Are the repentant woman (Luke 7), Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Bethany the same person?

[Soul.og]

1. Opening Thesis​

The Gospel narratives present three women whose actions, circumstances, and narrative roles overlap in striking ways:

1. The unnamed repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7)
2. Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, in Bethany (Matthew 26; Mark 14; John 11-12)
3. Mary of Magdala, healed of seven demons and first (or second) witness of the Resurrection

I argue that these three figures are best understood as one and the same woman, based on narrative continuity, distinctive repeated gestures, geographical plausibility, and early Christian interpretive tradition.

​

2. The Repentant Woman in Simon the Pharisee’s House ​

(Luke 7:36-50)

Key Narrative Features​

• She is well‑known as a sinner.
• She brings an alabaster jar of ointment.
• She weeps, wets Jesus’s feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, kisses His feet, and anoints them.
• She becomes a disciple.
• Jesus declares her forgiven, saved, and loving much.

​

Geographical Context​

• Luke situates this event in the Galilean region, specifically around Nain (Luke 7:11).
• Magdala is also in Galilee, not far from Nain.
• Luke 7:30 notes that the Pharisees in this region rejected John’s baptism—the same Pharisaic environment in which the unnamed woman appears.

​

Interpretive Significance​

This woman’s gesture is highly distinctive:

• Anointing
• Using her hair
• A posture of repentance and devotion

This becomes important when comparing her to Mary of Bethany.

3. Mary of Bethany ​

(Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 11:1-2)

​

Key Narrative Features​

• Identified explicitly as “the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair” (John 11:2).
• Performs the gesture againin John 12:1-8:
  • Brings an alabaster jar
  • Anoints Jesus
  • Wipes His feet with her hair
• Matthew and Mark describe the same event, emphasizing the alabaster jar, the costly ointment, and Jesus’s declaration that her act will be memorialized worldwide.

​

Differences from Luke 7​

• No tears
• Not a public act of repentance
• Motivated by anticipation of Jesus’s death
• Performed in Bethany, not Nain

​

Why These Differences Support Identification​

People often repeat signature gestures in different emotional contexts.

• In Luke 7, the gesture expresses repentance.
• In Bethany, the same gesture expresses devotion and prophetic insight.

The same rare combination—anointing + hair‑wiping + alabaster jar—strongly suggests a single individual.

​

4. Mary of Magdala​

Key Scriptural Facts​

• Healed of seven demons (Luke 8:1-2)
• Financial supporter of Jesus’s ministry (Luke 8:2-3)
• Present at the Crucifixion (Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:40-41; John 19:25)
• Present at the Burial (Matthew 27:59-61; Mk. 15:46-47)
• Prepared to anoint Jesus’s body (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1)
• First (or second) witness of the Resurrection (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:14-18)

​

Why She Fits the Profile​

If the unnamed woman of Luke 7 was a well-known public sinner, and Mary Magdalene was a woman with a deeply troubled past (symbolized by “seven demons”), both share:

• A dramatic personal transformation
• A life of devoted discipleship
• A narrative arc from shame → healing → leadership

Early Christian tradition (e.g., Gregory the Great) explicitly identified all three as the same woman, and modern scholarship continues to debate this with substantial arguments on both sides.

​

5. Synthesis: Why These Three Women Are Likely One​

1. The Distinctive Gesture Argument​

The combination of:

• Alabaster jar
• Anointing Jesus
• Wiping with hair

is unique in ancient literature and appears twice in the Gospels. This is best explained by one woman repeating her characteristic act.

​

​

2. The Narrative Continuity Argument​

Luke introduces the unnamed woman immediately before introducing Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:1-2), suggesting a narrative link.

​

​

3. The Character Arc Argument​

All three women share:

• A troubled past
• A dramatic encounter with Jesus
• A life of devoted discipleship
• A role in Jesus’s burial or anticipated burial
• A place of honor in Christian memory

4. The Early Church Tradition Argument
For over a millennium, the dominant Christian interpretation identified:

• The repentant woman
• Mary Magdalane
• Mary of Bethany

as one person—a view held by major theologians and liturgical traditions.

​

​

5. The Geographical Plausibility Argument​

• The unnamed woman appears in Galilee.
• Mary Magdalene is from Magdala, also in Galilee.
• Mary of Bethany appears later in Judea, after her life has changed—consistent with a woman who left her past behind.

