I'm glad it was inoffensive. I don't think arrogant prosylitism helps with inter-faith dialogue.




I'm also drawing on the New Testament accounts, and particularly the gospel of John, which don't really emphasise those responses. Every Apostle and all the other principal followers of Jesus were Jews. The early church depicted in Acts of the Apostles saw itself as Jewish, met in synagogues each day, and followed Jewish teaching and custom. There doesn't appear to have been the kind of backlash against Jew of Roman that might have been expected.

Then again, after the arrest of Jesus the disciples were running scared; literally running at the time of the arrest, into the darkness down the slopes away from Gethsemene. None of the disciples were even in the crowd at Jesus' execution, except for John who may have had some powerful family connections. We're told a couple of times in scripture that at the time Mary and the other women brought news of the empty tomb the men were "hiding away for fear of the authorities".

And thereafter, the disciples believed that Christ had arisen. That amazing discovery presumably blunted any remaining grudge.

Early Christian writings that do place "blame" seem to emphasise the Roman rather than the Sanhedrin role in Christ's death. That's perhaps unsurprising given the Christian persecutions under Nero and his successors. It's only when Constantine makes Christianity the offical religion of the empire that a different scapegoat is required and the focus of blame shifts to the Jews.




There is perhaps a taboo around the Easter story. It's much easier to present the Christmas account - it has animals and babies and it can make a nice, if biblically inaccurate, tableau. The resurrection story is really made up of individual encounters that are very personal. Perhaps that's why the four gospel accounts all differ in their description of what happened when and to whom.







I had to make a choice between some conflicting sources for the site of the tomb. In the end I decided for dramatic rather than historical or geographical reasons that Mary went out via the Fish Gate in the Third Wall and along the Samarian Road, and that the tomb was slightly down a slope towards the valley of Gillion. But I accept that my geographical choices may be poor, having not either visited or properly researched the area.




It's also a question of what might be valuable to a woman like Mary Magdalen, especially if she was now living a life where men wouldn't give her ribbons any more.




I was trying to keep as much "biblical" language out of the story as possible. Many contemporary Christian Bibles translate Mary's recognition as "Teacher". For example, the bestselling New International Version reads:

"Jesus said to her, "Mary."

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

And yes, the Scripture does actually include the translation for those not familiar with the Jewish phrase.

In fact I used all John's dialogue verbatim in this story.

As for making a point, I wasn't thinking things through that deeply. However, master isn't really a term that's still in common use today whereas teacher is. Master now has negative connotations via slavery, or has sexual overtones. So given my choice of imperfect translation words I went with Teacher.




Herod appears in Luke 23. 7-12, wherein Pilate sends Jesus to be questioned by Antipas since Christ is Galilean and therefore under Herod's tetrachy. Herod mocks Christ and sends him back to the Romans.




That's a good point and I think I'll need to amend my text.




Thanks, and likewise. Rhiannon and I spent some time last night discussing the events of Passover.