John’s account, however, is much more ambiguous.
Carson suggests that it is possible to see in John’s account two, three, or
even four women (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 615). The second two references may be in apposition
to the first two (i.e., “his mother and his mother’s sister; namely, Mary the
wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene”), hence portraying only two women. The fact
that και
occurs only between the first and second references and the third and fourth
references (being omitted between the second and third references) strengthens
this view. But this view suffers from several weaknesses, including: (1) that Mary
is now to be seen as remarried to Clopas, after the death of Joseph; (2) that
there are two sisters named Mary in the same household; and (3) that someone
already identified as “his [Jesus’] mother” would need any further designation
(such as “wife of Clopas”) to identify her. These reasons—not to mention the
fact that it is nowhere else hinted that Mary Magdalene is the sister of Jesus’
mother—should suffice safely to eliminate the view that John portrays only two
women at the cross.
Another possibility is that John sees three women
at the cross (“his mother, his mother’s sister, [namely] Mary the wife of
Clopas, and Mary Magdalene”). Again, the absence of και between the second and
third references (“his mother’s sister”/”Mary the wife of Clopas”) may suggest
that the third reference is in apposition to the second. But the same problem
that plagues the first view (namely, the existence of two sisters named Mary in
the same household) plagues this view as well, and we may reject this view on
the grounds that it would be “highly improbable that two sisters should have
borne the same name” (McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament,
232).
The final option is that John sees four women at
the cross—two named and two unnamed (“his mother and his mother’s sister, [and]
Mary of Clopas and Mary Magdalene”) (This is the majority view of scholars
today. See Ceroke, “Mary’s Maternal Role in John 19, 25-27” (Marian Studies 11
[1960]: 129) and C.K. Barrett (The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd.
Ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978], 551)). The absence of και
between the second and third references may be explained on the grounds that
John distinguishes between named and unnamed women, and perhaps sees closer
ties between the first and second references and the third and fourth
references than he does between either one in the first set and either one in
the second.
(Eric D. Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of
Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism [Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary
Press, 2001], 96-97)