​

6. Closing Statement ​

The cumulative evidence—literary, geographical, psychological, and traditional—supports the identification of the repentant woman in Luke 7, Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Bethany as one remarkable disciple whose life was transformed by Jesus.

Her repeated, intimate gesture of anointing and wiping Jesus’s feet with her hair serves as a narrative signature linking the accounts. Her troubled past, profound repentance, and later prominence in the Resurrection narratives form a coherent and compelling character arc.

Thus, the most coherent reading of the Gospel material is that all three women are the same individual, remembered in Christian tradition as Mary Magdalene, the apostle to the apostles.

 

[Deborah_]

However, one must bear in mind that Mary was by far the commonest girl's name in Palestine during the New Testament period - no fewer than 25% of women were called Mary!
So statistically, we would expect a lot of different Marys to be mentioned in the New Testament, and it's highly unlikely that they were all actually the sane woman.

 

[Soul.og]

However, one must bear in mind that Mary was by far the commonest girl's name in Palestine during the New Testament period - no fewer than 25% of women were called Mary!
So statistically, we would expect a lot of different Marys to be mentioned in the New Testament, and it's highly unlikely that they were all actually the sane woman.

Yes, “Mary” was a common name in first‑century Palestine. But the frequency of the name does not determine whether the New Testament is referring to multiple individuals or one. The question is not how many women were named Mary, but whether the textual evidence distinguishes them or unifies them.

And the evidence points toward unification, not separation.

Despite the many women named “Mary” in the New Testament, the narrative details, character traits, and contextual markers strongly suggest that the repentant woman in Luke 7:37, Mary of Magdala, and Mary of Bethany are not three unrelated individuals. They align too closely in role, behavior, and narrative function to be dismissed as separate characters simply because the name was common.

In other words, statistical frequency does not override textual evidence.

The burden is not to show that many women were named Mary—that is already known. The burden is to show that these three specific portrayals cannot refer to the same woman.

And the textual data does not support that separation.

 

[Taken]

Despite the many women named ‘Mary’ in the New Testament, the evidence suggests that the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene were not three separate individuals but one and the same woman.

Disagree.

Yes Mary was a popular name.
(Several names are the same of different people, even like today).
Yes several references to women in scripture named Mary.

Mary- (Miriam in Hebrew)…
Sister of Moses.

Mary of Bethany…
Sister of Martha and Lazarus.

Mary of Nazareth, Galilee…
Virgin wife of Joseph
Mother of Jesus.
Mother of James, Joseph, Judas, Simon.
Mother of at least 2 daughters.
Cousin of Elizabeth.

Virgin Mary Sister of Mary, wife of Cleophas

Mary mother of disciple John Mark.
(John Mark…AKA gospel of Mark)

Mary of Magdala (AKA Mary Magdalene)
Convert Believer and follower of Jesus.

Mary of Rome, member of the Church of Rome.

(Repetitive names Anciently identified individuals, by their relationship to their Dad, Mother, brothers, sisters, cities, types of work, and historically, in Jesus Day, we “begin” to see “SURNAMES”, (given to men), more widely used, to help distinguish between two men with the same common Name.

The Trend of SURNAMES, to this Day continues.
SURNAMES, of a family, gives rise to the man, as Head of household/ family.
SURNAMES, ( so adopted over time ), were often established, by the type of work of the Dad, by location, by familiar landscape they lived, by the partial inclusion the fathers singular First name.

Big picture…
The multiple Mary’s, Simon’s, John’s, James’,
Etc. Are Earthly Humans that had first hand interaction with God “in the Likeness AS a human man”, they could SEE and HEAR and CONVERSE with face to face…called JESUS, according to Gods own pleasure.

The big picture IS About JESUS.
The humans JESUS had interactions with are simply First-hand Human Witnesses, to share their experiences, that which other humans, can accept, believe, doubt, deny, reject, according to THEIR own FREEWILL.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[LoveYeshua]

If we stay close to what is written, the safest conclusion is this: the Bible presents three women in three settings. Some traditions combine them, but the text itself does not clearly do so. Therefore we should be careful not to build a full life story that Scripture itself does not plainly state.

 

[Soul.og]

Disagree.

I’ve presented specific evidence supporting my position. Simply saying “disagree” doesn’t engage with any of it. If you disagree, then please present your counter‑evidence so we can actually examine the arguments rather than dismiss them.

