Mary Magdalene, From a Praefica of Nenia to a Messenger of Carmentis

In recent years, the character, Mary Magdalene gains considerable attention in literature
and media. From identifying her as an important disciple to finding her as the wife of Jesus,
recent media and literature made her name in headlines quite frequently. In the midst of these
recent hypes a question still lingers about Mary Magdalene: why does she take precedence in the
last few chapters of the Gospels? Why is she portrayed with much importance in the passion
narratives? Why is characterized as an importance character in the funerary episodes of Jesus
Christ?
In light of Roman funerary practices nenia and praefica come to fore, where praefica is
identified as the chief mourning lady who would lead nenia, the funerary songs. Similarly, Mary
Magdalene is kept primarily in the passion and funerary passages of Jesus. Therefore, a question
in this article is being asked, could Mary Magdalene be considered as praefica in light of the
Greco-Roman worldview? The reason for this question is primarily because of the prevalence of
Magdalene’s portrayal in the funerary passages. In addition, this is not to say that the authors of
the Gospel must have intended her to be seen as the praefica. Rather, this article is a reading,
which analyzes how the first century readers who were influenced by Greco-Roman worldviews
would have seen Mary Magdalene. It must be acknowledged that the authors of the Bible were
writing the Gospels (at least this portion of the narrative) in predominantly Jewish perspectives.
However, the prevalence of the Roman religious practices would have (or could have) prompted
the readers to see Mary Magdalene also from the Greco-Roman perspectives, which must also be
understood to study the passage and to understand the passage better. In addition, this article
could also be considered as a comparative critical analysis.1 While many articles and books were
written seeing her from the perspective of Jewish funerary practices this paper will show a
different canvas with strokes picturing Mary Magdalene from the Greco-Roman funerary
practices. Before we go on to this, descriptions about nenia, praefica are in order.

1. Nenia

Nenia is the goddess of death in the Roman religious world. She was worshipped in a
shrine outside Rome, in porta Viminalis (Ovid, Fest. 16M). Nenia is believed to look after those
who live out their last days. On the contrary, nenia is also a song, sung in the funeral rites of
Romans. Grammarian Diomedes calls nenia as the “last and ultimate song that, together with

1
Comparative criticism is an approach, which compares the Bible with another literature and reads the
biblical literature in light of the other (explanations are given in a forthcoming book called Approaches to the New
Testament, 2017). For example, Biblical portions could be compared with Plutarch’s Lives or Thiruvalluvar’s
Thirukkural in order to see the similarities and differences between the two literatures. Reading a Biblical portion in
light of another literature will produce immense opportunities to bring out various aspects of the text. Here, in this
article, though no particular literature is compared with the Biblical text the concepts of Praefica, Nenia and
Carmentis are compared with the characterization of Mary Magdalene to understand her in light of the concepts,
which were prevalent in the first century Roman world. Seeing Mary Magdalene in the lens of Praefica, Nenia and
Carmentis would give a kaleidoscopic view of Mary Magdalene, which would have missed reading it otherwise.
lamentation, is sung to the dead” (id Carmen quod cum lamentatione extremum atque ultimum
mortuo accinitur, GLK 1.484-85). This funeral dirge was considered as one of the last parts of
the funeral rites in the Roman world. This dirge (nenia) was performed by a group of women
mourners possibly led by a woman with a loud voice called, Praefica. We will see more about
praefica in the next section. The term nenia is also spelled in some literature as naenia but both
seem to address the same thing, the funeral dirge.2 For decades, the meaning of the term nenia
had been enigmatic. Dorota Dutsch identifies that while laudatio funebris is “relatively well
documented,” “the nenia remains an enigma.”3
One of the early enquiries on Nenia was done by John Heller, who shows the ambiguity
of the meaning of the word nenia this way:
An exceedingly curious puzzle to the Latin lexicographer [Festus] is the history of the
word nenia, which seems to have denoted, at various times and in various places: 1. A
goddess invoked at a funeral; 2. A funeral lament, or dirge; 3. A magic incantation, or a
child’s jingle; 4. Trifling verses (nugae) or trifling things of a more material nature, even
a kind of mincemeat or sausage used in sacrifice; 5. Idle talk in general, old wives’ tales,
absurdities (deliramenta).”4
Heller’s document was written in 1939. Similarly, John North does an enquiry on nenia and
Festus in a 2015 article called, “Roman Funeral Rituals and the Significance of the Nenia.”5
Therefore, until recently, the search for the meaning of the term nenia continues. For Heller, the
original, core meaning of nenia is like “plaything.”6 However, Thomas Habinek says, “In any
case, the earliest attestations of the term nenia all accord with the meaning ‘end,’ either
concretely, as in ‘last bit of the entrails’ [anus] or ‘funeral song’ or more abstractly, as in
‘finale.’”7 According to Habinek nenia could also mean anus. However, in Cicero’s time the
word nenia meant “funeral songs.” Cicero points out that nenia is Roman funeral customary
songs, and he adds that even in Greek it means “lugubrious songs” (Leg. 2.62). Dutsch says, “the
word nenia itself, in addition to meaning ‘funeral chant’ could denote a nursery rhyme, a load of
rubbish, or a magical incantation, and it even—according to one late source—had some obscure
connection with extremity of the intestine.”8
Some concrete information of nenia comes from the glossaries of Festus, and Paul the
Deacon. It is, then, important to know about Festus and Paul the Deacon and their work before

