One of the Pharisees asked Jesus[i] to eat with him, and when he went into the Pharisee’s house he reclined to dine. 37 And a woman in the city who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38 She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair, kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.” –the Gospel of Luke
Skeptics (since the first century!) have pointed out that the most likely cause of the empty tomb of Jesus was that someone moved the body. Christian apologists scoff at this suggestion, claiming that the Romans had no reason to move the body and that no first century Jew would have moved a dead body on the Sabbath, as touching a corpse on the Sabbath would make them unclean. Well, that might be true for most “righteous” first century Jews, but what about a first century Jew who already had the reputation of being a “filthy sinner”; one of “those kind of women”… a prostitute?
Not only was Mary Magdalene believed to have been a prostitute but she seemed to have a strange obsession with Jesus’ body. I’m not suggesting that there was anything sexual behind this obsession (but this of course cannot be ruled out) but what person in their right mind pours expensive perfume on someone’s feet and wipes it off with their hair?? Even the disciples found this behavior odd.
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”
–the Gospel of Matthew
Jesus, of course, was flattered by her (bizarre) behavior. But what delusional messiah pretender wouldn’t be?
And there is more circumstantial evidence for Mary Magdalene’s involvement in the disappearance of Jesus’ body. Why does a former (very rich) prostitute get so much play in the Passion Narratives and in the Resurrection Appearance Stories? The mother of God herself doesn’t get as much play time in these stories! Yet in every Gospel, a former (very rich) prostitute is front and center in the story. Why? Why was this woman so involved? What else did she do that the Gospel authors are not telling us, or more likely, didn’t know about??
On the night of Jesus’ execution, did Mary Magdalene convulse at the thought of the body she so loved and worshipped rotting away in the tomb of a member of the Sanhedrin? Did Mary and her servants (she was VERY wealthy, so why not?) abscond with the body of Jesus in the middle of the night to bury him in her own private burial plot?
We will never know, but it is an interesting possibility!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Gary, this one is odd even for you. You’ve gone Dawn Brown one better.
Read your NT carefully and you’ll notice that Mary Magdalen wasn’t a prostitute; the NT never refers to her as one. It was only much later Church tradition which confused Mary Magdalene with a prostitute. In a homily from 591 AD, Pope Gregory the Great conflated Mary Magdalene with the unnamed “sinful” woman who anointed Jesus’ feet at the home of Simon the leper in Luke 7:36-50. The text doesn’t specifically say she was a prostitute but that’s probably what she was (that or an adulteress). Then in John 12:1-8, Mary of Bethany (sister of Martha and Lazarus) also anoints Jesus’ feet. Luke 8 seems to introduce Mary of Magdala as if she were a new character, and though Luke doesn’t connect her with the unnamed “sinful” woman who anointed Jesus’ feet in chapter 7, Pope Gregory accidentally combined the unnamed “sinful” woman with the Mary who anointed Jesus’ feet, and then got the village wrong–Magdala instead of Bethany. Thus, the popular notion that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is based upon a mistake made by a 7th century Pope. Regardless, the pontiff’s point was that even a prostitute could be saved by Jesus and have her sins washed away. Mary Magdalene was in fact honored by the Catholic Church as a Saint; by the 12th century AD she had been considered a Saint.
According to Luke 8:1-3, Mary of Magdala was a disciple of Yeshua (Jesus), one of several women disciples, who had been exorcised by him. Luke says Jesus cast seven demons out of her. After her exorcism Mary was part of an entourage of women who supported Yeshua financially and traveled with him. That Mary supported Jesus financially indicates that she was a woman of some means. We don’t know Mary’s age though she was apparently old enough (and independent enough) to be able to manage her own finances. And she was apparently prominent enough in the early Church that she was singled out more than some of the other women disciples of Jesus. Whenever the gospels are talking about Mary of Magdalen they reference her by name.
As to the disciples’ objection to the anonymous prostitute anointing Jesus’ feet, you don’t have to be Martin Hengel to figure this out. They objected that a “sinful” woman would intrude upon “polite” society and scandalously –in public!–anoint the feet of a man–and he a rabbi!–she wasn’t married to. However the evangelists have a point they’re making when they include this story (which must be historical because there’s no way the evangelists would’ve made it up); namely, to show a “sinful” woman concerned for Jesus when the host, Simon, a Pharisee who should’ve done so, contrary to cultural custom, did not offer to wash Jesus’ feet. Luke is contrasting this anonymous woman’s act of generosity with his hosts disregard of common social decency; Luke is also drawing attention to Jesus’ impending death.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Whatever. Do some scholars believe that Mary Magdalene was the “sinful” woman who anointed Jesus feet? Yes.
Regardless, the point of the post is: the “sinful” woman could responsible for the Empty Tomb. Whether she was Mary Magdalene or not. I can’t prove this rich, sinful woman moved the body, but you can’t prove she didn’t. If she was already labeled a “sinner”, she wouldn’t be as concerned about defilement, moving a body on the Sabbath.
LikeLike
GARY: Whether she was Mary Magdalene or not. I can’t prove this rich, sinful woman moved the body, but you can’t prove she didn’t.
LEE: You don’t actually believe this is how history works, do you?
Oh, and which scholars believe Mary Magdalen was a prostitute? I seem to remember lots of liberal scholars taking issue with the Catholic Church’s portrayal of the Magdalen as a prostitute when The Da Vinci Code book and film came out.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
GARY: If she was already labeled a “sinner”, she wouldn’t be as concerned about defilement, moving a body on the Sabbath.
LEE: Pure speculation, nothing more. Just one more desperate attempt to explain away the resurrection by any means possible.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
You are under the delusion that skeptics must provide evidence for every POSSIBLE explanation for the Empty Tomb. That is very silly and naive. Most empty graves are due to someone or something moving the body. So I don’t need to provide ONE shred of evidence that this is possibly the explanation for Jesus’ empty grave. Come on. Think rationally, Lee!
LikeLike
Gary, if you were ever thinking of quitting your day job to become a historian . . . don’t!
History works on probabilities, not possibilities. Historians don’t have the time to consider every possibility, only the ones that are likely.
If you’re going to come up with alternative explanations to explain away the empty tomb they at least need to be plausible.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
They are plausible to everyone but indoctrinated Christians like yourself.
LikeLike