 

[Soul.og]

If we stay close to what is written, the safest conclusion is this: the Bible presents three women in three settings. Some traditions combine them, but the text itself does not clearly do so.

It’s true that people often repeat personal gestures that are distinctive to them—habits, mannerisms, or ways of expressing emotion that are unmistakably characteristic. With that in mind, the fact that Mary repeats in Lazarus’s house the exact same highly specific gesture performed earlier by the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house—anointing Jesus and wiping His feet with her hair—provides reasonable grounds for identifying them as the same individual. This is not a generic act; it is a uniquely intimate and symbolic gesture.

Furthermore, if the repentant woman—publicly known as a sinner who became a devoted follower of Jesus—and Mary of Bethany are indeed the same person, then her story closely parallels that of Mary of Magdala, who was delivered from “seven demons” and likewise became a devoted disciple. These overlapping narrative features strengthen the case that the texts are describing one woman, not three unrelated individuals who coincidentally share the same name and the same distinctive behaviors.

In short: the repetition of a unique gesture and the convergence of biographical details provide substantive grounds for identifying these Marys as the same individual.

 

[LoveYeshua]

The Bible itself does not clearly say they are the same woman. When we read the texts carefully, the evidence is not strong enough to say they must be one person.

Let us look at the three cases simply.

First, the sinful woman in Luke 7. In Gospel of Luke 7:36–50, the woman is not named. The event happens in the house of Simon the Pharisee. Luke does not say it was in Nain. He only says it happened in a city. She is called “a sinner,” but we are not told what her sin was. After this story, in Luke 8:2, Mary Magdalene is introduced as someone from whom seven demons had gone out. Luke does not connect her to the woman in chapter 7.

Second, Mary of Bethany. In Gospel of John 11:1–2 and 12:1–8, Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus anoints Jesus in Bethany. This is near Jerusalem, not in Galilee. The timing is also different. Luke 7 happens early in Jesus’ ministry. John 12 happens six days before Passover, near the end of His ministry. John clearly names her as Mary, the sister of Lazarus. He does not call her a sinner, nor does he connect her to demons.

Third, Mary Magdalene. She is identified by her town, Magdala. She appears in Gospel of Matthew 27–28, Gospel of Mark 15–16, Gospel of Luke 8 and 24, and Gospel of John 19–20. She is healed from seven demons. But the Bible never calls her a prostitute or “a sinful woman.” That idea came later in church tradition, not from the text itself. She is shown as a faithful follower, present at the cross and the resurrection.

Now notice something important. The Gospels often name people clearly when they want us to know who they are. Mary Magdalene is always called “Mary Magdalene.” Mary of Bethany is tied to Martha and Lazarus. The sinful woman in Luke 7 is left unnamed. If Luke wanted us to know she was Mary Magdalene, he could have said so. He does not.

Also, there are two different Simons: Simon the Pharisee in Luke 7, and Simon the leper in Gospel of Matthew 26 and Gospel of Mark 14. Different places, different times, different settings.

The argument about repeating a personal gesture, such as wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair, is interesting, but it is not strong proof. Two different women could do a similar act of devotion. The details of the stories also differ. In one case she anoints His feet while weeping over her sins. In another case the anointing is connected to His burial and happens shortly before the cross.

So can someone reasonably say there is not enough evidence to prove they are the same? Yes, that is reasonable. Scripture does not clearly join them together. It also does not clearly say they are different. But silence is not proof.

 

[Soul.og]

First, the sinful woman in Luke 7. The event happens in the house of Simon the Pharisee. Luke does not say it was in Nain. He only says it happened in a city.

Luke’s narrative places Jesus squarely in the Galilean region around Nain: “Soon afterward, Jesus went to a town called Nain, accompanied by his disciples and a large crowd” (Luke 7:11). In this same section, Luke notes that the Pharisees and lawyers “rejected the purpose of God for themselves” because they refused John’s baptism (Luke 7:30). Luke then moves directly into the account of Jesus dining in the house of Simon the Pharisee—still within the same narrative setting—beginning in 7:36.

This matters because Magdala, also located in Galilee, lies not far from Nain. The geographical continuity strengthens the plausibility that the repentant woman in Simon’s house and Mary of Magdala belong to the same narrative orbit rather than being unrelated figures scattered across distant regions.