2
I prefer to use the spelling “nenia” though John North consistently uses naenia in his article as majority of
the writers use nenia than naenia (John North, “Roman Funeral Rituals and the Significance of the Nenia,” Religion
in the Roman Empire, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2015). Even Festus himself seems to be using both spelling see footnote 8. My
reasoning in using nenia as the spelling is that even Festus in 154.19 use nenia six times and naenia only one time.
3
Dorota Dutsch, “Lament: Studies in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond,” Nenia: Gender, Genre and
Lament in Ancient Rome, (ed. Ann Suter; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 258.
4
John Heller, “Festus on Nenia,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association,
Vol. 70 (1939), 264. 357.
5
North, “Roman Funeral Rituals and the Significance of the Nenia,” 114-133.
6
John Heller, “Nenia ‘πιγνιον,’” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association,
Vol. 74 (1943), 234.
7
Thomas Habinek, The World of Roman Song: From Ritualized Speech to Social Order (London: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2005), 234.
8
Dutsch, “Lament,” 258.
we see what they have written on nenia for better clarity. Sextus Pompeius Festus was a Roman
grammarian most probably from the early 2nd Century CE, perhaps from Narbo, in Gaul. Festus
abridged the great work of Verrius Flaccus (55 BCE- 20 CE). Flaccus was one of the prominent
Roman grammarians of his time, and he was also the tutor of the grandsons of Caesar Augustus,
during his reign. Flaccus is known for his writings in Latin language and he is best known for his
now lost lexicon called, De verborum significata (On the Meaning of Words). Verrius Flaccus’
lexicon was the first of its kind which alphabetized the words in Latin and gave meanings
comprehensively. It is told that his work was so massive that it had four volumes only on the
letter A. Festus abridged this lexicon from 40 volume work to a 20 volume work, which was
called in the same name, De verborum significata. Festus’ work also suffered same fate of his
predecessor’s. Only a damaged copy of Festus’ work was found in the early middle ages in a
very damaged state. This document was called Codex Farnesianus from the 11th Century CE,
which only contains the alphabetized entries from M to V, and that too not in a good condition,
which survived many ordeals of ages and fire.
Festus’ De verborum significata was then further abridged by Paul the Deacon (730-799
CE) in the eighth century. He is known for his other works such as Historia Langobardorum and
Historia Romana. Interestingly, Paul the Deacon abridged Festus’ work in the time of
Charlemagne to be given as a gift to the Emperor, which was called as Epitome Festi De
verborum siginificata. Therefore, the surviving works on nenia, from Festus, and Paul the
Deacon could in some way be attributed even to Verrius, as both of their writings were his
work’s abridgements in one sense. Therefore, both these writings could explain the meaning of
nenia from the 1st Century CE, at least partly.

1.1 Festus’ Meaning of Nenia

Festus in his glossaries described nenia as the following:
A nenia is a [song] sung [to the flute at a funeral,] for the purpose of [praise. For
Afr]ianius [writes thus] in the Maternal Aunts: “…they were singing [the nenia] at the
funeral.” [Some people] think that the meaning [is “end”, as when Plautus writes in the
Pseudolus]: “So when I turn round, [I fall down; that was the end (dirge) of the fun”]:
(Plautus) again: “My mistress has sung the dirge] over this [loving] man [among us] at
home.” Also, in XXX: “…..let it be right to the end.” [XXX says] that some authors
[explain the word nenia because the wailing of the mourners] is actually rather similar to
the sound of the word. Others again say that [the word nenia is derived from the word for
the lowest part] of the intestine, and XXX uses as evidence Plautus [in the Two
Bacchises: “You may well have] a dagger; but I have [a spit at home], with which, if you
[provoke me], I can make you fuller of holes than a mouse’s anus.” [But in fact the
naenia is the last stage when] when we are carrying out someone who has died [to burial,
since the Greek word for ‘last’ is neatos; or else, since the last string is [called the nete,
we call] the highest note of the music the nenia. (Festus 154.19)9

9
Nenia est [Carmen, quod in funere laudandi]
gratia can[tatur ad tibiam, Ita enim ait Afra-]
According to Festus, Nenia is a song, sung at the funeral, and it could also mean an end; a dirge;
or an intestine; or finally, a funeral song. North in his translation of Festus shows the many times
the meaning of nenia as dirge or funeral song comes in Festus’ entry. Though the meanings such
as ‘end’ and ‘intestine’ are mentioned, funeral song or dirge is repeated in Festus’ entry
frequently. Similarly, Paul the Deacon says,
A nenia is a song, which is sung to the flute at a funeral for the purpose of praise. Some
think the meaning of the word is ‘end’. Some (others) think the word is spoken like that
because the sound is quite similar to the wailing of the mourners. Others again say that
nenia the word is derived from the word for the very tip of the intestine [Anus]; for the
Greeks call the very end “the neaton” or else because the topmost string is called the
nete, they called the highest note of the music the nenia.10
Paul the Deacon points out similar meanings for nenia. For him, nenia is a funeral song; an end;
a dirge; anus; and the highest note in music. Again, in the midst of these ambiguities, funeral
song comes repeatedly even in Paul the Deacon’s summary.

1.2 Nenia as Dirge

Nenia, as dirge, was an important cultic expression of grief in the Roman funerary rites. It
seems it was also quite popular in those times. Ovid points out an incident of a strike of Rome’s
flute players, which resulted in the absence of nenia leading the “final choruses” (supremos
choros, Fast. 6.668). GL 5.226.4 calls neniae as “the very last songs sung to the deceased”
(nenias novissima cantica quae ad mortum dicuntur). The overwhelming evidences, apart from

nius in Materter [is: ………….. inter exse-]

quias cantit[abant neniam. Sunt qui finem sig-]
nificari credo[nt, ut cum ait Platus in Pseudolo
.]bi ego circumuo[rtor, cado; id fuit nenia ludo;]
Idem: ‘Huic homi[ni amanti mea era apud nos neniam]
dixit domi’; et ap[ud XXX: ‘…………… usque ad ne-]
niam esto’. Quosdam [neniam ideo dicere ait XXX]
quod ei uoci sim[ilior querimonia flentium]
sit. Quidam aiunt nom[en ductum ab extre-]
mi intestine uoca[bulo, XXXque testimo-]
nio utitur Plauti B[acchidibus: ‘Si tibi est ma-]
chae{de}ra, at nobis [ueruinast domi, qua quidem]
te reddam, si tu me [inritaueris, confossio]
rem soricina naenia’. {Nenia autem extremum est quan-]
do efferimus mortu[um; quod extremum aliquid]
Graeci neaton …….. [appellant; siue quod chor-]
darum [ult]ima [nete dicta est, uocem extre-]
mam cantionis naeniam [appellamus]
I am following North (“Roman Funeral,” 130-131) here. For an older version of the entry (a partly restored one)
refer to Heller, “Nenia ‘πιγνιον,’” 359. As part of the manuscript is lost North shows the recently restored entry. It is
to be noted that North is part of the Festus Lexicon Project of University College, London and so he provides recent
research on the subject.
10
Paul 155.27: Nenia est Carmen, quod in funere laudandi gratia cantatur ad tibiam. Sunt qui eo uerbo
finem significari putant. Quidam uolunt neniam ideo dici, quod uoci similior querimonia flentium sit. Quidam aiunt
neniae ductum nomen ab extermi intestine uocabulo; Graeci enim neaton extermum dicunt; siue quod cordarum
ultima nete dicitur, extremam cantionis uocem neniam appellarunt.
Festus and Paul the Deacon, show that nenia was primarily used as a funerary chant performed
by ladies [a lead lady, at least] called praeficae.
Physical death, for Romans, was not an end but a continuum to the next life. Though a
person was dead he/she remained a part of the clan: either as a friendly being, di manes or a
hostile one, lemures.11 Lemures demanded “annual propitiation” and thus sending the dead spirit
peacefully to the other side involved elaborate rituals so as not to antagonize the dead spirit.12
Therefore, Nenia was sung by praefica and others to ward of the dead spirit from the living.
Heller in his article, Nenia ‘πιγνιον,’ stresses that “the central and original meaning of nenia was
in fact ‘Carmen funebre’ (funeral song).”13 Heller says, “we must conclude that ‘carmen
funebre’ was certainly an important meaning of the word nenia.”14
Heller also points out about the presence of neniae (plural) even in the funeral rites of
imperials from the time of Augustus.15 The presence of neniae in imperial funeral procession
signifies the popularity of nenia, in addition, it shows the popularity it would have created.
Heller suggests that nenia in singular, from the early Empire times, meant ‘carmen funebre’.16
Then the confusion in the later period is because of the meaning of the plural word had taken
along the time. Therefore, for Heller, nenia is a funeral song sung primarily by praefica and
company.17

