, some even in Luke). The speech that arrests Mary as she is about to throw herself off the Temple is from Jn 8.24, ff. Chapter 21 is totally mine.

The meeting of Mary with Jesus in Chapter 22 is based on Lk 10.38-42, though what Jesus says to her is really my own fevered musings about sin, God, and forgiveness, and only the little episode with Martha is from the Bible. The reference to being born again is from what Jesus says to Nicodemus in Jn 3.5. His statement that he came to have us think as God thinks and be divine can be gleaned from 1 Jn 3.2, Jn 17.12 and 21, Eph 1.23, etc.

Of course, in Chapter 23, Mary's analysis of her treatment of Zebediah is mistaken, and Jesus's analysis in the preceding chapter was the truth; she is still, in the novel, wrestling with the difficulty of accepting that Jesus is God, and taking the only reasonable alternative. The reference to the cure of the man born blind is to Jn 9.1-41. The episode at the Feast of Dedication is from Jn 10.22-39.

In Chapter 24, how Lazarus became sick, is from my imagination, though the fact that he became sick is from Jn 11.1. Everything else in that chapter, as well as all of Chapter 25, is also mine, except Martha's reference to the man pleading to have his unbelief helped, which is from Mk 9.14-29 (Luke--9.37-43--and Matthew--17.14-20--also relate the incident, but leave out this particular part).

The raising of Lazarus, in Chapter 26, is from Jn 11.17-44, though of course there is a good deal of it that Mary does not experience, because she was not there earlier with Martha.

Chapter 27 is all my imagination, as is everything in Chapter 28. In Chapter 29, the dinner at Bethany is as John relates it in 12.1-8, though the incident is told in Mk 14.3-9 and Mt 26.6-13, where it is set in the house of "Simon the Leper" and it is simply "a woman" who pours the oil on "his head," and there is no mention of wiping him with her hair. I suspect that at the time the latter two accounts were written, Lazarus was still alive (and in danger), and the changes were made "to protect the innocent," as they say.

It is interesting, perhaps, that Luke, who alone relates the first anointing by the sinful woman in Galilee does not mention this one (though he had to have seen it in Mark, which he was using as one of his sources), and that John earlier, 11.2, in introducing the resurrection of Lazarus, says, "Mary was the one who poured 'myrrh' over the Master and wiped his feet with her hair" using the past tense (actually, the aorist). Though that tense may be construed as past-from-the- point-of-view-of-John-as-he-writes, and not previous to the resurrection of Lazarus, it certainly sounds as if he is referring to an earlier anointing. So perhaps there really were two after all.

In the early part of Chapter 30, the only thing from the Bible is Lazarus' reference to the right hand's not knowing what the left is doing, which is from Mt 6.3, in the Sermon on the Mount (where Matthew has it that the left hand is not to know what the right is doing). Then Lazarus' announcement of the entry into Jerusalem is from Mk 11.1-11, Lk 19.28-40, Mt 21.1-11, and Jn 12.12-19. His reference to the debate about resurrection is from Mk 12.18-27, Lk 20.27-40, and Mt 22.23-33; the question of David's son is from Mk 12.35-37, Lk 20.41-44, and Mt 22.41-46.

In Chapter 31, Matthew's statement that there was a price on Lazarus' head is from Jn 12.10; the episode he relates about Gethsemani is from Mk 14.32-50, Lk 22.39-53, Mt 26.36-56, and Jn 18.1-18. Matthew's reference to having the Passover dinner a night early is based on the fact that Mk, Lk, and Mt all clearly imply (or even state) that the Last Supper was the Passover meal, while John makes it clear that Friday was the day before the Passover (19.31) and that the Passover was to be eaten that evening (18.28). (Note: If Matthew's pronouns are not clear in his narrative, this was deliberate.) The following of Jesus and entering the high priest's courtyard is from Mk 14.54, Lk 22.54, Mt 26.58, and especially Jn 18.15-16. Let me point out that Mary's interpreting the Resurrection in a metaphorical sense is what clearly all of Jesus's students did until they actually saw him; and it is not all that implausible, given how often Jesus did speak metaphorically. At the end of the chapter, the death of Judas is based on Mt 27.5, rather than Luke's account in Acts 1.18.

