I decided to start with this bold statement and give more analytical view of why this would be the case by focusing on one event only – crucifixion. We’ve heard, seen and red many different opinions, speculations and assumptions about who could be the author of the Gospel of John. Majority of those statements assume that the Gospel of John was written by John because of the name. However, it has been widely accepted that the Gospel of John was written by the “beloved disciple”. I went through the analysis who was the “beloved disciple” in my previous post, however many people still object this Idea. Therefore in this post I wanted to just present my analysis based on one event only – the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
In my analysis I will be focusing on the facts that are present in the scripture and treating this as a judge would treat any evidence when assessing a crime. Because let’s face it, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was a crime – a political/religious execution of a leader of religious movement and of an innocent man. As I already stated in my title, I believe this to be Mary Magdalene, however for this purpose I will be writing about the author as “he”, to not form any opinions for the reader.
1. Who were the eyewitnesses of the crucifixion?
What we know about the author of the Gospel of John is that the author witnessed crucifixion and the chapter 19 of the Gospel of John is a testimony of an eyewitness who testified of the things he saw. How do we know the author was a witness to the crucifixion?
“And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.” John 19: 35
The author highlights that: “he who has seen” and “he testified” and finally “his testimony is true”. Therefore we have a strong statement here. This was an eyewitness, who testified and is telling the truth. Clear evidence here. Do we know who also witnessed crucifixion?
All scriptural and historical evidence presents the fact that during crucifixion only women were present. All male disciples fled before crucifixion due to the various prosecutions that were happening. We read:
“Then everyone deserted him and fled.” Mark 14:50
“But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.” Matthew 26:56
You have to put yourself in this scenario: the leader of a big religious movement have just been arrested and then crucified, which makes it clear they wanted to destroy that movement. Do you think that they wouldn’t want to go after their members too? Of course they would and male members were recognizable. That is why Peter rejected Jesus three times, out of fear to be persecuted as well. Therefore all men disciples escaped and only (and I would like to highlight ONLY) women stayed. In all four accounts of the Gospels we know that Mary Magdalene was present as well as Jesus’ mother Mary and her sister:
“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. ” Mark 15:40
“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” John 19:25
“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” Matthew 27: 55
Therefore we have an actual evidence of Mary Magdalene’s presence. We do not have any other significant names present there, so any other names are just assumptions. When people say that John was present or James or Lazarus – it has no scriptural basis and these are just assumptions. Evidence must be treated as such: an actual name in any written document that this person was present.
Therefore from this we can conclude: the author was an eyewitness to the crucifixion and wrote testimony of that event based on the truth. Only women were present and among those was Mary Magdalene who was a close disciple of Jesus Christ.
2. The importance of an eyewitness testimonies as opposed to a story of a non eyewitness
First of all, what is a testimony? According to the law, testimony is a form of evidence in which a witness makes a “solemn declaration or affirmation … for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact”. Therefore testimony of a witness is a declaration of the truth based on witnessing with their own eyes. This is very important, because this is an actual legal statement that can be used in court. This person had to be present at the scene and then testify what he has seen and his statement must be based on truth.
This reminds me of a situation I was part of recently. I work as an HR, so policies and regulations are part my work. Our company had a situation involving few employees at the work event. The next day I received serious allegations against one person. What I had to do first is to deal with accusations and victim’s report. However, I couldn’t just take that person’s word, I had to have interviews with witnesses – people that were present at the event and actually saw the situation. I couldn’t speak to someone who works at the company, but was not present at the event, because this wouldn’t be a witness testimony!
Therefore after gathering evidence from all witnesses present at the event that could testify, I spoke with a person that was accused of all those things, to check their perspective. After careful examination of the victim’s testimony, three witnesses testimonies and the accused person’s testimony, then the decision was made. All of other people who perhaps were present at the event but did not see the incident or those who are part of the company but were not present at the event at all – their opinion in this case was irrelevant.