2. Praefica

Lucilius (180-103 BCE) points out that “the praeficae [are the ones] who for a price
weep at the funeral of another greatly tear their hair and cry out more (than others).” 18 Varro also
points out that praefica was a hired person (quae conduceretur), in this case “to sing the praises
of the deceased in front of the house” (quae ante domum mortui laudis eius caneret, Ling. 7.70).
Varro says, “A woman is called a praefica according to Aurelius, who would be hired from the
lucus (i.e. from the Grove of Libitina) to sing the praises of a dead person in front of his/her
house” (Varro de LL 7.70). Heller suggests that the presence of praefiae is seen from the fourth
century BCE onwards as Aristotle had commented on them.19 Varro says, “Aristotle mentioned
that this was the practice in his book called Nomimma Barbarika, for which there is evidence in

11
Dutsch, “Lament,” 259.
12
For detailed account of Roman funeral rites please refer to Keith Hopkins, Death and Renewal (Vol.
2; Sociological Studies in Roman History; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 217-19; Kurt von Latte
Römische Religionsgeschichte (München: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1960), 101; J.M.C. Toynbee,
Death and Burial in the Roman World (London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), 44-45.
13
Heller, “Nenia ‘πιγνιον,’” 219.
14
Heller, “Nenia ‘πιγνιον,’” 219.
15
Heller, “Nenia ‘πιγνιον,’” 265.
16
Heller, “Nenia ‘πιγνιον,’” 267.
17
Heller, “Nenia ‘πιγνιον,’” 267.
18
Lucil. 995-96W: [M]ercede quae conductae flent alieno in funere praeficae, multo et copillos scindunt et
clamant magi. For North, the mention that she cries more than others (the family and friends of the deceased) is a
kind of mockery of Lucilius intend to show how the family and friends should have cried more than others. North,
“Roman Funeral,” 125.
19
Heller, “Nenia ‘πιγνιον,’” 260.
the … of Naevius: ‘This woman, damn it, must be a praefica, for she is praising a dead man.’
According to Claudius: ‘The woman who would direct the slave girls how to sing the dirge was
called the praefica.’”20
In Conducta 145, Nonius also suggests that praefica is usually a hired person. However,
Habinek points out that there is a possibility in Conducta 145 that preafica is hired only when a
family lacks a person who could perform Neniae.21 Habinek also raises the doubt whether this
hiring of the praeficae was practiced after the classical period.22 Habinek also points out that the
term praeficae is from prae and facio which means “the one who sets up in front of (others)
…the one who sets out patterns for imitation.”23 If so, then the professional praefica was the one
who sets the pattern for the others to imitate and sing the lament or the mourning song. Dutsch
says, “The duty of the praeficae was not to feel genuine grief but to enact it.”24 Further, Heller
says people or other mourners (even the other hired ones) would have “followed [the praefica] in
rhythmic movements expressive of grief. The performance, however, could hardly have been
silent; cries of sorrow must have been uttered; probably it was also the function of the praefica to
interpret these gestures and cries in more easily intelligible speech, in a song or chant, as was
certainly true later on.”25 Habinek also suggests that one of the main reasons for praising is “to
establish a pattern for imitation or surrogation, to validate the authority of the imago.”26
There were ancient sources, who disliked the hiring of the praefica. Horace says, “Scrap
the neniae of the vacuous funeral and the shabby grieving and moaning; cut back the noise, give
a miss to the useless honours of the tomb.”27 In addition, Suetonius about Emperor Augustus’
funeral says, “The Senate went so far in their competitive zeal to elaborate the funeral and
honour his memory that among other proposals, there was even one that the procession, led by
the Victoria from the Senate-house, should pass under the triumphal gate, with the nenia being
sung by the children boys and girls from the leading families.”28 Suetonius does not seem to like
the idea that neniae were being sung in the royal funeral of Augutus. In addition, a verse by
Aulus Gellius shows who the praeficae were (Aulus Gellius, NA 18.7.1-6):
Surely no hope of salvation remains, when even you, the most illustrious philosophers,
take nothing to heart but words and the different forces of words! Yet I will send you a

20
Praefica dicta, ut Aurelius scribit, mulier ab luco quae conduceretur quae ante domum mortui laudis
eius caneret. Hoc factitatum Aristoteles scribit in libro qui inscribitur Nomima barbarika, quibas testimonium est,
quod fretum est Naevii: Haec quidem hercle, opinor, praefica est: nam mortuum collaudat. Claudius scribit: Quae
praeficeretur ancillis, quemadmodum lamentarentur, praefica est dicta. Utrumque ostendit a praefectione praeficam
dictam (Varro de LL 7.70).
21
Habinek, The World of Roman Song, 238.
22
Habinek, The World of Roman Song, 238.
23
Habinek, The World of Roman Song, 238.
24
Dutsch, “Lament,” 260.
25
Heller, “Nenia ‘πιγνιον,’” 261.
26
Habinek, The World of Roman Song, 244.
27
Absint inani funere neniae luctusque turpes et querimoniae; conpesce clamorem ac sepulcri mitte
superuacuos honores. (Hor. Carmina 2.20.21-24).
28
Senatus et in funere ornando et in memoria honoranda eo studio certatim progressus est, ut inter alia
complura censuerint quidam, funus triumphali porta ducendum, praecedente Victoria quae est in curia, canentibus
neniam principum liberis utriusque sexus (Suetonius, Augustus, 100.4).
 book in which you will find what you are looking for. For I, although a grammarian seek
reasoned teachings concerning life and morals, while you philosophers are as M. Cato
says, mere mortualia, or winding-sheets: you collect word lists and favourite little
expressions, things that are disgusting, useless, and frivolous—just like the sounds of
those women known as praeficae. And would that all human beings were mute!
Shameless would have less means of expressing itself.29
For Gellius, Philosophers of his time were like praeficae, who are just like winding-sheets.
Praeficae just chant repeated chants and thus they are just meaningless chants unlike the serious
works of the grammarians. This quote again identifies a negative portrayal of praeficae.
In the 3rd to 2nd century BCE, praeficae were not respected very much as they were seen
as not praise worthy. Stratophanes in Titus Maccius Plautus’ Traculentus (in about 241-153
BCE) says, “I could have a shrill-voiced man instead of a praefica who praises others but cannot
in fact praise herself” (Titus Maccius Plautus, Traculentus 495-496).30 For Plautus, praefica was
not a praiseworthy person.
Habinek points out that praeficae sung neniae through praising the deceased.31 Heller
suggests that in the earlier fourth century, praefica did not just sing the dirge she also was given
the responsibilities of saying praises of the dead. He says, “But, as time went on, the laudatory
songs of the praefica became more elaborate, until ultimately they defeated their own purpose
[i.e., to praise the dead], and were replaced by the prose laudatio funebris.”32 Heller beautifully
points out that praefica’s involvement earlier was of speech and songs, i.e., praising the dead.
However, as she was hired and was superficial in her speech of praise she was limited to the role
of funeral songs and mourning. And therefore, Philosophers and grammarians mocked praefica’s
speech, as she was not the right person to give speech of praise of the dead. In addition, this,
clubbed with the repetitive utterances of chants, would have limited her to funeral dirge rather
than funeral speech (laudatio funerbris), which was given by the immediate relatives or friends.
This explains the grammarians’ low view of praefica. Therefore, praeficae were not looked
down on the basis of them singing the dirges but they were looked down on the reason of being
hired to give laudable funeral speeches.
North says, for Cicero, nenia is a “male occasion.”33 Cicero says in de Legibus, “Let the
praises of honoured men be recounted at a contio (public meeting) and let there also follow those
praises a song accompanied by flute, named nenia, being the same word as Greeks use for songs
of morning.”34 North says, “Cicero’s words make it certain that there was a solemn and respected