In Chapter 32, what Mary saw on "the pavement" is from Jn 19.12-16. That the crown of thorns was a "cap" is actually based on the Shroud of Turin, where the wounds cover the whole head--and this makes sense, since the soldiers were not going to waste time weaving the neat circlet that we see on crucifixes. Incidentally, the loincloth that we see on crucifixes obviously did not exist either, as can be seen from the fact that the soldiers carefully distributed all the clothes (Jn 19.24) to be sold, and would not waste anything--plus the fact that the nakedness was part of the degradation inflicted by this form of punishment. It must have been incredibly revolting. Pilate's washing of his hands is not from John's account, but Mt 27.24-25. From various outside sources (which I cannot specifically recall) I have learned that only the crossbar, not the whole cross, was carried. That there were three crucified is from Mk 15.27, Lk 23.32, Mt 27.38, and Jn 19.18; that they had to be removed before sunset is from Jn 19.31. That Jesus fell during the carrying of the cross is from tradition, not Scripture, though it is implied in Simon's carrying the cross behind him (Mk 15.21, Lk 23.26, Mt 27.32). Simon obviously went behind, carrying the crossbar instead of Jesus, and did not take one end of it, which would have put the whole weight on Jesus, who would have been the lower of the two carrying it. The reference to not weeping for Jesus is from Lk 23.27-31. The darkness is from Mk 15.33, Lk 23.44, and Mt 27.45; Jesus's statement to his mother and John and what follows are from Jn 19.25-30, although John does not have Jesus scream when he dies, though others do (Mk 15.37, Mt 27.50).  Jesus's coughing and the soldiers' remarks about choking to death on liquid are based on a study of the medical aspects of crucifixion called A Doctor at Calvary by Pierre Barbet. The earthquake is from Mt 27.52. A great deal that is related by the Evangelists is not included, of course, because the novel is seeing only what Mary saw and paid attention to. There is nothing in the Bible about a soldier's coming with orders from the governor, though the fact that he gave orders is in Jn 19.31; and the fact that they approached from both sides to break the legs is an inference from Jn 19.32, since Jesus was between the other two and the soldiers broke the legs of the other two before they came to Jesus. The opening of his side is from Jn 19.34, as is the evidence of the blood and "water." A Doctor at Calvary is, I believe, where I learned about the separation of the blood; but Gilbert R. Lavoie on page 217 of his excellent Unlocking the Secrets of the Shroud (recently revised under the title Resurrected) mentions that the clear liquid could have been an accumulation in the chest cavity from congestive heart failure, possibly from shock. Evidence of the liquid's flowing down the chest to the back is on the Shroud of Turin. The sign is mentioned by Mk 15.27and Mt 27.37; but only John 19.20 relates that it was in three languages (and only John relates the reaction of the leaders and Pilate's reply, which of course Mary knew nothing of). The soldier's thinking that Jesus was a god is from Mk 15.39 and Mt 27.54; Luke has him simply remark that he was an "honest man," and John says nothing about it. John's remark about looking on the one they have pierced is from Jn 19.37, and Mary's recollection of Psalm 22 is not in the Gospels as she says it, though both Mark (15.34) and Matthew (27.46) have Jesus quote the first lines, and John (19.23-24) quotes the part of the psalm about dividing the clothes.

Joseph from Arimathea is mentioned by Mark (15.43) and Matthew (27.57) as well as John (19.38-42), though only John refers to Nicodemus (who never appears in the other Gospels); from Matthew alone (27.60), we learn that the tomb actually belonged to Joseph.