In other words, Luke’s geographical framing supports identification, not separation.

Second, Mary of Bethany. In Gospel of John 11:1–2 and 12:1–8, Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus anoints Jesus in Bethany. This is near Jerusalem, not in Galilee. The timing is also different. Luke 7 happens early in Jesus’ ministry. John 12 happens six days before Passover, near the end of His ministry. John clearly names her as Mary, the sister of Lazarus. Also, there are two different Simons: Simon the Pharisee in Luke 7, and Simon the leper in Gospel of Matthew 26 and Gospel of Mark 14. Different places, different times, different settings.

Only two women in the entire Gospel record are described performing this highly specific act: anointing Jesus and wiping Him with their hair. The first is the repentant woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee; the second is Mary in the house of Lazarus at Bethany.

That is not a common gesture. It is an intensely personal, intimate, and symbolically charged act. So the real question is this:

Have you considered that these accounts may be describing the same woman—someone who repeated a distinctive, deeply meaningful gesture at different moments in her life and in Jesus’s ministry, in different settings and for different purposes?

The burden is on you to explain why two different women, in two different places, would independently perform the same rare, unmistakable act toward Jesus.

Until that is addressed, the identification of these women as the same individual remains a reasonable and textually grounded conclusion.

Third, Mary Magdalene. She is identified by her town, Magdala. She appears in Gospel of Matthew 27–28, Gospel of Mark 15–16, Gospel of Luke 8 and 24, and Gospel of John 19–20. She is healed from seven demons. But the Bible never calls her a prostitute or “a sinful woman.” She is shown as a faithful follower, present at the cross and the resurrection.

Mary of Magdala is widely understood to have been a sinful woman—just as all of us are sinners. But Luke gives a detail that sets her apart: she had been healed by Jesus of “seven demons.” That is not a casual description. It signals the severity of her former condition and strongly implies that she was regarded as a notably great and publicly recognized sinner.

And precisely because her bondage was so severe, her deliverance was dramatic. That transformation made her one of Jesus’s most devoted disciples. In other words, Luke’s portrayal of Mary of Magdala is entirely consistent with the profile of a woman whose past was notorious and whose conversion was extraordinary.

Now notice something important. The Gospels often name people clearly when they want us to know who they are. Mary Magdalene is always called “Mary Magdalene.” Mary of Bethany is tied to Martha and Lazarus. The sinful woman in Luke 7 is left unnamed. If Luke wanted us to know she was Mary Magdalene, he could have said so. He does not.

It’s true that Luke leaves the woman in 7:37 unnamed, and it’s also true that he could have identified her explicitly if he wished. But that fact alone proves nothing. The Gospel writers routinely leave individuals unnamed in one account while naming them in another—even when the stories clearly refer to the same person. Anonymity is a normal narrative feature in the Gospels, not evidence that two accounts must involve different individuals.

Luke’s silence, therefore, does not demonstrate that the woman in 7:37 is not Mary Magdalene or Mary of Bethany. It simply means he chose not to supply the name at that moment.

We see this pattern repeatedly:

• The high priest’s servant whose ear Peter cut off is unnamed in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but John identifies him as Malchus.
• On the road to Emmaus, one disciple is named—Cleopas—while the other remains anonymous.
• The woman who anoints Jesus and wipes His feet with her hair in Simon the Pharisee’s house is unnamed in Luke, while Matthew and John identify the woman who performs a strikingly similar act in Lazarus’s house as Mary. Mark recounts the same event but leaves her unnamed.

Even within a single shared tradition, the Evangelists vary in how much identifying detail they choose to provide. This consistent scriptural pattern shows that anonymity in one passage does not imply a different person; it reflects each writer’s narrative priorities.

And this pattern is directly relevant to the question at hand. The repentant woman in Luke 7:37, Mary of Magdala, and Mary of Bethany need not be treated as three unrelated women simply because one account names the figure and another does not. The Gospels frequently differ in naming, background detail, and emphasis.

Thus, Luke’s decision not to name the woman in 7:37 does not require us to conclude she is someone other than Mary Magdalene or Mary of Bethany. It fits perfectly within the Evangelists’ established literary habits and leaves open the very real possibility that these accounts describe the same woman.

So can someone reasonably say there is not enough evidence to prove they are the same? Yes, that is reasonable.