29
Nulla, inquit, prorsus bonae salutis spes reliqua est, cum vos quoque philosophorum inlustrissimi nihil
iam aliud quam verba auctoritatesque verborum cordi habetis. Mittam autem libram tibi in quo id reperias quod
quaeris. Ego enim grammaticus vitae iam atque morum disciplinas quaero, vos philosophi mera estis, ut M. Cato
ait, mortualia: glosaria namque conligitis et lexidia res taetras et inanes et frivolas, tamquam mulierum voces
praeficarum. Atque utinam, inquit, muti omnes homines essemus! Minus improbitas instrumenti haberet.
30
[A]rgutum civem mihi habem pro praefica, quae alios conlaudat, eapse sese vero non potest .
31
Habinek, The World of Roman Song, 244.
32
Heller, “Nenia ‘πιγνιον,’” 261.
33
North, “Roman Funeral,” 122.
34
Cicero, Leg., 2.62: honoratorum virorum laudes in contione memorentur, easque etiam ut cantus ad
tibicinem prosequatur, cui nomen neniae, quo vocabulo etiam apud Graecos cantus lugubres nominatur.
death ritual that lies behind all this, and that it included not just the famous laudation in the
forum, but also the naenia and the flute players, but with no mention of the women.”35 North
suggests that the lack of the mention of women could be because Cicero was talking about
aristocratic funerals, as he mentions primarily about laudatio in contione.36 It could be. On the
other hand, Cicero only talks about “praises of honoured men” be sung or performed before the
nenia. This need not mean nenia was sung only by men while praises were sung before nenia.
Therefore, Cicero’s account does not contradict with the other portrayal of praefica as a woman.
Cicero could very well be talking about laudatio funebris, when he mentioned about the “praises
of the honoured men.”
Nonius Marcellus quoting Varro (about 116-127 BCE) says, “These praises were uttered
by a woman whose voice was best; then usually the nenia was performed to the accompaniment
of the flute and a stringed instrument… This woman used to be called praefica until the Punic
war.”37 According to Nonius, praefica only praised the dead with a loud voice and then nenia
was sung after the praise. It is not clear if praefica sang the nenia before the time of Punic war.
However, it seems, the description of praefica changed after the Punic war. It is possible that
after the Punic war, even the one who sang nenia was considered as praefica.38 Dutch suggests
that the eulogy of praefica would have been sung in front of the house (Varro, L.7.70) while
nenia with the flute and music could have been sung in pompa, the funeral procession. However,
this description of praefica could have been before the Punic war. The particular mention of the
time (Punic war) for the understanding of the name praefica indicates a change in the description
of praefica after the Punic war.
To go back to Cicero’s account in De Legibus, he points out that praises of the dead be
sung before the performance of nenia. “The remaining [funeral arrangements] depends on
custom: that there must be a funeral and perhaps some games; that
he who is in charge of a
funeral should be granted torches and lictors, that the praiseworthy acts of distinguished men
should be commemorated in the assembly, and that this should also be followed by a song
performed to pipe music, which is called nenia.”39 For Cicero, the praises are performed before
nenia. Dutsch points out that this praise is similar to laudatio funebris.40 “Laudatio funebris”
Dutsch says, is “a speech commemorating members of the upper class, was the domain of male
relatives of the deceased. The other, a chant called nenia, was entrusted to female
professionals.”41 Therefore, nenia was sung most probably lead by a woman called praefica
while laudatio funebris was sung by men in the time of the funeral.

35
North, “Roman Funeral,” 122.
36
North, “Roman Funeral,” 122.
37
Serv. Dan. A 727, Non. 145 Met 67M z 101: [I]bi a muliere, quae optuma hoce esset perquam landari;
dein neniam cantata solitam ad tibias at fides..; haec mulier hocitata olim praefica usque ad Peonicum bellum.
38
Dutsch, “Lament,” 261.
39
Reliqua sunt in more: funus ut indicatur, si quid ludorum; dom<in>usque funeris utatur accenso atque
lictoribus honoratorum uirorum laudes in contione memorentur, easque etiam cantus ad tibicinem prosequatur, cui
nomen neniae. (Cicero, De legibus 2.61–62)
40
Dutsch, “Lament,” 261.
41
Dutsch, “Lament,” 258.
 2.1 Amiternum Tomb

A relief from Amiternum Tomb, excavated from Abruzzo regim of Italy shows a detailed
depiction of Pompa (Roman funeral processions). This relief is a first century BCE artifact and it
is the only existing scene of pompa, which was famously described by Polybius, the historian
(History 6.53-54).
Picture 1