The fact that rigor mortis had already set in in the legs but not the arms or the torso is an inference I drew from the evidence of the Shroud of Turin, in which the image clearly indicates that the body was buried with one foot on top of the other, the sole of the bottom foot flat against the shroud (and so parallel with the body's back), while the arms are brought in front, with the hands over the genitals--and the head is upright, not bowed, as it would have been had rigor overtaken the whole body.

The dispute about not cleaning the body comes from Gilbert Lavoie's book, Chapter 4, in which he details the burial customs of the time; and John (19.40) specifically mentions that Jesus was buried according to the custom. The fact that the shroud has only a few blood stains indicates that most of the blood on the body had dried, and only the wounds reopened upon taking it down from the cross and removing the crown of thorns (some on the head, the wrists, and the side) produced liquid blood which would have stained the cloth. Nicodemus's reference to not a jot (a letter) or tittle (a mark on a letter, like the cross on a t) passing from the Law is from Lk 16.17 and especially Mt 5.18. I assumed from the evidence of the Shroud that the body was laid on the lower half and then the upper half was brought over the head and down the front; but then, since John (20.7) mentions a cloth over his head, I took it that that cloth was tied around his head over the Shroud, since otherwise the image of the head would have been on it and not the Shroud itself (since the image is a discoloration--a scorch, as it were--only one or two fibers deep on the surface of the threads on the Shroud, and does not penetrate them or the cloth).

Finally, in Chapter 33, the discussion about washing Jesus and giving him a proper burial is an inference from the fact mentioned by Mark (16.1) and Luke (24.1) that the women came with spices to the tomb on the day after the Sabbath. Joanna's reference to the "interpretations" making the Law a prison is not stated in those terms by Jesus, but the idea is found, for example, in Mk 12.36, ff., Lk 20.45, ff., and Mt 23.1 ff.

John's report of what happened with Annas is from Jn 18.19-23, and the trial before the Sanhedrin is from Mk 14.53-59, Lk 22.54-55, and Mk 26.57-61. John does not mention this trial at all; and only Mark has him answer with "I AM," though what Matthew has him say, essentially "You said it," is a confirmation of what the other said, not a repudiation. (I.e. it does not mean, as some have suggested 'You said that, I didn't." Compare the "you said it" in answer to Judas's asking Jesus if he is the betrayer, Mt 26.25.) Thomas's leaving at this point (as I imagine it, to go to a wine-shop to get drunk) is to get him out of the room so that he will not be there when Jesus appears to the group the first time. But that is another story. Mary's realization that the crucifixion would be shocking to any Jew and ridiculous to anyone else is from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (1.23).

The women going to the tomb is from Mk 16.1-4, Lk 24.1-3, Mt 28.1; but the main part of the episode is from Jn 21.1-2 and 11-17. One thing that is not there is that Mary sees Peter and John emerge carrying the Shroud and discussing it. This is from Gilbert Lavoie's book; his theory is that John reports that Peter and John believed because of what they saw in the tomb, and that it was not that the tomb was empty, but because of what they saw on the Shroud. He established from the image that it could only have been made from a body that was suspended in air (because, for example, the hair is hanging down, but the feet are not in a position where the body could stand up); and so, seeing it, and realizing how they had buried him, they concluded that he must indeed have miraculously risen and put that image on the cloth--which was then preserved by the group for posterity, and had to be hidden and only hinted at because of the authorities. It is a plausible scenario, and so I decided to allude to it. That Jesus's hair and beard had turned white is also based on the evidence on the Shroud. And, of course, that he carried his wounds is known from Jn 20.27, where he asks Thomas a week later (after recovering from his binge?) to put his fingers into the nailholes and his hand into his side.

Anyhow, that is the relation of my story to what I consider to be the historical record.

Notes

1. In case you are wondering why I put Mark first, Luke second, and Matthew third, it is because I think I can prove that this is the order in which the texts were written. If you take the trouble to read them in this order, you will find some instructive variations.