Can you reasonably claim that there is insufficient evidence to identify the repentant woman in Luke 7:37, Mary of Magdala, and Mary of Bethany as the same person? That depends entirely on whether you can actually address the points raised and either demonstrate—or rule out—any of the following:

1. That the repentant woman in Luke 7:37 and Mary of Bethany were not the same individual, despite both performing the same rare, intimate, and highly distinctive gesture: anointing Jesus and wiping Him with her hair.
2. That Mary of Magdala lived exclusively in Magdala, with no movement or residence elsewhere—something the text never states.
3. That Mary of Bethany lived exclusively in Bethany, again something the text never claims.
4. That Mary of Magdala could not have been associated with Magdala earlier in life and later resided in Bethany while still being known by her toponymic identifier.This naming pattern is entirely normal in the ancient world.
   • Jesus, though born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, was universally known as Jesus of Nazareth.
   • Paul, born in Tarsus, continued to be called Saul of Tarsus long after relocating.

Unless you can rule out these historically and textually plausible possibilities, you cannot simply dismiss the identification as “insufficient evidence." The burden is on you to show that these women must be different—not merely that their names appear in different contexts.

Until those points are addressed directly, the identification of these figures as the same woman remains a reasonable, coherent, and textually grounded conclusion.

 

[Taken]

I’ve provided specific evidence. If you disagree, I’d appreciate hearing your counter‑evidence so we can actually discuss it.

[the evidence suggests that the repentant woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene were not three separate individuals but one and the same woman.QUOTE="Soul.og, post: 2224127, member: 29927"]

You provided your Opinion.
I provided my Opinion.

You have an interest in multiple persons with the same names, exercising your efforts in who was related to whom, who was present where and when, who did what…

My interest in multiple persons with the same names, who interacted with Jesus, is less interesting to me, than … any persons, “point” of interaction with Jesus, “lesson” to learn from that interaction, regardless of their name being the same as another’s.

I do not believe Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala were the same Mary from two different villages.
Bethany was in Judea.
Magdala was in Galilee.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Soul.og]

You provided your Opinion.
I provided my Opinion.

I do not believe Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala were the same Mary from two different villages.
Bethany was in Judea.
Magdala was in Galilee.

There is a fundamental difference between offering an opinion and offering evidence. An opinion is a personal judgment; evidence is verifiable information that supports or challenges a claim. I presented specific, text‑based and historically grounded evidence suggesting that the repentant woman in Luke 7:37, Mary of Magdala, and Mary of Bethany may be the same individual.

Your rebuttal, however, rests not on evidence but on assumptions—specifically, the unproven claims that Mary of Magdala lived exclusively in Magdala and that Mary of Bethany lived exclusively in Bethany. Until those assumptions are demonstrated rather than presumed, they cannot function as a valid counter‑argument.

The New Testament itself shows that early disciples often lived in multiple locations throughout their lives while retaining their original toponymic identifiers:

• Peter was from Bethsaida, lived in Capernaum, and later ministered in Rome.
• Paul was born in Tarsus, educated in Jerusalem, based for years in Antioch, and spent extended periods in Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome—yet remained “Saul of Tarsus.”
• Philip lived in Jerusalem, then Samaria, then along the Gaza road, and eventually settled in Caesarea.
• John ministered in Jerusalem before later residing in Ephesus.

This pattern shows that mobility was normal and that a place‑name did not imply permanent residence. A toponymic identifier marked origin or association, not lifelong immobility.

In that light, it is entirely plausible that Mary of Magdala was originally associated with Magdala but later lived in Bethany, while still being known by her earlier identifier—just as Jesus was known as “Jesus of Nazareth” despite being born in Bethlehem.

Therefore, unless you can provide evidence that these Marys must be different individuals, your objection remains an assumption, not a rebuttal.

 

[Taken]

concrete …

VS

evidence suggesting

Your counter‑argument, however, rests on the assumptions that Mary of Bethany lived exclusively in Bethany and that Mary of Magdala lived exclusively in Magdala.

No. I neither said, implied or suggested, anyone lived in ONLY a certain place.

Scripturally and in common law…(at least for some people)…
Being OF, or FROM “this” place denotes a birth place…and the individual can add or NOT…. BUT…
I grew up blah, blah…in another place…
Or I was a wanderer and lived many places…
Or I was born in a place “foreign to my father, for example, when my parents were traveling, but my citizenship is that of my Father…”

Yet the apostles themselves show that a person’s place‑name does not imply permanent residence.