Amiternum Tomb, Italy. Museo Nazionale d’Abruzzo, L’Aquila. Photo: Erin Taylor

The artifact shows the dead man in the middle resting on a decorated funerary couch carried by
eight pallbearers. On the right there are four pipe players. Above them are two horn-blowers and
one trumpeter. Between the dead man and the musicians (on the right side, middle) two women
are shown, one with her hands raised and the other grabbing her hair both sides. These two are
most likely the chief mourners. One seems like singing while the other shows signs of mourning
such as pulling her hairs, with both hands towards both sides. It is also probable that she was also
singing. This relief from a tomb showcases the pompa and the importance of praeficae, and
nenia songs in the funeral processions. While the left side of the relief shows the widow with two
children and about six other characters in the left upper side and the lower, the prominence
praeficae and the musicians taken in the funeral is undebatable. The praeficae and team go in
front of the funerary procession. Following them is the dead body, and the immediate family and
the rest. This again shows the prominence praeficae and nenia had in Roman funerary rites.
Usually when a person dies in Roman world the relatives will call him/her out by the
name. It is called conclamatio. If the person does not respond it means he/she is dead.42 Then the
women in the house will take the task of cleaning the body with cold water and dress it up and
lay it out for the viewers (collocatio).43 After this, the family and friends went on a funeral march
headed by mourners, praeficae and musicians to the tomb outside the city. Dutsch suggests,
“although both genders expressed grief, only the female relatives were expected to engage in

42
Dutsch, “Lament,” 259.
43
Dutsch, “Lament,” 259.
mourning and self-mutilation.”44 Dutsch further comments that “Music was so essential to the
execution of the dirge”45 that neniae was an essential part of the mourning in funerals.
Dutsch says, “It is tempting to conjecture that the role of the ritual performers (the
praeficae, the musicians, and the impersonators of the dead) might have been to lure the spirits
of the newly deceased by song and music, enticing them to abandon the company of the living
and cross over to the realm of the dead. Emanating from the side of the bier that represented the
afterlife, the sound of the nenia would have thus been well suited to guide the recently dead on
their ultimate journey (Ovid, Fast. 6.668).”46 The assumption that the paid mourners led the
deceased to the underworld, where he/she would henceforth belong, sheds new light on the role
of the praeficae, and consequently, on the characters of the nenia.47
Until now detailed descriptions of nenia and praefica are seen. Taking these things into
consideration, in the next part of this paper, Mary Magdalene’s character will be studied from the
four canonical Gospels. Mary Magdalene’s prevalence in funerary passages of Jesus demands
her to be seen in Greco-Roman worldviews as well though many articles and books are penned
to show her from the Jewish funerary perspectives. To this now we turn.

3. Mary Magdalene

A. Ernout and A. Meillet say that the name praefica is usually given to mean “the one in
charge.”48 According to billing, in Mark 16, Mary Magdalene seems to be the one in charge in
the passion narratives, especially in the funeral narratives of Jesus Christ.49 She is primarily seen
in these narratives. Only in Luke, she is mentioned before the passion narratives (Luke 8:2),
apart from Luke she is not seen in the narratives before the passion narratives. In addition, she is
also primarily kept as the leader of the mourning group, according to billing. Her name is kept
first every time the group of mourners were mentioned in the Synoptics (Matt 27:56, 61; 28:1;
Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1; Luke 24:10).50 She seems to be portrayed as the leader of the mourning
group. Could she then be considered as a praefica? One question keeps coming to the fore: Why
Mary Magdalene gets an important role in the funeral passages of Jesus Christ in the Gospels?
With her association and prominence with the dead Jesus can she be considered as the praefica
of the Gospel narratives? It is time to see the Gospels and see how she is portrayed in each
Gospel.

44
Dutsch, “Lament,” 259.
45
Dutsch, “Lament,” 259.
46
Dutsch, “Lament,” 259.
47
If so, is there a possibility that Mark ending his gospel with women going to mourn, which alludes to
preafica and nenia could indicate Mark 1-15 as laudatio funebris?
48
A. Ernout and A. Meillet. Praeficio qui dirigait: Dictionnaire e’tymologique de la langue latune (4th ed.;
Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1967).
49
Billing is a technique used in the movies and plays where the names of the actors and other technical
persons involved in the movie are placed in an ascending order of importance to show their importance.
50
This is different in the book of John. For more details see below.
3.1 Mary Magdalene in the Book of Matthew

In Matt 27:45-50, Matthew narrates the painful death of Jesus Christ. Immediately after
this, in 27:51-52, he says that at the time of the death of Jesus the temple curtain was torn into
two, and also many tombs were opened. Matt 27:52-53 says, “The tombs also were opened. And
many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after
his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” One thing must be noticed
here. The death of Jesus is shown in this passage and the tombs and other dead bodies are also
shown in this passage. At this place in the story, Matthew introduces Mary Magdalene. He says,
“There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from
Galilee, ministering to him, among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James
and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (27:55-56). It is important also to see that
Mary Magdalene is mentioned in a passage, which shares much about the dead and the tombs. In
addition, it is important to see that Mary Magdalene leads the group, according to billing.

Further, Matthew shows that Joseph of Arimathea got the body of Jesus and he wrapped
it in a clean linen shroud and took the body to his new tomb and he laid the dead body of Jesus in
the new tomb (Matt 27:57-60). Interestingly, Mary Magdalene again comes to the story in
27:61, which is the culmination of the procession of the dead body of Jesus Christ. She leads a
group of women, according to billing, before the procession of the dead body (27:56) and after
the procession dead Jesus (27:61). Therefore, it is safe to conclude that she must have been
present even through out the procession of the dead body. Craig Keener suggests that even
poorer families hired professional mourners with one lead professional mourner (praefica) in the
time of Jesus.51 Bringing all the observation together it is safe to mention the following: Mary
Magdalene’s presence is mentioned when dead bodies and tombs are mentioned; Mary
Magdalene is identified as the leader of the mourners, through billing; in addition, Mary
Magdalene was also possibly present in the procession of Jesus’ dead body. All these indicate
that Mary Magdalene could be considered as the praefica in light of Greco-Roan funerary
perspectives.

Matt 28:1 shows Mary Magdalene coming to the tomb on the third day. Keener shows
that Greco-Roman customs dictates three days of mourning.52 The Greco-Roman reader then
would have considered Mary Magdalene as the mourner who had gone to the tomb to mourn. In
addition, in 28:1, Mary Magdalene comes first in the light of women who went to the tomb on
the first day of the week. Here again, Mary Magdalene’s association with the tomb is evident. In
Matthew, then, Mary Magdalene is closely associated with tombs and dead bodies. Though she
was not clearly identified as the mourner in Matthew she is portrayed as a person who is closely
associated with the dead bodies and the tomb.53 The readers who were well informed about
praefica could have connected these dots and could have seen Mary Magdalene as praefica.