This is exactly the same how court would deal with the crime – what EVIDENCE do you have? What eyewitness testimony do you have? What written evidence? Emails? Messages? Pictures? Videos? How do we know you were present? If you are not part of the written evidence, or any evidence for that matter, then according to court you were not present.
Therefore we should be treating the Gospels in such way – as a serious witness testimony of a crime against Jesus. Jesus was publicly executed and who can say what exactly happened? Only eyewitnesses! And who were those eyewitnesses? From His close circle – Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ mother Mary and her sister. This is what we have as an evidence, those names. Any other names added at this point are just ASSUMPTIONS. Therefore the judge would only want to speak to those three women.
We have to look at those facts – crucifixion was a public execution of an innocent person, which makes it a crime, regardless of times that this happened, therefore it requires witness testimony. And what we read in the Gospel of John with regards to the crucifixion is:
“And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.” John 19: 35
Therefore the Gospel of John is the only witness testimony.
We also have another confirmation that the author was a witness and the Gospel is a testimony:
“This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.” John 21: 24
The Gospel of John was written by not only an eyewitness of the crucifixion, but also Jesus’ disciple. Someone from the close circle of Jesus, who was present during many teachings, journeys and crucial events. And that person wrote those things, therefore the author is clamming that it was his work, not of a third party involved. The person is literally revealing it’s identity: “Hello, I was there, I saw those things and now I am writing about this so you can understand what happened and you can trust me that what I am saying is the truth. I am one of those women who were there and as you know only women were there.” How much more clear this person could have been?
This statement of a testimony by an eyewitness has been highlighted twice already. This can be treated as a legal document in the situation of a crime and trying to establish the truth as opposed to a story or assumptions. I really want to highlight this fact as many sceptics claim the Gospel has no basis due to the lack of eyewitnesses. Well, the Gospel of John is an eyewitness testimony.
So far we have those additional facts: Mary Magdalene was present at the crucifixion and only women were present. Mary saw the event with her own eyes as a witness and wrote in her testimony. This testimony can be treated as a legal document, as an evidence of a crime scene.
3. The role of women in the First Century Israel
Now, with women having lesser roles in those times, they weren’t prominent members of any religious movements. The Gospels only mentions names of the male disciples and women are just briefly mentioned without much significance. We have evidence from the letters of the Apostle Paul that women should remain silent:
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” 1 Timothy 2: 11-12
Another important factor is that in the first-century of Jewish and Roman societies, a woman’s testimony was generally not accepted as legally valid in court and seen as less credible due to cultural views on their “levity” or “boldness”. This context makes the Gospel accounts of women being witnesses to the crucifixion or resurrection very significant, because it was viewed as an “embarrassment” or unlikely choice for myth-makers, questioning their historical accuracy. This was due to cultural norms and any female claims would initially face disbelief.
According to the Jewish Law “women are not valid witnesses”, as it states in the Mishnah. These laws were practiced by the Jewish community, therefore it would be logical to say that women were excluded from any events where they could be treated as witnesses.
“The oath of testimony is conducted with men and not women.” Shevout 4:1
From the Josephus books, the historian stated: “From women let no evidence be accepted, because of the levity and temerity of their sex” (Antiquities 4.219)
Moreover, “writers would likely have used more credible male witnesses to persuade their audience, not women writers, whose words were already devalued”, say The Gospel Coalition.
Early critics like Celsus mocked the idea, calling Mary Magdalene a “hysterical female,” which further underscored the unconventional nature of women as primary witnesses, according to The Gospel Coalition.
Therefore we can draw those facts: according to the Jewish law, women could not be witnesses and their testimony was never accepted but automatically regarded as a myth. Women had no legal rights as a witness to any event.
This is clear evidence that Mary legally could have not openly say that she was a witness or to write a testimony. It would have been destroyed or labeled as a myth, not true. She was of course aware of that and that is why most likely she hid her identity in the Gospel of John.
4. Do we have any evidence of any male disciples during crucifixion?
It is very important to see if we have any evidence of any other male disciples. Since we have established that women’s testimony was legally not acknowledged and considered as non true, we have to see if we have any male presence. In current times we have people injecting names like James, Lazarus, John, however it is important to see if we have any evidence of this. We can’t go to court and say they were present if there was no evidence.