So? You are gaslighting. Trying to makes an argument solely on your own words.

 

[Soul.og]

I neither said, implies or suggested, anyone lived in ONLY a certain place.

Specifically regarding Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany, you rejected my argument that they may be the same woman on the sole basis that Magdala is in Galilee and Bethany is in Judea. But that objection depends entirely on an unsupported assumption: that Mary of Magdala lived exclusively in Magdala and Mary of Bethany lived exclusively in Bethany.

Unless you can demonstrate that these women were permanently fixed to those locations—and that such mobility was impossible or atypical in the first century—your objection remains an assumption, not evidence.

 

[Taken]

Specifically regarding Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala, you rejected my argument that they were the same woman on the grounds that Bethany is in Judea and Magdala is in Galilee—

False.
I reject your position Because …
Mary of Bethany was From Bethany.
Mary of Magdala was From Magdala.


Still gaslighting :-(

 

[Soul.og]

False.

How can that be false when, in post #10, you explicitly rejected my argument that Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany could be the same woman solely on the grounds that Magdala is in Galilee and Bethany is in Judea? Your objection depends entirely on the assumption that Mary of Magdala lived exclusively in Magdala and Mary of Bethany lived exclusively in Bethany.

Here is what you wrote:

I do not believe Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala were the same Mary from two different villages.
Bethany was in Judea.
Magdala was in Galilee.

That is precisely the assumption I addressed. If you now claim that this was not your reasoning, then you need to clarify what your actual argument is—because the objection you presented rests entirely on geography, not on textual evidence.

 

[Taken]

How can that be false when, in post #10, you rejected my argument that Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala were the same person on the grounds that Bethany is in Judea and Magdala is in Galilee—an objection that depends entirely on the assumption that Mary of Bethany lived exclusively in Bethany and Mary of Magdala exclusively in Magdala. See below.

WOW…

Not rocket science.

Mary OF Bethany was BORN in Bethany!
Mary OF Magdala was BORN in Magdala!

Where they traveled and went or lived thereafter doesn’t Change where they were BORN.

Two Different Mary’s.

 

[LoveYeshua]

In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus is depicted traveling in the Galilean region of Nain: "Soon afterward, Jesus went to a town called Nain, accompanied by his disciples and a large crowd" (Lk. 7:11). In this same section, Luke notes that the Pharisees and lawyers "rejected the purpose of God for themselves" because they had refused John’s baptism (Lk. 7:30). Luke then moves directly to the account of Jesus dining in the house of Simon the Pharisee—still within the narrative setting of Nain—beginning in 7:36. Magdala, also located in Galilee, lay not far from Nain.



Only two women in the Gospels are described as anointing Jesus and using their hair in the act: the woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and Mary in the house of Lazarus in Bethany. Have you considered the possibility that these accounts portray the same woman—someone who repeated this highly distinctive gesture at different moments in her life and in Jesus’s ministry, in different settings, before different audiences, and for different purposes?



Mary of Magdala is generally understood to have been a sinful woman—just as all of us are sinners. In her case, however, Luke notes that she had been healed by Jesus of ‘seven demons’, a detail that highlights the seriousness of her former condition and suggests that she would have been regarded as a notably great and well‑known sinner. Consequently, her dramatic deliverance made her an especially great convert and disciple.



It’s true that Luke leaves the woman in 7:37 unnamed, and it’s also true that he could have explicitly identified her if he wished. But that fact alone doesn’t settle the question. The Gospel writers frequently leave people unnamed in one account while naming them in another, even when the stories clearly refer to the same individual. Anonymity is a normal narrative feature in the Gospels, not a signal that two accounts must involve different people. So while Luke does not explicitly call the woman in 7:37 “Mary Magdalene”, or "Mary of Bethany", his silence doesn’t prove they are different—it simply means he chose not to make the identification explicit.

The high priest’s servant whose ear Peter cut off is unnamed in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but John identifies him as "Malchus". On the road to Emmaus, one disciple is named—"Cleopas"—while the other remains anonymous. Likewise, the woman who anoints Jesus and uses her hair in the act in Simon the Pharisee's house is unnamed, while Matthew and John identify the woman who performs a strikingly similar act in Lazarus's house as "Mary"; Mark recounts the same event but leaves her unnamed. Even within a single shared tradition, the evangelists vary in how much identifying detail they choose to supply. This consistent biblical pattern shows that anonymity in one passage does not imply a different person; it simply reflects the narrative priorities of each Gospel writer.