3.2 Mary Magdalene in the Book of Luke

51
Craig Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2009), 304.
52
Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 443.
53
Keener identifies that Mary Magdalene and company could be identified as mourners. Keener, The
Gospel of Matthew, 690.
 Similarly, Mary Magdalene is associated with the tomb and the dead body in Luke as
well. In 23:50-56, Luke mentions about Joseph of Arimathea taking Jesus’ body and burying him
in his new tomb. Here, he does not mention Mary Magdalene’s name though she could have
been referred here as he says, “the women who had come with him from Galilee followed and
saw the tomb and how his body was laid” (23:55). Luke did not mention it explicitly as Matthew
did. However, Mary Magdalene could also be considered present here as her name comes with
other women later in 24:10. In addition, this could also be inferred from Matthew as well. The
story from 23:50 continues till 24:10. The story dictates that the women who were in the
procession with Joseph to the tomb are mentioned as the ones who brought spices and ointments
(23:56) on the first day of the week (24:1). They went to the tomb with spices, and saw the tomb
being open, and that the body of Jesus was missing. The chief among the women was mentioned
as Mary Magdalene in Luke 24:10: “Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the
mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles.” The
immediate verse again talks about the tomb, and the dead body, where Mary Magdalene is
identified as the mourner. Consequently, she is portrayed as the one who went in the funeral
procession; the one who was associated with tombs and dead bodies; and the one who was the
leader of the mourning party. Therefore, here in Luke again, she could be considered as praefica.

3.3 Mary Magdalene in the Book of Mark

Similar to Matthew, immediately after Mark describes the death of Jesus (Mark 15:37) he
describes the tearing down of the Temple curtain (v.38), and then he goes on to describe the
presence of women in the place of Jesus’ death. The chief among them was Mary Magdalene,
according to billing. It must be said that in between v.38 and v.40 Mark mentions that the
centurion who was present in the time of Jesus’ death confessed that he was indeed the Son of
God (v.39). After this he mentions about Mary Magdalene (v.40). Similarly Matthew also inserts
the Centurion’s comment in v.54 before he mentions about Mary Magdalene in v.55. Mark,
similar to Matthew and Luke, goes on to describe the funeral procession of the body of Jesus
arranged by Joseph of Arimathea (15: 42-46). Mark vividly describes the funeral arrangements
done by Joseph of Arimathea in 15:46: “And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him
down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock.
And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.” Immediately after this is the mention of
Mary Magdalene’s name in 15:47“Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he
was laid.”

Similar to Matthew and Luke, though Mark’s account could be the original, Mary
Magdalene comes before and after the funeral of Jesus Christ (Mark 15:40 & 47; Similar to Matt
15:56 & 61; and Luke 23:49,53, [without her name] & 24:10). Though Mark had to mention
Mary Magdalene in 16:1 in the context of Easter narrative he mentions her name in 15:47, the
verse before 16:1, to conclude the funeral passage and stress the important presence of Mary
Magdalene in the funeral procession narrative. The presence of Mary Magdalene in the
beginning and the end, in a special inclusio structure stresses the presence of Mary Magdalene in
the funeral procession of the dead body of Jesus Christ. Is this then a possibility that she could
have been seen as the praefica by the readers who were well informed with Roman funerary
customs?
 Similarly, Mary Magdalene again comes to the tomb, as mentioned in Matthew & Luke
as well, leading a group, bringing spices to anoint him (16:1; Matt 28:1 and Luke 24:1—10).
Here again, Mary Magdalene is associated with the tomb; she leads a group of mourning women
who went to do the final rites of anointing the dead body with spices (16:1). With her association
with the tomb and dead body; and with her being the leader of the mourners and the one who
intended to do the funerary rights can we consider Mary Magdalene as the praefica, as many of
the first century, Roman influenced readers must have perceived? The many observations from
the Synoptics indicate that in light of the Greco-Roman funerary practices Mary Magdalene
could be seen as praefica, though the authors might not have intended her to be seen in that way.

3.4 Mary Magdalene in the Book of John

Though in the Synoptic Gospels, in billing, Mary Magdalene takes precedence in a group
that she appears, in the book John, it is reversed. John mentions her name only in the last, in John
19:25: “but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife
of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” However, John gives a special place for Mary Magdalene, as
a mourner, in John 20:1-18. Though she is not prioritized using billing technique in 19:25 she
gets special attention by being an important character in John 20:1-18. Though Mary
Magdalene’s name had not been mentioned prior to 19:25 she gets an eighteen-verse pericope
where she is the major character. Here, she goes alone to the tomb in fact she was the first one to
go to the tomb. Is she the praefica then?
John narrates that she came very early to the tomb, even when it was very dark (20:1).
When she found that the tomb was open she ran to Peter and the other disciple, and reported that
the body of Jesus Christ, which was kept in the tomb, was lost (20:2). With some dramatic
running and chasing the two disciples went and saw that the body of Jesus Christ was missing
(20:3-9). However, these disciples did not do anything about it but they went back to their homes
(20:10). However, Mary Magdalene did not go back to her home. The woman, who had been
passive or even absent until 19:25, is very active in the funeral passages. Before 20:10, she
identified that the body of Jesus was missing. In addition, she also ran to report this to the
important two disciples of Jesus, Peter and John. She brought them and showed them the empty
tomb and proved that Jesus’ body was indeed missing. Not only that but in 20:11, she stood
outside the tomb, and she was weeping and mourning outside the tomb. This image would have
brought forth the visual image of praefica to the mind. The mental picture of praefica would
have come to fore in an informed mind of praefica and nenia.
The image of praefica is the one who cries for the dead body, even until the tomb. Here,
we see John portraying Mary Magdalene as the woman who was mourning and weeping outside
the tomb about the body of dead Jesus. Her lament includes a vision of the angels (the spiritual
beings, who possibly accompany Jesus Christ in the afterlife) with whom she conversed asking
about the body of Jesus Christ (20:13). She laments to those spiritual beings saying, “they have
taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him” (20:13). Not just that she
turns around and sees another person standing by her side and she laments to him, supposing him
to be a gardener, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will
take him away” (20:5).
When the two male disciples stooped inside and saw the tomb they simply identified that
the body of Jesus Christ was absent and they just left. However, Mary Magdalene does not leave
the tomb just like how the male disciples did. She mourns outside the tomb; and sees the spiritual
beings; and she laments to them; and she sees also the dead Jesus alive; and she laments to him
also. Even though the author might not have portrayed Mary Magdalene as a praefica the readers
who were influenced by Greco-Roman worldviews could have seen Mary Magdalene as
praefica, the one who laments and speaks to the spirits. Dutsch says, “According to Servius (ad.
Aen 6.216), lamentation did not end until the body was burned, the ashes were collected, and the
last word, ilicet, ‘you may go,’ was pronounced. Only then were the people standing around and
responding to the lamentations (fletibus) of the praefica free to go.”54 Similarly, Mary
Magdalene speaks to spiritual beings and the dead person and laments. Could she then be
considered as praefica in light of Greco-Roman lament world?55
The overwhelming data from the four Gospels show that Mary Magdalene was strongly
associated, in the Gospel narratives, with the dead bodies and tombs. In addition, she was also
repeatedly portrayed as the leader of mourning ladies. Moreover, she was also shown as the
person who mourns and laments about the dead body of Jesus. All these repeatedly mentioned
data shows that Mary Magdalene could have been seen by the first century Roman influenced
readers to see her as the praefica through the author might not have intended her to be seen that
way. But this paper is just looking at the possibility that the first century Roman-influenced
readers would have seen Magdalene as a praefica. Their inculturation and the familiarity to these
practices in the Greco-Roman world could have made them to see Mary Magdalene as the
praefica. As we saw in much detail about nenia, praefica, and Mary Magdalene as praefica, it is
important to see about another goddess as well, i.e., Carmentis. To this now we turn.