The only evidence we have is from the Gospel of John that states “the disciple whom Jesus loved” as someone present, which traditionally was assigned to John. However, as I presented that not only according to Gospels and historical records, only women were present, we can exclude John. I have also established that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was Mary Magdalene based on my other post.
Therefore we have no historical or scriptural evidence names like James, John or Lazarus. These are just ASSUMPTIONS and we can only treat them like that. Due to the fact that women had no legal rights to exercise a role of a witness, therefore Mary could not be openly presented as such. In modern times, if we go to court and present the evidence we have, who the judge will listen to based on those facts? Mary who was present at the crucifixion based on all four Gospels or James who we ASSUME was present? I am certain judge would not go with assumptions but facts and evidence. This was a crime. We treat it now as a religious story and due to only women witnesses it was disregarded and treated as fictional or even fairy. But the truth is that we have a witness testimony and a historical proof of Jesus being alive, therefore crucifixion was a political/religious execution of a leader who was starting a religious movement that was opposing Pharisees.
Pharisees were very important and powerful organization who didn’t like the fact that Jesus’ movement was growing. You also have to remember that religion was, and actually still is, a very strong political weapon. Pharisees were threatened by Jesus’ growing movement, by his growing following, by his opposing views, by freeing people from their oppressing methods. They wanted to control people, manipulate people and keep people in fear and Jesus was their problem. We read in the Gospel of John:
“Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” John 11: 47-48
Pharisees were threatened to lose their positions and their established systems. They didn’t see Jesus as their Messiah who could free them, they saw Him as a political threat and they used their Law of blasphemy to get rid of Jesus.
Therefore we can confirm: no male disciples were present who could give eyewitness testimony and any name fitted into “beloved disciple” was just an assumption.
5. Fullfilment of two prophecies ONLY in the Gospel of John, which gives it credibility as fulfilment of God’s word:
Another very important fact is that the Gospel of John is the only gospel that confirms two prophecies that happened during crucifixion. No other Gospel account had those confirmations, therefore we can be sure that this was of God:
“But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken.” And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.” John 19: 33-37
This is a confirmation of two prophecies that were fulfilled during the crucifixion: “not one of His bones shall be broken” and “they shall look on Him whom they pierced.” Therefore the Gospel of John is not only eyewitness testimony, but a confirmation of those prophecies from the Old Testament. This gives the Gospel of John more legitimacy than any other Gospel account. It can be treated not only as an eyewitness testimony but also as a fulfillment of God’s word and completion of two prophecies. Yes, it was witnessed by a woman, who according to the Jewish Law in the first century had no legal rights and any legal weight, however 2 thousand years after this and with woman having all legal rights and being equal to men, we can review this as an actual evidence without any stigmas.
To conclude, The Gospel of John is the only eyewitness testimony and can be treated as a legal document when investigating a crime and as an evidence. I’ve presented that no male disciples were present and there is no evidence of any male presence except women, therefore any claims of any male names are simply assumptions. I’ve also highlighted that women had no legal rights and could not exercise the role of a witness, their voices would have been taken away and labeled as non true straight away. The matter had to be examined by only males to be believable.
Therefore from this we see that Mary Magdalene could not write the Gospel of John as Mary openly. That Gospel would have been destroyed straight away because according to the Jewish Law, women had no say. I hope you can see why Mary changed her identity as an author, yet it was very important for her to write it regardless. Without the Gospel of John, we would have missed the fact that Jesus was divine, as the Gospel of Luke portrayed Jesus as a prophet, most notably in in Luke 24:19, Luke 13:33 and Luke 4:24. The Gospel of John gives us a different angle and view into who Jesus was – a Son of God having a human experience. This Gospel was written from a woman’s perspective – Mary Magdalene perspective. And Mary was the only one who witnessed crucifixion and resurrection, therefore the Gospel of John is an actual witness testimony.
By Dagmara Z.