This pattern is directly relevant to whether the woman in Lk. 7:37, Mary of Bethany, and Mary of Magdala might in fact be the same person. The Gospels frequently differ in whether they name a figure, how much background they provide, or which aspects of a person’s identity they emphasize. Anonymity in one account and naming in another fits perfectly within the evangelists’ established habits. Thus, the fact that Luke leaves the repentant woman in 7:37 unnamed, while Matthew and John identify a woman in a similar context as "Mary", and Luke later introduces Mary of Magdala, does not require us to treat these as three separate women. It simply reflects the differing aims and emphases of the Gospel writers.



Can you reasonably claim that there is insufficient evidence to identify the woman in Luke 7:37, Mary of Bethany, and Mary of Magdala as the same person? That depends entirely on how you address the points above and whether you can demonstrate—or rule out—any of the following possibilities:

· Mary of Bethany lived exclusively in Bethany.
· Mary of Bethany was never a great, well-known sinner who later repented and became a disciple.
· Mary of Magdala lived exclusively in Magdala.
· Mary of Magdala later took up permanent residence again in Bethany with her brother, Lazarus, yet continued to be known by her toponymic surname “the Magdalene” or “of Magdala.” This would not be unusual. Jesus, though born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, lived most of His early life in Nazareth and was therefore commonly called “Jesus of Nazareth.” Likewise, Paul—born in Tarsus and a Roman citizen by birth—was known as “Saul of Tarsus” both before and after his conversion.

There is no definitive proof for or against, one day we will know however that is certain, but will we remember these times? there is nothing more I can add.

Blessings.

 

[Soul.og]

WOW…

Not rocket science.

Mary OF Bethany was BORN in Bethany!
Mary OF Magdala was BORN in Magdala!

Where they traveled and went or lived thereafter doesn’t Change where they were BORN.

Two Different Mary’s.

It is not stated anywhere in Scripture that Mary of Magdala was born in Magdala, nor that Mary of Bethany was born in Bethany. Their toponymic identifiers—“of Magdala” and “of Bethany”—do not, by themselves, establish birthplace or lifelong residence. They simply indicate association, not origin.

This is obvious from the case of Jesus Himself. Though He was born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, He was universally known as “Jesus of Nazareth” (John 1:45; Acts 2:22). His identifier reflected where He lived and was known, not where He was born.

Viewed in this light, it remains entirely plausible that Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany were the same woman, with “Magdala” functioning as a toponymic identifier for a place of residence or earlier association rather than a distinct birthplace. The name alone does not—and cannot—prove they were different individuals.

Unless one can demonstrate that these identifiers imply exclusive, lifelong residence, the possibility of a single Mary remains fully viable and textually consistent.

 

[Taken]

It is not stated in Scripture that Mary of Bethany was born in Bethany, nor that Mary of Magdala was born in Magdala.

You have the mind-set of a child, and attempt to persist that quality is worthy to “understand” common knowledge and worthy to debate Spiritual “understanding”.

“OF / FROM” are prepositions regarding a relationship to an origin.

Their toponymic identifiers—‘of Bethany’ and ‘of Magdala’—do not, by themselves, establish birthplace. This is evident from the fact that Jesus, though born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, was nevertheless known as "Jesus of Nazareth" (Jn. 1:45, Ac. 2:22).

Jesus IS Not, WAS Not, Will Never Be “A Human”.
Jesus IS “OF” / “FROM” “His Spirit Father God IN Heaven”… ORIGIN!

Jesus WAS “PREPARED” and “SENT” “FROM” His “ORIGIN”…

Heb. 10:
[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

What did THAT Prepared BODY look “like”?

Phil 2:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Where WAS THAT PREPARED Body Sent To?
What POWER SENT that Prepared BODY?

Spiritually…Law

Luke 1:
[35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Spiritually…Law
John 16:
[28] I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Spiritually Foretold, Revealing AND Purpose.

Matt. 2:
[1] Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
[5] And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
[6] And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Secularly…Law
Bethlehem, Birthplace.

Secularly…Law
Citizenship, same AS Earthly LEGAL Father.