4. Carmentis

While Nenia was the goddess of death Carmentis was the goddess of birth in Roman
religion (Plutarch, Vit. Rom. 21.1; Aulus Gellius, NA 16.16.1-4). She was called Carmentis by
Varro (Ling. 6.6.12), Vergil (Aen. 8.335-41), Ovid (Fast. 1.499, 6.529), Aulus Gellius (NA
16.16.1-4, 18.7.2), and Servius (Aen. 8.336), while she was called Carmenta by Dionysius of
Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 1.31), Strabo (5.30), and Plutarch (Vit, Rom. 21.2, Quaest. Rom. 56).
However, Livy calls her both Carmenta (1.7.8) and Carmentis (5.47.2). This shows both names,
Carmenta and Carmentis, indicate the same person and that both names were common. Paul the

54
Dutsch, “Lament,” 262.
55
Repeatedly it is suggested that naniae are sung by the praeficae to keep the dead spirits at bay. Martinus
Capella makes goddess Harmonia say that through her “human beings have attracted assistance and calmed infernal
wrath through nenais” (per me… homines illexere succrsum irasque per nanias sedarere, Phil. 9.925). This is an
interesting idea. If Mary Magdalene was like a praefica she must have been going to sing songs of neniae to keep
the spirit of Jesus at bay. But Jesus resurrects and comes back alive to the living and to save the living.
Deacon says, “Some think the meaning of the word [nenia] is ‘end.’”56 While Nenia was
associated with the end of the intestine—anus, Carmentis was related with uterus and vaginal
opening, indicating new birth.57 Habinek says, “Carmentis concerns herself with birth, she is
inevitably associated with female, …and more particularly with birth canal and vaginal
opening.”58 Habinek says that Carmentis was associated with birth while Nenia was associated
with death.59
Ovid in Fasti (1.461-636) deals with Carmentis in detail describing her attributes and
achievements. Ovid portrays Carmentis as the mother of Evander (1.470). Carmentis is
portrayed as the one who prophesied about the deification of Hercules (1.565-585). She also
prophesied about several events relating to Aeneid such as the Trojan arrivals, the victory of
Aeneas, etc. Further, Ovid shows that Carmentis involved in the story of accessions to the throne
of Augustus (1.530-540).60 In vergilis Aenid viii, Evander shows Aeneas the gate, which was
called Carmentis and tells him that Carmentis, his mother prophesied about the coming of the
great people called Aeneas, even long before it had happened (Aen. 8.306-309). Vergil says,
Carmentis, “who was the first to sing the coming of the great people of Aeneas and noble
pallanteum (cecinit quae prima futuros Aenedas magnos et nobile pallanteum, Aen. 8.340-41).
Ovid in Fasti 515-18 narrates how Carmentis was involved in the founding of Rome. Habinek
says, “As a goddess associated with the passage from nonbeing to being—whether the founding
of a city or the birth of a child—she is a good match for the two-faced god involved in Salian
hymn. Janus is a god of passage of coming into being, and Carmentis is the female counterpart to
his male, paternal status …Carmentis’ cult thus speaks not only to the particulars of the founding
of Rome but to more general, abstract issues of entry into life…”61 Therefore, when Nenia was
seen as the death Carmentis was seen as a new beginning. In addition, Carmentis cult was also
associated with the triumphal entry of a new emperor. “Porta Carmentalis is considered as porta
triumphalis” according to Habinek.62 This shows that Carmentis is also connected with
triumphal entry.63 Roman Emperors when they have won a war would enter the city, Rome
through the porta triumphalis, i.e., porta Carmnetalis. Carmnetalis is identified as the one who
is associated with Janus, the one who found the civilization of Rome.64 Therefore, Carmentalis is
also associated with new beginnings while Nenia is associated with the end.

56
S.v. Nenia, Paul 155.27L: “Sunt, qui eo uerbo finem significari putant.” North says, “Of course, anything
to do with a funeral invites the idea of an ending…. The naenia was not just part of the funeral, it was the very final
stage.” North, “Roman Funeral,” 122.
57
Habinek, The World of Roman Song, 239.
58
Habinek, The World of Roman Song, 239.
59
Habinek, The World of Roman Song, 239.
60
Ovid also tells about the godly status of Carmentis and the time of her festival as January 11 (1.585-6):
“But the lucky prophetess, she lived most pleasing she possesses not this day [i.e., January 11] in the month of
Janus” (at felix vates, ut dis gratissima vixit possidet hunc Iani sic dea mense doem; Ovid Fast. 1.585-586).
61
Habineck, The World of Roman Song, 225-226.
62
Habinek, The World of Roman Song, 244.
63
Habinek, The World of Roman Song, 244.
64
Habinek, The World of Roman Song, 244, 251.
 As Mary Magdalene was found frequently in the funeral narratives she is also active in
the resurrection narratives. The woman who was seen as the professional mourner also functions
as the person, who goes out and shares the Good news about the resurrection of the Jesus Christ.
Here, she resembles the messenger of Carmentis. The mourner of Jesus’ death just does not
remain as the mourner but she is also characterized as the one who shares the Good news of
Jesus’ new birth, resurrection, even to the other disciples. In this way, Mary Magdalene could
also be seen as the messenger of Carmentalis, the one who shares about the new birth and
triumphal entry of Jesus. Heller also sees many similarities in nenia and songs of triumphs.65
Nenia songs and triumphal entry songs are quite similar; when one talks about the death the other
talks about the beginning. Mary Magdalene in the Gospels functions both like praefica in being
the part of the narrative, and she also functions as the leader who shares about the re-birth of
Jesus Christ.

