John 19 25

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; max-width: 900px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { font-family: ‘Georgia’, serif; color: #333; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.8em; }
h2 { font-size: 1.8em; }
h3 { font-size: 1.4em; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 0; padding-left: 1em; color: #555; font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; margin-bottom: 1em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
.greek-text { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Gentium Plus’, ‘SBL Greek’, serif; }

An Exegetical Analysis of John 19:25: Enumerating the Women at the Cross

This exegetical study of John 19:25: Enumerating the Women at the Cross is based on a b-greek discussion from October 18, 1999. The initial inquiry posed questions regarding the number of women present at the cross and their familial relationships as depicted in the passage. It further sought an analysis of the Greek grammatical structure of the sentence, inquiring about its probable interpretation from a grammatical standpoint and potential parallels from non-Christian sources.

The main exegetical issue revolves around the precise enumeration of individuals named in John 19:25 and the grammatical relationship between the various descriptive phrases and proper names. Specifically, the absence of a coordinating conjunction καὶ (kai, “and”) before the first mention of Μαρία (Mary) and the appositional structure of ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ present ambiguities that lead to differing conclusions regarding whether two, three, or four women are intended by the Evangelist.

Εἱστήκεισαν δὲ παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή. (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• There are no significant differences in the Greek wording between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT (2010) for John 19:25. Both editions present the text identically.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

The textual tradition for John 19:25 is remarkably stable, with the NA28 critical apparatus indicating no significant variants that would alter the core grammatical or lexical understanding of the verse. The primary interpretive challenges stem from syntactical analysis rather than textual uncertainty.

Lexical considerations:

• Εἱστήκεισαν (histēkeisan): This is the third person plural pluperfect indicative of ἵστημι (histēmi), “to stand.” BDAG (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, s.v. ἵστημι) notes its use for “stand firm, persist” or simply “be standing.” The pluperfect here denotes a state of standing that had begun prior to, and continued during, the described action, conveying a sense of enduring presence.
• παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ (para tō staurō): The preposition παρά with the dative signifies “beside,” “next to,” or “at.” BDAG (s.v. παρά) confirms this locative sense, indicating immediate proximity to the cross.
• ἀδελφὴ (adelphē): “Sister.” BDAG (s.v. ἀδελφός/ἀδελφή) defines it as a “female sibling.” Its use here is straightforward, referring to a blood relation. Kittel (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. ἀδελφός) elaborates on broader theological implications, but the primary familial meaning is clear.
• μητρὸς (mētrōs): The genitive singular of μήτηρ (mētēr), “mother.” BDAG (s.v. μήτηρ) provides the standard meaning. Kittel (TDNT, s.v. μήτηρ) also explores the sociological and theological significance of motherhood.
• Μαρία (Maria): The Greek form of the Hebrew name “Miriam,” commonly translated “Mary.” BDAG (s.v. Μαρία) identifies it as the name of several women in the New Testament. Its recurrence in this verse is central to the exegetical debate.
• Κλωπᾶ (Klōpa): The genitive singular of Κλωπᾶς (Klōpas), “Clopas.” BDAG (s.v. Κλωπᾶς) identifies him as a masculine proper name, potentially a variant of Cleopas (Luke 24:18), though this is debated. The genitive τοῦ Κλωπᾶ indicates “of Clopas,” suggesting either his daughter (Mary the daughter of Clopas) or, more likely given ancient naming conventions, his wife (Mary the wife of Clopas).
• Μαγδαληνή (Magdalēnē): “Magdalene.” BDAG (s.v. Μαγδαληνή) indicates “one from Magdala,” a town on the Sea of Galilee. This epithet serves to distinguish this Mary from others.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The passage’s ambiguity regarding the number of women stems primarily from the sequence of names and descriptions, particularly the treatment of καὶ (kai, “and”) and the appositional phrase. Three main interpretations have been advanced:

1. The Two-Women Hypothesis: This interpretation suggests that only two distinct women are listed: (a) “his mother” and (b) a compound description “his mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” This reading, while gramatically possible by taking both Marys in apposition to the sister, is widely regarded as improbable due to the distinct identities of Mary of Clopas and Mary Magdalene in other Gospel accounts (e.g., Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:56). It would require the mother’s sister to be known by two different, well-established names, which is highly unlikely.

2. The Three-Women Hypothesis: This is perhaps the most common interpretation. It posits that there are three distinct women: (1) ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ (his mother), (2) ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ (his mother’s sister, who is identified as Mary of Clopas), and (3) Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή (Mary Magdalene). In this reading, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ is taken in apposition to ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, identifying the sister as Mary of Clopas. The argument against this, as noted in scholarly discussion, is the perceived unlikelihood of two sisters (Jesus’ mother and her sister) sharing the same name “Mary.” However, “Mary” was a highly common name in first-century Judaism, making this possibility not entirely dismissible. Grammatically, the presence of καὶ before ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ and again before Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή naturally separates three entities, with the second being a compound noun phrase including an appositional clarification.

3. The Four-Women Hypothesis: This interpretation suggests that four distinct women are present: (1) ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ (his mother), (2) ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ (his mother’s sister), (3) Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ (Mary of Clopas), and (4) Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή (Mary Magdalene). The key to this reading lies in interpreting the absence of καὶ before the first Μαρία (Mary of Clopas) not as an indication of apposition to the preceding phrase, but as a stylistic choice to group individuals in pairs or simply list them without a constant repetition of καὶ, a phenomenon observed in other biblical enumerations (e.g., Matthew 10:1-4, where “Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew” shows pairs joined by καὶ but pairs themselves not joined). In this scenario, the text effectively lists “his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas and Mary Magdalene.” The argument for this interpretation is strengthened by the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same first name, as well as the observation that the “normal order” for apposition often places the proper name before the relational descriptor (e.g., “Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother” vs. “Simon Peter’s brother, Andrew,” though counter-examples like John 1:41 exist). BDAG (s.v. Κλωπᾶς), as noted in the discussion, gives credence to this view, citing the unusualness of two sisters named Mary as a reason to prefer four women.

Rhetorically, the Evangelist’s choice of listing these women without full explicitness on their precise number or relationship forces the reader to consider the implications of their presence and identity. The focus remains on their witness to Christ’s crucifixion, rather than a detailed genealogical record. The use of δὲ (de, “but/and”) at the beginning of the verse serves as a simple connective, indicating a continuation of the narrative.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

While definitive resolution remains elusive, the grammatical structure and contextual considerations often lead interpreters to favor either the three- or four-women hypothesis, with the “two sisters with the same name” argument being a significant point of contention. The stylistic variations in the use of καὶ in other enumerations within the New Testament suggest that its omission before Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ does not necessarily mandate apposition. Considering the textual stability, the primary task is to render the most probable grammatical and semantic intent in English.

Based on the analysis, the following translation suggestions are offered:

1. “And standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”
   This translation supports the Three-Women Hypothesis, interpreting “Mary the wife of Clopas” as an appositional identification of Jesus’ mother’s sister. This is a common rendering in many English versions.
2. “And standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister; Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”
   This rendering favors the Four-Women Hypothesis by using a semicolon to separate the first pair of relatives from the two named Marys, implying four distinct individuals and addressing the perceived unlikelihood of two sisters sharing the name Mary.
3. “Now there were standing beside the cross of Jesus: his mother; his mother’s sister; Mary, the wife of Clopas; and Mary Magdalene.”
   This option also supports the Four-Women Hypothesis, employing a colon and semicolons to clearly delineate four separate individuals, thereby resolving the grammatical ambiguity through explicit enumeration.

“`