Earthly Legal Father, Joseph OF Nazareth.

Secularly…Law
Legal offspring, Same Citizenship as Legal Father / Joseph.

A “natural born Offspring”, regardless of Where the Offspring is Born, is Secularly, Lawfully, a Citizen of The Same as his Legal Fathers Citizenship.

Mitt Romney (US Politician) was Born in Mexico, to a Father who was A US Citizen…
Thus the child Mitt was a “natural born US citizen….and Lawfully, Constitutionally qualified to be a candidate for the US Presidential Office.”

Obama (US fraud, supposed self claimed US constitutional Lawyer) was supposedly born in Hawaii (irrelevant). He was the son of a Kenyan Citizen Father.
Obama was NOT a “natural born US citizen”, and WAS NOT lawfully Constitutionally Qualified to Be a candidate, Be elected or sit in the position of US Presidents Office.

Where Gods WORD (named JESUS) came “OF / From”… was His Father, God, in Heaven…
His Fathers Estate, Home, Kingdom, Throne.

John 18:
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 16:
[28] I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Spiritually…
Gods WORD JESUS came From His World His Kingdom.

Secularly…
JESUS was a Legal citizen OF Nazareth, according to mans Law of JESUS’ lawful human father.

Viewed in this light,

OF / FROM denotes ORIGIN.
ORIGIN denotes an individuals BIRTH, place.
Fathers Citizenship Denotes offsprings CITIZENSHIP.
Citizenship denotes ALLEGIANCE.
Allegiance denotes STANDING.

it remains entirely plausible that Mary of Bethany was born in Bethany—or elsewhere—lived in Magdala for a period of time, and later resettled permanently in Bethany with her brother Lazarus and sister Martha, while continuing to be known by the title "the Magdalene".

No.

The premise is OF / FROM “origin”.
Not where have you BEEN.

JESUS “ORIGIN” was IN Heaven, IN His Father.

Jesus Having BEEN on a Journey TO Earth, does Not supersede His … OF/FROM ORIGIN.

Mark 13:
[34] For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

 

[Soul.og]

OF / FROM denotes ORIGIN.
ORIGIN denotes an individuals BIRTH, place.

Toponymic names are often misunderstood. They do not refer exclusively to a person’s birthplace. In ancient Judaism, personal identifiers generally fell into three categories:

• Patronymic — identifying someone as the child of a parent
• Toponymic — linking a person to a place
• Descriptive titles — indicating occupation, traits, or religious roles

A toponymic identifier simply marks a place‑based association, and that association could reflect several different realities:

• the place someone originally came from
• the place where they currently lived
• the broader region or district with which they were connected

Scripture never states the birthplace of Mary Magdalene, and the title “Magdalene” or “of Magdala” does not automatically mean she was born there. It only indicates that she had some meaningful association with that town. Likewise, Scripture never calls the sister of Lazarus and Martha “Mary of Bethany” nor claims she was born there; it simply portrays her as residing in Bethany with her siblings.

Because the text does not specify birthplaces or claim that either woman lived exclusively in one location, it is entirely plausible that Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany were the same individual—a woman formerly associated with Magdala who later lived in Bethany while still being known by her earlier toponymic identifier.

This kind of naming continuity was completely normal in the ancient world.

• Jesus, though born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, was widely known as “Jesus of Nazareth.”
• Paul, born in Tarsus, continued to be called “Saul of Tarsus” long after relocating.

Therefore, the toponymic labels “Magdalene” and “of Bethany” do not prove these women were different individuals. They simply reflect the flexible, place‑based naming conventions of the period.

Jesus IS “OF” / “FROM” “His Spirit Father God IN Heaven”… ORIGIN!

That directly contradicts your own statement:

OF / FROM denotes ORIGIN.
ORIGIN denotes an individuals BIRTH, place.

If that were true, then your claim that Jesus is “OF / FROM His Spirit Father God in Heaven” would mean His birthplace is Heaven—which is not what the Gospels teach.

Scripture is explicit: Jesus was born in Bethlehem Ephrathah (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-6). Yet He is repeatedly called “Jesus of Nazareth” (John 1:45; Acts 2:22).

This is exactly the point I’ve been making: Toponymic identifiers do not refer only to birthplace or literal origin.

They indicate association—where someone lived, was known, or was identified—not necessarily where they were born.

Your own example disproves your claim.