4.1 Mary Magdalene in the Book of Mark

In 16:1, Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb along with Mary and Salome bringing spices
to anoint the body of Jesus. However, the women found the stone, which covered the tomb,
rolled back, and a young man was sitting on the side (16:4-5). The young man told the Mary
Magdalene and company that they should not be amazed because “Jesus of Nazareth, who was
crucified … has risen” (16:6). The young man, possibly an angel (Matt 28:5), told that Mary
Magdalene and company must go to Peter and other disciples and tell about the resurrection of
Jesus Christ (16:7). Mary Magdalene, who went to the tomb as a praefica to mourn, and do other
funerary rites to the dead body, along with other women, is now being portrayed as a person who
will carry the message of the new beginning of Jesus Christ, and the triumph of the Messiah. She
now has a change of identify from praefica of nenia to messenger of Carmentis or Carmentalis.
However, Mary Magdalene and company did not carry through the assignment of
announcing the new beginning of Jesus Christ. Mark says, “as trembling and astonishment had
come upon them …they did not say anything to anyone, for they were afraid” (Mark 16:8). The
story doesn’t end there. The risen Jesus Christ himself came and appeared personally to Mary
Magdalene and he had commissioned her to carry the Good news of triumph to the other
disciples. She is now commissioned to not only carry the message about the resurrection of Jesus
Christ but also to restore Peter and other disciples. She becomes the apostle of the apostles.66 The
praefica of Jesus Christ had now become the messenger of Carmentis to share about the rebirth
(resurrection) of Jesus even to Peter and the other disciples.

4.2 Mary Magdalene in the Book of Matthew

Matthew narrates the story similar to Mark. Mary Magdalene and company had gone to
the tomb (28:1); and earthquake came and an angel appears, who dictates the women to go and
inform the disciples about the resurrection of Jesus Christ (28:2-7). When they have left to
inform the disciples (Matthew does not mention about their reluctance in informing the disciples,

Heller, “Nenia ‘πιγνιον,’” 261.

65

See Arren Bennet Lawrence, “The Role of Convention in Dynamic Characterization: An Analysis of the
66

Markan characterizations of Peter and Mary Magdalene,” Hindustan Evangelical Review, (2015).
Mark 16:8) Jesus encounters them and meets with them (Matt 28:9-10): “And behold, Jesus met
them and said, ‘Greetings!’ And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Then
Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they
will see me.’” Jesus again commissions Mary Magdalene and the women to go and inform the
disciples about the triumph of Jesus Christ. Though Jesus does not appear personally to Mary
Magdalene, as it is reported in the book of Mark, the mentioning of Mary as the leader,
according to billing (28:1), has similar effect to that of the portrayal of Mary in the book of
Mark. Therefore, Mary Magdalene could be considered as the messenger of Carmentis carrying
the Good news of Jesus Christ’s resurrection.

4.3 Mary Magdalene in the Book of Luke

In Luke, Mary Magdalene’s portrayal is bit different from the other two synoptic
Gospels. In the beginning of the resurrection narrative Mary Magdalene’s name is not mentioned
(24:1-9). It is mentioned that women went to the tomb with spices, and they saw two men
standing, who reminded the women about Jesus’ previous teachings about his resurrection. And
while these women were returning from the tomb they remembered the teachings of Jesus about
resurrection, and they went and told “all these things” to the other disciples (24:8-9). In Luke
24:10, Mary Magdalene’s name is mentioned first among the women who went and told about
the resurrection of Jesus to other disciples. Though the women were not commissioned to share
the Good news to the disciples Mary Magdalene, as the leader of the group, involuntarily
functions like the messenger of Carmentis in presenting the Good news of triumph to the
disciples.

4.4 Mary Magdalene in the Book of John

In John 20, Mary Magdalene gets a special treatment in the resurrection narratives. When
Mary Magdalene saw that the tomb was open she went immediately to the disciples and told
about the open tomb (20:2). Even, in the beginning of this portion of the narrative she is
portrayed as the one who shared the news of open tomb to the disciples. In addition, when the
disciples who saw the tomb went back to their homes she stood near the tomb and gets a special
epiphany of Jesus Christ. Before the appearance of Jesus, she sees two angels to whom she asks
about the body of Jesus. Then, she saw someone standing in the side and assuming him as a
gardener and she asked him if he had taken the body away. And when Jesus called her by name
she recognized him as Jesus. Then, Jesus told her “…go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am
ascending to my Father…’” (John 20:17). Similar to Matthew and Mark (and unlike Luke) Mary
Magdalene is commissioned to inform the Good news of Jesus’ rebirth to the other disciples. She
is now presenting herself like a messenger of Carmentis and she “went and announced to the
disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord’—and that he had said these things to her” (20:18). Therefore,
even in John she could be seen as the messenger of Carmentis.

5. Conclusion
 In this article, the concepts of Nenia, Praefica and Carmentis were explained in detail. In
addition, the characterization of Mary Magdalene in the funerary passages of Jesus in the
Gospels was studied in light of the concepts such as Praefica and Nenia. Then, the concept of
Carmentis was also studied and was used as a lens to interpret the characterization of Mary
Magdalene in the resurrection passages of Jesus in the Gospels. Through these, though Mary
Magdalene could be seen as praefica of nenia in the funeral narratives she is seen as the
messenger of Carmentis in the resurrection passages. This is the beauty of reading the Biblical
text in comparison with the concepts of Praefica, Nenia, and Carmentis.
About the characterization of Mary Magdalene in the Gospels Frederick Dale Bruner
says,
We celebrate Matthean morality, Pauline grace, and Johannine sublimity; we should also
celebrate Magdalenic fidelity. In the records of all four Gospels this one woman stands
immovably by Jesus, even in and past his death. It is as if she will never ever leave him,
even when he has had to leave her. She is there when he dies (27:56), there when he is
buried (27:56), and there now again at his graveside the first day of the week. Only she
and the mysterious “other Mary” come Sunday morning (in John’s Gospel she is all
alone; but see the plural in John 20:2). Where are the many admirers of the triumphal
entry (chap. 21)? Where are the apostles and disciples? The many miraculously healed?
Are there only two women left in the movement?67
Bruner asks an important question. In addition, Bruner could have asked the question little
differently also. Why Mary Magdalene is only prominently seen in the funerary narratives? This
was the concentration of this article. I would certainly agree with Bruner that Magdalenic fidelity
is something we must appreciate and follow. Keener identifies that usually the whole town must
mourn the death of a sage or a rabbi according to t. Mo’ed Qat. 2:17.68 However, no one was
there except the faithful Mary Magdalene, the official mourner of Jesus’ death, according to all
the Gospels: The praefica of Jesus who turned as the Carmentis of Jesus as well. We must follow
the footsteps of this praefica’s fidelity to Jesus and her fidelity to the friends in times of needs.
We must also be like her in being the messenger of Carmentis in sharing the triumphal victory to
the others in the world so that the world would know the Good news that Christ is risen and He is
victorious because Christos Anesti!

67
Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, The Churchbook: Matthew 13–28 (vol. 2; Dallas:
Word, 1990), 780.
68
Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 543.